This is a Non-Final office action for serial number 19/224,018.
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "or the like" or “disc-like” renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The claims have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 for the above reasons. Please note that the Examiner may not have pointed out each and every example of indefiniteness. The applicant is required to review all the claim language to make sure the claimed invention is clear and definite.
All words in a claim must be considered in determining the patentability of theclaim against the prior art. If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certainterms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious, the claim becomesindefinite. In re Wilson, 424F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). The examiner's analysis ofthe claims, in particular claim language within the claims as rejected under 35 USC 112 above, indicates that considerable speculation as to the meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of the claims needs to be made, as the examiner does not understand what is exactly being claimed by the applicant. Any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 should not be based on such speculations and assumptions. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,862 (CCPA 1962); Ex parte Head, 214 USPQ 551 (Bd.App. 1981). Accordingly, the applicant should not assume that any claims not rejected using prior art is considered allowable since the examiner can not clearly determine the limitations of the claim due to indefiniteness. The applicant should be aware that once the claims have been corrected to remove the problems concerning indefiniteness, prior art may be used to reject the claims and the next action made final or if the application is in a final status the amendment after final may not be entered as requiring further search and/or consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3, 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1)as being anticipated by Novel et al. (Novel) 5022626. The applicant is reminded that the device or furniture is not positively claimed therefore the prior art only need to be capable of performing the functions related to the device or furniture.
Novel discloses Claims:
Claim 1. An elevation device platform assembly comprising a platform having a top surface and a bottom surface, the platform configured to couple to a device; a base having a top surface and a bottom surface, the base configured to couple to a furniture part; and a post coupled to a top surface of the base and to a bottom surface of the platform, wherein the post comprises a length to elevate the platform above the base to position the device a suitable height above the furniture part.
Claim 3. The elevation platform assembly according to claim 1, wherein the platform top surface comprises an attachment feature configured to removably affix the device thereto.
Claim 5. wherein the attachment device are coupled to the base bottom surface towards or at a base first end and the post is coupled to the base top surface towards or at a base second end
Claim 8. The elevation platform assembly according to claim 1, wherein the post is coupled to the platform bottom surface towards or at a center of the platform.
Claim 17. The elevation platform assembly according to claim 1, wherein the platform and base are parallel to each other and are each perpendicular to the post.
[AltContent: textbox (Platform 10
Post 8
Attachment device
Base first end
Base 16)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Base second end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Attachment feature, screws and holes)]
PNG
media_image1.png
572
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 8, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (11) as being anticipated by Stafford et al. (Stafford) 2013/0049410.
Claim 1. An elevation device platform assembly comprising a platform having a top surface and a bottom surface, the platform configured to couple to a device; a base having a top surface and a bottom surface, the base configured to couple to a furniture part; and a post coupled to a top surface of the base and to a bottom surface of the platform, wherein the post comprises a length to elevate the platform above the base to position the device a suitable height above the furniture part (104) .
Claim 8. The elevation platform assembly according to claim 1, wherein the post is coupled to the platform bottom surface towards or at a center of the platform (150).
Claim 12 The elevation platform assembly according to claim 1, wherein the device being an electric air circulation fan (paragraph 0028).
Claim 17. The elevation platform assembly according to claim 1, wherein the platform and base are parallel to each other and are each perpendicular to the post.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Platform 150 mount)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Base 154)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (furniture)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Post 152)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
408
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1)as being anticipated by Jackson 646,835. The applicant is reminded that the device or furniture is not positively claimed therefore the prior art only need to be capable of performing the functions related to the device or furniture.
Jackson discloses claims:
Claim 1. An elevation device platform assembly comprising a platform having a top surface and a bottom surface, the platform (T) configured to couple to a device; a base (D) having a top surface and a bottom surface, the base (D) configured to couple to a furniture part (chair) ; and a post (E, K, F) coupled to a top surface of the base (D) and to a bottom surface of the platform (T), wherein the post ((E, K, F)), comprises a length to elevate the platform above the base to position the device a suitable height above the furniture part.
Claim 2. The elevation platform assembly according to claim 1, wherein the base is coupled to one or more clamps (B) configured to adjustably and removably couple the base to the furniture part.
Claim 3. The elevation platform assembly according to claim 1, wherein the platform top surface comprises an attachment feature (see line 71-73) configured to removably affix the device thereto.
Claim 5. The elevation platform assembly according to claim 2, wherein the one or more clamps (B) are coupled to the base bottom surface towards or at a base first end (since the base D, may slide allowing clamp to be coupled towards a bas first end), and the post (E, K, F) is coupled to the base top surface towards or at a base second end.
Claim 8. The elevation platform assembly according to claim 1, wherein the post is coupled to the platform bottom surface towards or at a center of the platform.
Claim 17. The elevation platform assembly according to claim 1, wherein the platform (T) and base (D) are parallel to each other and are perpendicular to the post (E,K,F).
[AltContent: textbox (Base (D) )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Platform
Post coupled to platform (T) bottom surface via couple means)][AltContent: textbox (clamp)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (post)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
706
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Hare 6966528. The applicant is reminded that the device is not positively claimed therefore the prior art only need to be capable of performing the functions related to the device.
Hare discloses claim:
Claim 1. An elevation device platform assembly comprising a platform (44) having a top surface and a bottom surface, the platform configured to couple to a device; a base (20) having a top surface and a bottom surface, the base configured to couple to a furniture part (14); and a post (30) coupled to a top surface of the base and to a bottom surface of the platform, wherein the post comprises a length to elevate the platform above the base to position the device a suitable height above furniture part.
Claim 3. The elevation platform assembly according to claim 1, wherein the platform top surface comprises an attachment feature (48) configured to removably affix the device thereto.
Claim 4. The elevation platform assembly according to claim 1, wherein the platform top surface comprises one or more hook and loop couplings (48) configured to removably affix the device to the platform top surface.
Claim 8. The elevation platform assembly according to claim 1, the post (30) is coupled to the platform (44) bottom surface towards or at a center of the platform.
[AltContent: textbox (Hook and loop attachment feature
Platform
Post
base)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
672
578
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-4, 8 and 13 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Holmes et al. (Holmes) 2004/0211868.
Holmes discloses claims:
Claim 1. An elevation device platform assembly comprising a platform (24) having a top surface and a bottom surface, the platform configured to couple to a device; a base (part of 12) having a top surface (near 28) and a bottom surface, the base (part of 12 including 28) configured to couple to a furniture part; and a post (20) coupled to a top surface of the base and to a bottom surface of the platform (24), wherein the post (20) comprises a length to elevate the platform above the base to position the device a suitable height above the furniture part.
Claim 2. The elevation platform assembly according to claim 1, wherein the base (see figure below) is coupled to one or more clamps (12) configured to adjustably and removably couple the base to the furniture part.
Claim 3. The elevation platform assembly according to claim 1, wherein the platform top surface (24) comprises an attachment feature (26) configured to removably affix the device thereto.
Claim 4. The elevation platform assembly according to claim 1, wherein the platform top surface comprises one or more hook and loop couplings (26) configured to removably affix the device to the platform top surface.
Claim 8. The elevation platform assembly according to claim 1, wherein the post (20) is coupled to the platform bottom surface towards or at a center of the platform.
Claim 13. The elevation platform assembly according to claim 1, wherein the platform comprises a disc-like shape (24).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Attachment feature)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Platform disc-like)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (post)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Base
clamp)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image5.png
676
300
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson 646,835.
Jackson discloses all of the limitations except for the wherein the platform comprises a disc-like shape.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified Jackson to have made (Claim 13) wherein the platform comprises a disc-like shape since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art since the applicant has not shown how the chosen shape is critical.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hare 6,966,528.
Hare discloses all of the limitations except for wherein the post comprises a length of from about 3.0 inches to about 12.0 inches, and the base comprises a length from a first end to a second end of from about 4.0 inches to about 13.0 inches.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made to have
(Claim 15) The elevation platform assembly according to claim 1, wherein the post comprises a length of from about 3.0 inches to about 12.0 inches, and the base comprises a length from a first end to a second end of from about 4.0 inches to about 13.0 inches since A change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novel et al. (Novel) 5022626 in view of Jackson 646,835.
Novel discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for base is coupled to one or more clamps.
Claim 2. The elevation platform assembly according to claim 1, wherein the base is coupled to one or more clamps (B) configured to adjustably and removably couple the base to the furniture part.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified Novel to have the base is coupled to one or more clamps for the purpose of providing a means to remove and attach the device to a furniture piece when the furniture piece need to be replaced.
Modified Novel in view of Jackson inherently teaches Claim 5 wherein the one or more clamps (B) are coupled to the base bottom surface towards or at a base first end (since the base D, may slide allowing clamp to be coupled towards a bas first end) and the post (E, K, F) is coupled to the base top surface towards or at a base second end.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art discloses conventional elevation platforms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY T WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6826. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 9:00am-5:30pm flexible schedule.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/KIMBERLY T WOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights