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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “Y-shaped” does not appear in the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The” (two occurrences) should not be capitalized. Appropriate correction is required.
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 14-20 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 14, “the second adjustment” lacks antecedent basis. Note: the second adjustment screw should be stated here.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,295,489. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the patent claims and the application claims teach a lifting table comprising a tabletop with two track assemblies, one extending lengthwise there along more than half the length of the tabletop and having receiver sliding surfaces coupled thereto, two adjustment screws within the respective track assemblies, a first leg assembly with a Y-shape at one end, a second leg assembly, and two threaded portion receivers coupled to the respective leg assembly to receive the respective screw. Second portions of the leg assemblies are hingedly attached to the tabletop. There are motors to turn the respectively adjustment screw.
Since claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-14, 16-18 and 20 are anticipated by the claims of the patent, they are not patentably distinct therefrom. Thus, the invention of the claims of the patent is in effect a species of the generic invention of claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-14, 16-18 and 20. 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 1-3, 6-9, 11-14, 16-18 and 20 are anticipated (fully encompassed) by the claims of the patent, they are not patentably distinct there from, regardless of any additional subject matter present in claims.
Claims 10, 15 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,295,489. As stated above, the patent claims teach a table including two tracks on the bottom of the tabletop. For claims 10 and 15, the patent claims fails to specifically teach that the lengths of the tracks are substantially equal. However, in order for the legs to be able to move in a similar manner, equal length tracks would be beneficial. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide equal length tracks, for the advantage stated above and for ease of assembly by using identical parts.
For claim 19, although the positioning of the leg assembly relative to the tabletop is not specifically claimed in the patent, having the first leg assembly first portion configured to move between a first position and a second position, wherein the first position is on a first side past a halfway lengthwise point of the tabletop, and wherein the second position is on a second side past the halfway lengthwise point of the tabletop would have been an obvious construction consideration, depending on personal preferences of the leg assembly operations relative to the tabletop.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,295,489 in view of Zhang (CN108201228). As stated above, the patent claims teach a table with two leg assemblies. Wherein the first leg assembly second portion is coupled to the first leg assembly first portion between the first leg assembly first end and the first leg assembly second end. For claim 4, the patent claims fail to teach a foot on each of the leg assemblies. Zhang teaches feet on the ends of leg assemblies (see annotated figure below). It would have been obvious to add foot on each of the leg assemblies, such as is taught by Zhang, to help balance the table as a whole during use.
PNG
media_image1.png
258
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al (CN117837877). Wu teaches a lifting table (Fig. 1) comprising: a tabletop (1); a first track assembly (3), disposed along a bottom of the tabletop and comprising a first adjustment screw (3021); the second track assembly (4), disposed along the bottom of the tabletop and comprising a second adjustment screw (3021); a first leg assembly (2, first leg), comprising: a first leg assembly first portion, comprising :a Y-shaped first leg assembly first portion first end (2011-2013); and a first leg assembly first portion second end (with 203); and a first threaded receiver (202,3022), coupled to the first leg assembly first portion first end and comprising a first threaded portion configured to receive the first adjustment screw; and a second leg assembly (2, second leg), comprising; a second leg assembly first portion, comprising: a second leg assembly first portion first end (2011-2013); and a second leg assembly first portion second end (with 203); and a second threaded portion receiver (202,3022), coupled to the second leg assembly first portion first end and comprising a second threaded portion configured to receive the second adjustment screw. Wherein: the first track assembly further comprises: a first assembly first sliding track (30212); the second track assembly further comprises: a second assembly first sliding track (3023A); the first threaded receiver further comprises: a first sliding surface, translationally coupled to the first assembly first sliding track to allow the first leg assembly first portion first end to translate relative to the first assembly first sliding track; and the second threaded receiver further comprises: a second sliding surface, translationally coupled to the second assembly first sliding track to allow the second leg assembly first portion first end to translate relative to the second assembly first sliding track (Fig. 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
There is no prior art rejection for independent claim 7 which claims a lifting table comprising: a tabletop; a first and second track assemblies disposed along a bottom of the tabletop and comprising first and second adjustment screws, respectively; first and second motors, configured to turn the respective adjustment screw; first and second leg assemblies including first and second threaded receivers at first end portions of the assemblies, respectively, to receive the respective adjustment screw.
There is no prior art rejection for independent claim 14 which claims a lifting table comprising: a tabletop; a first and second track assemblies with first sliding tracks disposed along a bottom of the tabletop, the first sliding track of the first assembly extending more than half a length of the tabletop and both track assemblies including first and second adjustment screws, respectively; first and second leg assemblies including first and second threaded receivers, respectively, at first end portions to receive the respective adjustment screw.
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 17, 2026
/JANET M WILKENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
