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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 20 stands withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 30 March 2026.
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 1, 3-15 and 17-19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "each rod" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which rods? The rods of the “one or more rods” introduced in line 10 and/or the hinge rods introduced in line 5? The metes and bounds of claim 1 can’t be accurately determined. Claim 1 is indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "each rod" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which rods? The rods of the “one or more rods” introduced in line 11 and/or the hinge rods introduced in line 7? The metes and bounds of claim 11 can’t be accurately determined. Claim 11 is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-7, 11, 14 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Ray (US 2019932).
Ray discloses an assembly comprising: a base structure (folding leg table) having one or more hinge brackets (pivoting leaves 7); one or more support feet (legs 13, 14) for elevating and supporting the base structure, the one or more support feet pivotably attached to the base structure, each support foot comprising: a body extending from a first end (distal end that contacts a ground surface) to a second end (proximal end attached to hinge rod and stationary leaf 5) , and a hinge rod (pin 9 which extends through pin holes 6, 8) at the second end of the body and positioned in a corresponding hinge bracket 7, the hinge rod configured to rotate in the hinge bracket (hinge rod 9 is stationary and pivots with respect to hinge bracket 7 as foot (leg 13, 14 pivots) ; a turntable having a rotator (members 15 and 16 rotate independent and simultaneously with each other) positioned at a center of the base structure and operable to rotate about the center of the base structure; and one or more rods (links 20, 24), each rod (20, 24) pivotably connected to a corresponding support foot (13, 14) at a first end (radially outward end) and rotatably connected to the rotator as a second end (radially inward end), wherein rotation of the rotator rotates the one or more rods 20, 24 about the center of the base structure and pivots the corresponding one or more support feet 1, 14 to cause each hinge rod 9 of the one or more support feet 13, 14 to rotate in the hinge bracket 7 such that the first end (distal end) of the one or more feet 13, 14 simultaneously moves towards the center of the base structure when the rotator is rotated (see the movement by comparing the unfolded orientation of members 15 and 16 as shown in the unfolded state of Fig. 6 as compared to folding-process orientations of members 15 and 16 as shown in various phases of folding of Fig. 7 and 8, movement is depicted by arrows in Fig. 7 and 8) in a first direction (see page 2, column 2, lines 6-58, in particular, lines 26-27 state that the members rotate in unison, in particular lines 46-47 stating that both members 15 and 16 have traveled approximately 90 degrees) and away from the center of the base structure when the rotator is rotated in a second direction (see page 2, column 2, lines 59-60).
Re claim 3, the body of each support foot has a first width at the first end that is less than a second width at the second end. Re claim 14, each support foot of the one or more support feet includes a body extending from a first end to a second end, and wherein the body of each support foot has a first width at the first end that is less than a second width at the second end. The tapering of each foot is shown in Fig. 1 and 6 (first width at distal end is less than second width at proximal end).
Re claims 6 and 17, the one or more support feet are biased to at least one of an expanded configuration (feet extending in an unfolded, supporting orientation as shown in Fig. 1, biased by springs to unfolded orientation) and a collapsed configuration (feet collapsed in folded orientation as shown in Fig. 2, biased by springs to folded orientation) (see page 2, column 2, lines 26-30 and 52-54).
Re claim 7, the one or more support feet comprise two or more support feet.
Re claims 11 and 18, Ray discloses an assembly comprising: a base structure adapted for supporting a main body section when a series of slat members are in a set-up condition (the “adapted for supporting … language is functional language, the table is capable of supporting a main body section when a series of slat members are in a set-up condition and meets the limitation. Ray discloses an assembly comprising one or more support feet for elevating and supporting the base structure. The structure of each foot, the turntable and the one or more support rods is explained above. Also, the rotation of the rotator and movement of the parts to unfold the feet and fold the feet is explained above.
Re claim 19, the assembly comprises a fire pit assembly insofar as a fire could be built on the table surface with the understanding that the top surface is properly protected from the heat of a fire.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray in view of Tontarelli (EP 1223109).
Re claims 4 and 15, Ray fails to disclose the flanges for the feet. Totntarelli teaches support feet 6 which are tapered and have at least an upper portion of U-shaped cross section as shown by the cutaway breakout of Fig. 2 at the top portion of the foot 6, the U-shaped cross section provides a body having opposite sides with a flange extending from each opposite edge of the body. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cross section of the foot to be a U-shaped cross section as this saves weight and material while maintaining a foot of sufficient strength to carry the load.
Re claim 5, the foot pivots about a hinge point at the hinge bracket.
Claim(s) 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamai (JP 2019097763) (cited by applicant) in view of Ray.
Yamai discloses a body section comprising a series of interconnected slat members (metal plate-like members 4), the slat members are connected together (in series at their respective side edges) and collectively moveable between a set-up condition (see Fig. 1-3) defining a first volume and a bundled and collapsed condition (see Fig. 14-15) defining a second volume and a base structure having collapsible legs. Yamai fails to disclose feet which collapse simultaneously and the turntable. Ray teaches the assembly of claim 1 with feet which collapse simultaneously and the turntable. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yamai’s base structure such that the feet collapse simultaneously with a turntable to allow quicker unfolding and folding of the feet to save time when cooking and establishing a camp as well as cleaning and disassembling a camp.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamai in view of Ray as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Chamberlain et al. (US 9429408) (Chamberlain).
The combination fails to disclose the retention rim. Chamberlain teaches a retention rim (gasket 18) positioned on the body section on an opposite end of the base structure when the body section is in the standing configuration, wherein the retention rim has a central opening that opens into an interior chamber of the body section. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the retention rim (gasket 18) to reinforce the upper edge of the body section, to cushion the upper edge from sharp impact to protect the upper edge and to seal the upper edge when the upper edge is closed by a lid.
Re claim 10, the assembly comprises a fire pit assembly insofar as a fire could be built on the table surface with the understanding that the top surface is properly protected from the heat of a fire.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CASTELLANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
sjc/STEPHEN J CASTELLANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights