Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. For claim 17 (and claim 19), it is unclear whether or not the table is to be claimed in combination with the apparatus. In the preamble of the claim, only the apparatus is positively claimed (“apparatus for collapsing a table”); however, in the body of the claim, the table is positively being claimed in combination with the apparatus (“leg (on the apparatus) also slides on a tabletop undersurface…”). For examination purposes, the combination will be considered the claimed subject matter. For claim 23, line 8, “the ramped ends” and “the forked component” lack antecedent basis. Also for claim 23, it is unclear whether or not the table is to be claimed in combination with the apparatus. In the preamble of the claim, only the apparatus is positively claimed (“apparatus for collapsing a table”); however, in the body of the claim, the table is positively being claimed in combination with the apparatus (“a table (on the apparatus) to which the telescoping leg is attached”). For examination purposes, the combination will be considered the claimed subject matter. Furthermore, for claim 23, it is unclear whether or not the “a forked component with ramped ends”, the “a latch…”; the “a pin..” and the “a torsion spring…” in lines 12-15 are the same features as claimed previously. Finally, the limitation “wherein as the ramped ends of the forked component engage with the pin, the latch rotates about the pivot into a locked position” is stated twice. Claims 24, 28 and 29 do not further limit claim 23. For claim 25, it is unclear whether or not the “a telescoping leg” is the same leg claimed previously. For claim 26, it is unclear whether or not the “a stop component” is the same as the stop claimed previously. For claim 27, it is unclear whether or not the “a leg end cap” is the same as the cap claimed previously.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No.11,478,072. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the patent and the application teach a collapsible table containing a range limiter assembly for limiting collapse of the table, the table comprising: a table top having a top surface and a bottom surface; a first leg having a top end, a bottom end, and a pivot located between the top end and the bottom end, the first leg having a compartmentalized sleeve and an extension section, wherein the top end is fixedly attached to the table top bottom surface, a second leg having a top end, a bottom end, and a pivot located between the top end and the bottom end, the second leg having a compartmentalized sleeve and an extension section, wherein the second leg top end is slidably attached to the table top bottom surface; a pivot apparatus configured to attach the first leg to the second leg at the first leg pivot and the second leg pivot; the first leg compartmentalized sleeve divided longitudinally into a first space and an adjacent second space; the second leg compartmentalized sleeve divided longitudinally into a first space and an adjacent second space; the first leg extension section beginning at the first leg bottom end and dimensioned to telescope into the first leg first space; the second leg extension section beginning at the second leg bottom end and dimensioned to telescope into the second leg first space; and the pivot apparatus extending into the first leg second space and the second leg second space, wherein the pivot apparatus comprises: a nut positioned within the second enclosed space of each leg; a male and female pivot component, wherein one of the male and female pivot components is positioned outside of the second enclosed space of one of the first leg and second leg, and the other of the male and female pivot components is positioned on the outside of the other of the first leg and second leg; and the male and female pivot components secured to the nuts.
Since claim 7 is anticipated by the claims of the patent, it is not patentably distinct therefrom. Thus, the invention of claim 7 of the application is in effect a species of the generic invention of patent claims. It has been held that the generic invention is anticipated by the species, see In re Goodman 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed Cir. 1993) Since claim 7 is anticipated (fully encompassed) by the claims of the patent, it is not patentably distinct there from, regardless of any additional subject matter present in patent claims.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,342,936 in view of Munson (3,018,574). The patent teaches a leg apparatus having a first leg having a top end, a bottom end, and a pivot located between the top end and the bottom end, the first leg having a compartmentalized sleeve and an extension section, a second leg having a top end, a bottom end, and a pivot located between the top end and the bottom end, the second leg having a compartmentalized sleeve and an extension section; a pivot apparatus configured to attach the first leg to the second leg at the first leg pivot and the second leg pivot; the first leg compartmentalized sleeve divided longitudinally into a first space and an adjacent second space; the second leg compartmentalized sleeve divided longitudinally into a first space and an adjacent second space; the first leg extension section beginning at the first leg bottom end and dimensioned to telescope into the first leg first space; the second leg extension section beginning at the second leg bottom end and dimensioned to telescope into the second leg first space; and the pivot apparatus extending into the first leg second space and the second leg second space, wherein the pivot apparatus comprises: a nut positioned within the second enclosed space of each leg; a male and female pivot component, wherein one of the male and female pivot components is positioned outside of the second enclosed space of one of the first leg and second leg, and the other of the male and female pivot components is positioned on the outside of the other of the first leg and second leg; and the male and female pivot components secured to the nuts. For claim 7, the patent fails to teach that the leg apparatus is pivotally and slidably attached to a table. Munson teaches a leg apparatus pivotally and slidably attached to a table (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the leg apparatus of the patent to support a table, such as is taught by Munson, to provide a surface onto which the leg can be employed there under, making the legs have a utility.
Claims 17-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No.11,99,224. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the patent and the application teach an apparatus for collapsing a table, the apparatus comprising: a telescoping leg for the table, the telescoping leg containing: a sleeve; and a leg extension; wherein the leg extension extends into a first end of the sleeve and the telescoping leg also slides on a tabletop undersurface at a second end of the sleeve; and a range limiter assembly, comprising: a two-way spring-loaded plunger configured to be positioned at least partly within and at a first end of a sleeve of a telescopic leg, the plunger further configured to engage a stop component, wherein the telescopic leg is slidable along the surface on which the stop component is affixed; and a first spring and a second spring of different forces disposed in line with the plunger and in the sleeve; the first spring positioned at the plunger end proximate to an extension section of the telescopic leg and engageable with the extension section when the telescopic leg is retracted, thereby pushing the plunger outward from the sleeve; and the second spring biased and engageable with the first spring when the extension section has compressed the first spring, thereby extending the plunger out of the top end of the sleeve, the second spring further configured to keep the plunger withdrawn when the telescopic leg is extended. Wherein the force of the first spring is greater than the force of the second spring. Wherein the telescoping leg slides on a table top undersurface at a second end of the sleeve. Wherein the plunger is disposable in the sleeve and extendable out of the sleeve at the second end of the sleeve. Wherein the stop component is affixable to the undersurface of the table top. Wherein the first spring is engageable at a first end with the plunger first end and a second end of the plunger is configured to be engageable with the stop component when the plunger is extended.
The patent further teaches an apparatus, comprising: a telescoping leg containing: a range limiter assembly containing: a lock housing having a forked component with ramped ends; a leg end cap configured to be attached to an extension section of the telescoping leg, the leg end cap having: a latch rotatable about a pivot; a pin disposed through the latch and displaced from the pivot; a torsion spring positioned to bias the latch about the pivot; and wherein the pin is positioned to engage with the ramped ends of the forked component when the telescoping leg is collapsed; and a stop disposable on an underside of a table to which the telescoping leg is attached; wherein as the ramped ends of the forked component engages the pin, the latch rotates about the pivot into a locked position and contacts the stop; and wherein as the ramped ends of the forked component disengage with the pin, the torsion spring causes the latch to rotate to an unlocked position and thereby disengages with the stop. Wherein the range limiter is contained in a telescoping leg at a top end of the telescoping leg, and the forked component moves toward the pin when the telescoping leg collapses.
Since claims 17-29 are anticipated by the claims of the patent, it is not patentably distinct therefrom. Thus, the invention of claims 17-29 of the application is in effect a species of the generic invention of patent claims. It has been held that the generic invention is anticipated by the species, see In re Goodman 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed Cir. 1993) Since claims 17-29 anticipated (fully encompassed) by the claims of the patent, it is not patentably distinct there from, regardless of any additional subject matter present in patent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (939,963) in view of Miller (2,683,576). Anderson teaches a table leg (C; Fig. 10) slidable along the underside of a table top (A) and stopped via a stopper (G). For claim 17, Anderson fails to teach a range limiter assembly at the upper end of the table leg. Miller teaches a range limiter assembly (Fig. 3) comprising: a two-way spring-loaded plunger (18) configured to be positioned at least partly within and at an end of a sleeve (14) of a telescopic leg (13); the plunger further configured for engagement with a stop component (horizontal member/ floor); a heavy spring (22) and a light spring (28) of different forces disposed in line with the plunger and in the sleeve; the heavy spring positioned so an extension section (17) of the telescopic leg pushes against the heavy spring when the telescopic table leg is retracted, thereby pushing the plunger outward from the sleeve (column 3, lines 23-25); and the light spring configured to keep the plunger withdrawn when the table leg is extended (column 2, lines 28-30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the leg of Anderson by adding a range limiter assembly, such as is taught by Miller therein (g of Anderson still being used at the end and not 37 of Miller), to provide an adjustable leg end for better positioning of the leg with respect to the table.
Anderson in view of Miller further teaches that the force of the first spring is greater than the force of the second spring. The telescoping leg slides are on a table top undersurface at a second end of the sleeve. Wherein the plunger is disposable in the sleeve and extendable out of the sleeve at the second end of the sleeve. Wherein the stop component is affixable to the undersurface of the table top. Wherein the first spring is engageable at a first end with the plunger first end and a second end of the plunger is configured to be engageable with the stop component when the plunger is extended.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
There are no 102/103 rejections in this application for independent claims 7 and 23.
For claim 7, the prior art fails to teach a collapsible table comprising: a table top; a first leg having a pivot located between its top end and bottom end, the first leg having a compartmentalized sleeve and an extension section, wherein the top end is fixedly attached to the table top bottom surface, a second leg having a pivot located between its top end and bottom end, the second leg having a compartmentalized sleeve and an extension section, wherein the second leg top end is slidably attached to the table top bottom surface; a pivot apparatus configured to attach the first leg to the second leg at the first leg pivot and the second leg pivot; the first and second legs compartmentalized sleeve divided longitudinally into a first space and an adjacent second space; the first leg extension section beginning at the first leg bottom end and dimensioned to telescope into the first leg first space; the second leg extension section beginning at the second leg bottom end and dimensioned to telescope into the second leg first space; and the pivot apparatus extending into the first leg second space and the second leg second space, wherein the pivot apparatus comprises: a nut positioned within the second enclosed space of each leg; a male and female pivot component, wherein one of the male and female pivot components is positioned outside of the second enclosed space of one of the first leg and second leg, and the other of the male and female pivot components is positioned on the outside of the other of the first leg and second leg; and the male and female pivot components secured to the nuts.
For claim 23, the prior art fails to teach an apparatus, comprising: a telescoping leg containing: a range limiter assembly containing: a lock housing having a forked component with ramped ends; a leg end cap configured to be attached to an extension section of the telescoping leg, the leg end cap having: a latch rotatable about a pivot; a pin disposed through the latch and displaced from the pivot; a torsion spring positioned to bias the latch about the pivot; and wherein the pin is positioned to engage with the ramped ends of the forked component when the telescoping leg is collapsed; and a stop disposable on an underside of a table to which the telescoping leg is attached; wherein as the ramped ends of the forked component engages the pin, the latch rotates about the pivot into a locked position and contacts the stop; and wherein as the ramped ends of the forked component disengage with the pin, the torsion spring causes the latch to rotate to an unlocked position and thereby disengages with the stop.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANET M WILKENS whose telephone number is 571-272-6869. The examiner can normally be reached Mon thru Thurs 7am-5:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Wilkens
July 1, 2026
/JANET M WILKENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights