DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 113/113a in at least Fig. 4b and 123/123a in at least Fig. 5b.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-12, 14-15, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 12,628,942 B2 (Lee).
With respect to claims 1 and 11: Lee discloses a desk (table 10), comprising two desk feet (first foot 26 and second foot 30), a desk board (worksurface 22) and a telescopic desk frame (at least first leg 14, second leg 18, and channel assembly 34/234/334/434) configured to be mounted on the two desk foot to support the desk board (as in Fig. 1); wherein, the telescopic desk frame comprises: two desk leg assemblies (first leg 14 with first hub 38; and second leg 18 with second hub 42); at least one beam assembly (channel assembly 34/234/334/434), configured to be connected with and between the two desk leg assemblies (at least Fig. 2); wherein the beam assembly comprises a first beam (outer channel 54/254/354/454) and a second beam (inner channel 58/258/358/458) which are relatively telescopable (col. 3, lines 29-33: “The channel assembly 34 is adjustable to accommodate different worksurface sizes (e.g., widths). In particular, the outer channel 54 and the inner channel 58 are movable (e.g., slidable) relative to each other depending on a distance between the first leg 14 and the second leg 18.”), the first beam comprises a first flange (multiple “first flanges” shown in each of Figs. 15-18), the second beam comprises a second flange which abuts against the first flange (multiple “second flanges” shown in each of Figs. 15-18).
With respect to claims 2 and 12: Lee discloses wherein the first flange comprises a first upper flange (Figs. 17-18: side wall 370, 470 with flange 382, 482) and a first lower flange (Figs. 17-18: bottom wall 362, 462), the second flange comprises a second upper flange (Figs. 17-18: side wall 374, 474 with flange 378, 478) and a second lower flange (Figs. 17-18: bottom wall 366, 466), the first upper flange and the second upper flange abut against each other (Figs. 17-18) and protrude in a first direction (vertical direction), and the first lower flange and the second lower flange abut against each other (Figs. 17-18) and protrude in a second direction (horizontal direction).
With respect to claims 4 and 14: Lee discloses wherein a first mounting portion (at least one of the outer apertures 114) is disposed on the first beam (on bottom wall 112 of the outer channel 54/254/354/454), a second mounting portion (at least one of the inner apertures 82) is disposed on the second beam (on bottom wall 80 of inner channel 58/258/358/458), and the first mounting portion is configured to be connected to the second mounting portion (col. 6 lines 5-15: “In an assembled state, the inner channel 58 and the outer channel 54 are coupled together by the fasteners 75 extending through the outer apertures 114 of the outer channel 54 and through the inner apertures 82 of the inner channel 58.”).
With respect to claims 5 and 15: Lee discloses wherein at least two second mounting portions are disposed on the second beam (Fig. 7 shows at least two inner apertures 82), and the first mounting portion is configured to be connected to any one of the at least two second mounting portions (at least one of the outer apertures 114 is connectable to any one of at least two of the apertures 82 using a fastener 75).
With respect to claims 7 and 17: Lee discloses wherein the first mounting portion is connected to the second mounting portion by an installation fastener (fastener 75) configured to be inserted into the first hole and the second hole corresponding to the first hole.
With respect to claims 9 and 19: Lee discloses two supporting portions (first support bracket 46 and second support bracket 50), wherein the two supporting portions are arranged respectively to the two desk leg assemblies (at least Figs. 2 and 4).
With respect to claims 10 and 20: Lee discloses wherein each supporting portion comprises a first supporting plate (Figs. 2-3: one or both of the upper, horizontal portions of each bracket 46 and 50; where fasteners 62 and 63 are located), the first supporting plate is arranged horizontally and protrudes in an extension direction of the beam assembly (at least Figs. 2-3), and a connection hole (Fig. 4 shows not numbered “connection holes” receive fasteners 62) configured to be connected with a desk board is disposed on the first supporting plate (col. 6, lines 13-15: “The worksurface 22 is additionally supported by the top surfaces 36, 40 of the hubs 38, 42 and coupled to the support brackets 46, 50 by the fasteners 63, 62.”).
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-9, 11-13, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2015/180724 A1 (Randløv).
With respect to claims 1 and 11: Randløv discloses a desk (“height-adjustable table” @ page 8), comprising two desk feet (foot 61, 62), a desk board (table top 2) and a telescopic desk frame (at least the two columns 59, 60; base units 63, 64; clamps 65, 66; cross members 67, 68; and longitudinal members 69, 70 or longitudinal members 75, 76) configured to be mounted on the two desk foot to support the desk board (as in Fig. 11); wherein, the telescopic desk frame comprises: two desk leg assemblies (Figs. 4-6: each column 59, 60 and the base units 63, 64 and clamps 65, 66 attached thereto is one “desk leg assembly”); at least one beam assembly (longitudinal members 69, 70 or longitudinal members 75, 76), configured to be connected with and between the two desk leg assemblies (Fig. 11); wherein the beam assembly comprises a first beam (member 69, 75) and a second beam (member 70, 76) which are relatively telescopable (pages 8-9), the first beam comprises a first flange (multiple “first flanges” shown in each of Figs. 14-15), the second beam comprises a second flange which abuts against the first flange (multiple “second flanges” shown in each of Figs. 14-15).
With respect to claims 2 and 12: See the annotated image below.
PNG
media_image1.png
331
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Randløv discloses wherein the first flange comprises a first upper flange (on member 69, 75) and a first lower flange (on member 69, 75), the second flange comprises a second upper flange (on member 70, 76) and a second lower flange (on member 70, 76), the first upper flange and the second upper flange abut against each other and protrude in a first direction (in the left embodiment, they protrude to the right from the vertical member; in the right embodiment, they protrude to the left from the vertical member), and the first lower flange and the second lower flange abut against each other and protrude in a second direction (in the left embodiment, they protrude to the right from the vertical member; in the right embodiment, they protrude to the left from the vertical member).
With respect to claims 3 and 13: Randløv discloses wherein the first direction and the second direction are in a same direction (in the left embodiment, they protrude to the right from the vertical member; in the right embodiment, they protrude to the left from the vertical member) or opposite directions.
With respect to claims 8 and 18: See the annotated image below. Randløv discloses a protruding portion (flange 72) disposed at least on a top surface of the first upper flange; wherein, the top surface of the first upper flange is lower than a top surface of the second upper flange.
PNG
media_image2.png
372
557
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 9 and 19: Randløv discloses two supporting portions, wherein the two supporting portions (cross members 67, 68) are arranged respectively to the two desk leg assemblies (Fig. 11).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 12,628,942 B2 (Lee) as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of US 2020/0154876 A1 (Liu).
With respect to claims 3 and 13: Lee does not disclose “wherein the first direction and the second direction are in a same direction or opposite directions” as claimed.
Liu Figs. 1-9 are to one embodiment of a telescopic desk frame that is analogous to Lee’s invention. Liu discloses two carrying members 21 that telescopically receive a connection member 22 to adjust the distance between two table legs 3. Liu Fig. 8 shows the generally C-shaped cross-sections of carrying member 22 receiving therein the connection member 22.
In Liu Fig. 8, parts 211 and 221 are a “first upper flange” and a “second upper flange” that protrude in a first direction. Parts 214 and 222 are a “first lower flange” and a “second lower flange” that protrude in a second direction that is the same direction as the first direction.
See Lee Figs. 15-18. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee’s channel 54/254/354/454 and channel 58/258/358/458 to be generally C-shaped in cross-section, because Liu shows it is known in the art for such telescopic frame members to be of that shape.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 12,628,942 B2 (Lee) as applied to claims 2, 4, 12, and 14 above, and further in view of US 11,730,261 B1 (Lin).
With respect to claims 6 and 16: Lee discloses wherein the first mounting portion comprises two first holes (Fig. 10 shows two apertures 114), and the second mounting portion comprises two second holes (Fig. 7 shows two apertures 82).
Lee does not disclose “a spacing between the two first holes is equal to a spacing between the two second holes” as claimed.
PNG
media_image3.png
366
868
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See Lin Fig. 4 and the annotated image above. Lin’s first frame 10 has a pair of positioning holes 133 “at intervals” on each embedding plate 13. Lin’s second frame 20 has locking holes 234 “at intervals” on each connecting plate 23. The spacing between two of the positioning holes 133 is equal to the spacing between two of the locking holes 234 such that a “screwing element (not shown in the figures)” can be placed into aligned sets of holes 133, 234 when the embedding plates are telescopically slid into the connecting plates 23.
Lin’s holes 133 and 234 serve the same and/or similar purpose as Lee’s apertures 82 and 114. These are openings which are on telescopically-arranged frame members, and aligned in order to receive fasteners and thereby secure the frame members at a given adjusted length.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee’s channel 54/254/354/454 and channel 58/258/358/458 to have Lin’s holes 133 and 234 instead of Lee’s apertures 82 and 114, as an obvious substitution of the means for setting the adjusted length of the channel 54/254/354/454 and channel 58/258/358/458.
With respect to claims 8 and 18: Lee discloses wherein, the top surface of the first upper flange is lower than a top surface of the second upper flange (Figs. 17-18: flange 382, 482 is lower than flange 378, 478).
Lee does not disclose “a protruding portion disposed at least on a top surface of the first upper flange” as claimed.
Lin teaches putting an exposed section 131 on an inner embedding plate 13 of a first frame 10 that is telescopically arranged with a second frame 20. Lin Fig. 6 shows that the exposed section 131 and the top of second frame 20 are on a same plane P1. The table board 8 rests on this plane P1 (Figs. 1-3).
The exposed section 131 has two locking holes 1313 (Fig. 3), but Lin does not explicitly state the function of the locking holes 1313. It appears that such locking holes 1313 are suitable for receiving fasteners for the table board 8 (Figs. 1-2).
See Lee Figs. 17-18. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee’s flange 382, 482 to have Lin’s exposed section 131 thereon, so that the exposed section 131 of member 354, 454 is on the same plane with flange 378, 478. This enables both member 358, 458 and member 354, 454 to support and/or be connected to worksurface 22.
Claim(s) 4-7 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/180724 A1 (Randløv) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 11,730,261 B1 (Lin).
With respect to claims 4 and 14: Randløv does not disclose “wherein a first mounting portion is disposed on the first beam, a second mounting portion is disposed on the second beam, and the first mounting portion is configured to be connected to the second mounting portion” as claimed.
Lin discloses a first frame 10 and a second frame 20 that are telescopically arranged to accommodate for different distances between legs stands 7. Lin’s frames 10, 20 are analogous and/or functionally equivalent to Randløv’s members 69, 70 and/or 75, 76.
Lin teaches positioning holes 133 arranged at intervals on the first frame 10, and locking holes 234 arranged at intervals on the second frame 20, such that a “screwing element (not shown in the figures)” can be placed in aligned holes 133, 234 and thereby secure the frames 10, 20 at a desired length.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Randløv’s members 69, 70 and/or 75, 76 to have Lin’s holes 133, 234 therein, in order to secure the members 69, 70 and/or 75, 76 at a desired length using screwing elements in said holes 133, 234.
The modification meets, as claimed, wherein a first mounting portion (holes 133) is disposed on the first beam, a second mounting portion (holes 234) is disposed on the second beam, and the first mounting portion is configured to be connected to the second mounting portion (with the screwing elements).
With respect to claims 5 and 15: Randløv, as modified, meets wherein at least two second mounting portions are disposed on the second beam (at least two holes 234 are added to Randløv), and the first mounting portion is configured to be connected to any one of the at least two second mounting portions (a hole 133 may be aligned with any of holes 234 such that a screwing element can pass therethrough).
With respect to claims 6 and 16: Randløv, as modified, meets wherein the first mounting portion comprises two first holes (at least two holes 133 are added to Randløv), and the second mounting portion comprises two second holes (at least two holes 234 are added to Randløv), and a spacing between the two first holes is equal to a spacing between the two second holes (see the annotated image below).
PNG
media_image3.png
366
868
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 7 and 17: Randløv, as modified, meets wherein the first mounting portion is connected to the second mounting portion by an installation fastener (the screwing element) configured to be inserted into the first hole and the second hole corresponding to the first hole.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/180724 A1 (Randløv) as applied to claims 9 and 19 above, and further in view of WO 2015/180725 A1 (Jørgensen).
With respect to claims 10 and 20: Randløv discloses wherein each supporting portion comprises a first supporting plate (Fig. 11: horizontal portion of each cross member 67, 68), the first supporting plate is arranged horizontally and protrudes in an extension direction of the beam assembly (Fig. 11).
Randløv does not disclose “and a connection hole configured to be connected with a desk board is disposed on the first supporting plate” as claimed. The only mention of the cross members 67, 68 in the specification (page 9) states, “Further, the cross members 67,68 are secured or fixed to the base units 63,64.”
Jørgensen includes Randløv as a co-inventor, and both prior art references are to the same Applicant. Jørgensen’s cross member 74 has mounting holes 77, 78 “for mounting of a table top to the supporting frame” (page 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Randløv’s cross members 67, 68 to have mounting holes 77, 78 to thereby secure the table top 2 of Randløv Fig. 1 to the cross member 67, 68 of Randløv Fig. 11 using fasteners in the mounting holes 77, 78.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW ROERSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-3185. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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.
/ANDREW ROERSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights