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 were received on 6/23/2026. These drawings are objected to for failure to show claimed subject matter as stated in the Non-Final Rejection dated 3/23/2026 and as restated below. See the Drawings subsection in the “Response to Arguments” below for further detail.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
The hinge bracket has a slide groove of claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Figure 6A shows a slide groove 220 located on the wall of second table-top 200, but the drawings fail to show a slide groove on the hinge bracket 330.
The first and second locking mechanism of claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The locking mechanism of claim 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The reinforcing rib and the increased wall thickness of the second docking slot of claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Fig. 5 shows the second docking slot 215, but fails to show any reinforcing structure. There appears to be no reinforcing rib, and the wall thickness of the docking slot is not shown to be greater than a wall thickness of the fifth/sixth side wall.
The reinforcing rib of claim 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Figs. 2-4 show the handles installed on the first and second table-tops but fail to show the reinforcing ribs.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 13, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. Pat. No. 11819123) in view of Hong (U.S. Pat. No. 7976034).
With respect to claim 1, Zhang discloses a table-top foldable table for puzzles, comprising: a hinge (Fig. 2, hinge 10); a first table-top (left table board 1), rotatably connected to the hinge (Fig. 4, left table board 1 is rotatably connected to the right-side portion of hinge 10 via the left-side portion of hinge 10); and a second table-top (right table board 2), rotatably connected to the hinge (Fig. 4, right table board 2 is rotatably connected to the left-side portion of hinge 10 via the right-side portion of hinge 10), when the table-tops are unfolded and facing upward (left and right table boards 1 and 2 are folded from a position of Fig. 5 to an open position of Fig. 2), both the first table-top and the second table-top are configured to support puzzle pieces thereon (left and right table boards 1 and 2 are planar flat surfaces and can therefore support puzzle pieces. Note that the table boards may be unfolded and floor-supported before the legs are attached to the underside of the table).
Zhang fails to disclose wherein the first table-top is slidably connected to the second table-top by the hinge, when unfolded, the table-tops have a closed state and a foldable state, in the closed state, the second table-top slides to a first position relative to the first table-top, and the first table-top and the second table-top are closed together, and in the foldable state, the second table-top slides to a second position relative to the first table-top, and the first table-top and the second table-top are separated and foldable about the hinge.
Hong discloses a hinge (Fig. 7, pivot bar 90); a first leaf (Fig. 7, center deck mount 130), rotatably connected to the hinge (center deck 130 rotates about first pivot pin 80 of pivot bar 90); and a second leaf (outside deck mount 140), rotatably connected to the hinge (outside deck 140 rotates about second pivot pin 80 of pivot bar 90); wherein the first leaf (center deck mount 130) is slidably connected to the second leaf (outside deck mount 140) by the hinge (Fig. 8 shows 130 and 140 sliding away from each other. Col. 6, lines 53-54, “elongated apertures 95 that may be in each pivot bar, allow the decks to be separated”), when unfolded, the leaves (130 and 140) have a closed state (locked position of Fig. 7 where strengthening pins 100 of one deck are slidably received within the corresponding deck) and a foldable state (unlocked position of Fig. 8 where strengthening pins 100 of one deck are fully withdrawn from the corresponding deck), in the closed state, the second leaf slides to a first position relative to the first leaf (Fig. 7 shows 130 and 140 slid together in a first, locked position), and the first leaf and the second leaf are closed together (130 and 140 abut each other in locked state of Fig. 7), and in the foldable state, the second leaf slides to a second position relative to the first leaf (Fig. 8, 130 and 140 slide away from each other in a second, unlocked position), and the first leaf and the second leaf are separated and foldable about the hinge (Col. 7, lines 53-56, “Once center deck mount 130 and outside deck mount 140 are a large enough distance apart, outside deck mount 140 may be pivotally folded over center deck mount 130, as shown in FIG. 6”).
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 table of Zhang by replacing the hinges with sliding pivot bars and slidably received strengthening pins, such as taught by Hong, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to easily secure the table leaves in a sturdy, unfolded, locked position when in use, and to further allow the table leaves to be easily folded into a compact configuration for storage. Note that the table boards of Zhang in view of Hong would maintain the ability to support puzzle pieces in the unfolded position, in either the locked or unlocked positions of Hong, since Zhang may be floor supported as further discussed in the Response to Arguments section below.
With respect to claim 3, Zhang in view of Hong discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Hong) further discloses a second rotation shaft (Figs. 7 and 9, second pivot pin 80), wherein the hinge comprises a hinge bracket (pivot bar 90 is a horizontal bracket), the hinge bracket has a slide groove (Fig. 9, elongated aperture 95), a first end of the second rotation shaft is located in the slide groove (see Fig. 7, rear end of second pivot pin 80 is located in elongated aperture 95) and is rotatable and slidable relative to the hinge bracket (Col. 6, lines 45-18, “Each pivot bar 90 may include at least one elongated aperture 95 therein for slidably and rotationally capturing the pivot pins 80”), a second end of the second rotation shaft is connected to a side wall of the second table-top (Fig. 7, front end of second pivot pin 80 connects to sidewall of 140 which connects to a sidewall of right table top board 2 of Zhang), so that the second table-top is rotatably and slidably connected to the hinge bracket through the second rotation shaft (right table top board 2 of Zhang slides and rotates via second pivot pin 80).
With respect to claim 8, Zhang in view of Hong discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein the first table-top comprises a second side wall (Zhang, see annotated Fig. 4 below, second side wall), and the second side wall has a first anti-misalignment structure (second side wall of Zhang, modified by Hong to include strengthening pins 100), the first anti-misalignment structure comprises at least one of a first protruding portion or a second limiting slot (Hong, Fig. 8, strengthening pins 100 protrude outward from center deck mount 130); the second table-top comprises a sixth side wall (Zhang, see annotated Fig. 4 below, sixth side wall), and the sixth side wall has a second anti-misalignment structure (sixth side wall of Zhang, modified by Hong to include receiving structure for slidably receiving strengthening pins 100), the second anti-misalignment structure comprises at least one of a second protruding portion or a first limiting slot to correspond to the first anti-misalignment structure (Hong, Col. 7, lines 40-43, “each strengthening pin 100 extending between the center deck mount 130 and outside deck mount 140 may be captured by one of the deck mounts and slidably received in the corresponding opposing deck mount”); and in the closed state, the second side wall abuts against the sixth side wall (Zhang, Figs. 2 and 3, second and sixth side wall abut each other), and the first anti-misalignment structure (Hong, strengthening pins 100) is coupled with the second anti-misalignment structure (Hong, receiving structure) to limit relative displacement of the first table-top and the second table-top in both forward and backward directions perpendicular to the table-tops (Hong, strengthening pins 100 and their receiving structure prevent table boards of Zhang from being separated and therefore maintain the alignment of the table boards).
PNG
media_image1.png
639
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
With respect to claim 9, Zhang in view of Hong discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein the first protruding portion comprises at least one first sub-protruding portion (Hong, Fig. 8, plurality of strengthening pins 100 includes individual strengthening pin 100); the first limiting slot comprises at least one first sub-limiting slot (Hong, Col. 7, lines 40-43, “each strengthening pin 100… slidably received in the corresponding opposing deck mount” therefore there is an individual receiving structure for the individual strengthening pin 100); in the closed state, the second side wall abuts against the sixth side wall (Zhang, Figs. 2 and 3, second and sixth side wall abut each other), and the at least one first sub-protruding portion (Hong, Figs. 7 and 8, strengthening pin 100) is located in the at least one first sub-limiting slot (Hong, receiving structure) to limit relative displacement between the first table-top and the second table-top in forward and backward directions perpendicular to the table-tops (Hong, strengthening pins 100 and their receiving structure prevent table boards of Zhang from being separated and therefore maintain the alignment of the table boards).
With respect to claim 13, Zhang in view of Hong discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Zhang) further discloses wherein the first table-top (left table board 1) comprises a first gallery rail located at an edge of the first table-top (see annotated Fig. 2 below, first gallery rail), and the second table-top (second table board 2) comprises a second gallery rail located at an edge of the second table-top (see annotated Fig. 2 below, second gallery rail).
PNG
media_image2.png
458
585
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
With respect to claim 14, Zhang in view of Hong discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Zhang) further discloses a first locking mechanism (Fig. 5, hook portion of lock catch 14) and a second locking mechanism (hole portion of lock catch 14); one of the first locking mechanism and the second locking mechanism is arranged on the first table-top (hook portion of catch lock 14 is arranged on left table board 1), and the other one of the first locking mechanism and the second locking mechanism is arranged on the second table-top (hole portion of catch lock 14 is arranged on right table board 2), wherein the first locking mechanism cooperates with the second locking mechanism to limit the first table-top from moving relative to the second table-top after the table-tops are folded (Col. 5, lines 34-66, “by means of the arrangement of the, lock catches 14, the folded left table board 1 and right table board 2 are effectively prevented from being suddenly unfolded”).
With respect to claim 19, Zhang discloses a table-top foldable table, comprising: a hinge (Fig. 2, hinge 10); a first table-top (left table board 1), rotatably connected to the hinge (Fig. 4, left table board 1 is rotatably connected to the right-side portion of hinge 10 via the left-side portion of hinge 10), and comprising a second side wall (see annotated Fig. 4 below, second side wall); and a second table-top (right table board 2), rotatably connected to the hinge (Fig. 4, right table board 2 is rotatably connected to the left-side portion of hinge 10 via the right-side portion of hinge 10), and comprising a sixth side wall (see annotated Fig. 4 below, sixth side wall).
PNG
media_image1.png
639
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
Zhang fails to disclose the second side wall having a first anti-misalignment structure, the first anti-misalignment structure comprising at least one of a first protruding portion or a second limiting slot; the sixth side wall having a second anti-misalignment structure, the second anti-misalignment structure comprising at least one of a second protruding portion or a first limiting slot to correspond to the first anti-misalignment structure wherein when the table-tops are unfolded, the table-tops have a closed state, in the closed state, the second side wall abuts against the sixth side wall, and the first anti-misalignment structure is coupled with the second anti-misalignment structure to limit relative displacement between the first table-top and the second table-top in forward and backward directions perpendicular to the table-tops.
Hong discloses a hinge (Fig. 7, pivot bar 90); a first leaf (Fig. 7, center deck mount 130) rotatably connected to the hinge (center deck 130 rotates about first pivot pin 80 of pivot bar 90), the first leaf comprising a second side wall (see annotated Fig. 8 below, second wall), the second side wall having a first anti-misalignment structure (first strengthening pin 100), the first anti-misalignment structure comprising at least one of a first protruding portion or a second limiting slot (first strengthening pin 100 is a protrusion); and a second leaf (outside deck mount 140) rotatably connected to the hinge (outside deck 140 rotates about second pivot pin 80 of pivot bar 90), the second leaf comprising a sixth side wall (see annotated Fig. 8 below, sixth wall), the sixth side wall having a second anti-misalignment structure (Hong, Col. 7, lines 40-43, “each strengthening pin 100 … slidably received in the corresponding opposing deck mount”, therefore each pin 100 has a receiving slot), the second anti-misalignment structure comprising at least one of a second protruding portion or a first limiting slot to correspond to the first anti-misalignment structure (receiving slots receive strengthening pins 100); wherein then the leaves are unfolded, the leaves (130 and 140) have a closed state (locked position of Fig. 7 where strengthening pins 100 of one deck are slidably received within the corresponding deck), in the closed state, the second side wall abuts against the sixth side wall (Fig. 7, second and sixth side walls about each other), and the first anti-misalignment structure is coupled with the second anti-misalignment structure to limit relative displacement between the first leaf and the second leaf in forward and backward directions perpendicular to the leaves (Hong, strengthening pins 100 and their receiving structure 130 and 140 from being separated and therefore maintain the alignment of the leaves).
PNG
media_image3.png
315
403
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8
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 table of Zhang by replacing the hinges with sliding pivot bars and slidably received strengthening pins, such as taught by Hong, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to easily secure the table leaves in a sturdy, unfolded, locked position when in use, and to further allow the table leaves to be easily folded into a compact configuration for storage.
The combination further discloses wherein when the table-tops are unfolded and facing upward (Zhang, left and right table boards 1 and 2 are folded from a position of Fig. 5 to an open position of Fig. 2), both the first table-top and the second table-top are configure to support puzzle pieces thereon (left and right table boards 1 and 2 are planar flat surfaces and can therefore support puzzle pieces. Note that the table boards may be unfolded and floor-supported before the legs are attached to the underside of the table when the table boards 1, 2 are in either the locked or unlocked positions of Hong).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. Pat. No. 11819123) and Hong (U.S. Pat. No. 7976034) in view of Keil (U.S. Pat. No. 0753710) in further view of Neunzert (U.S. Pat. No. 7735431).
With respect to claim 7, Zhang in view of Hong discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein the hinge comprises a hinge bracket (Hong, pivot bar 90 is a horizontal bracket), and the table-top foldable table has at least one set of features selected from M set of features or N set of features: M set of features: the hinge bracket comprises a second wall (see annotated Fig. 9 of Hong below, pivot bar 90 has second wall), the first table-top comprises a first side wall (see annotated Fig. 3 of Zhang below, first side wall), and the first side wall is disposed opposite to the second wall (Hong, Fig, 7 shows second wall of pivot bar 90 would be opposite of the first side wall of Zhang).
The combination fails to disclose the table-top foldable table has at least one set of features selected from M set of features or N set of features: M set of features: the first table-top comprises a first shim piece, the first shim piece is made of metal, the first shim piece is mounted on the first side wall and is located between the first side wall and the second wall; or N set of features: the hinge bracket comprises a second wall, the second table-top comprises a fifth side wall, and the fifth side wall is disposed opposite to the second wall, the second table-top comprises the second shim piece, the second shim piece is made of metal, the second shim piece is mounted on the fifth side wall and is located between the fifth side wall and the second wall.
Keil discloses M set of features: a first table-top (Fig. 7, table H) comprises a first shim piece (plate A), the first shim piece is made of metal (Col. 1, lines 36-40 “wrought metal”), the first shim piece (plate A) is mounted on the first side wall (Fig. 7, side wall of table H) and is located between the first side wall and the second wall (plate A is located between the side wall of table H and an inner wall of hinge link C).
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 table of Zhang in view of Hong to include a shim plate, such as taught by Keil, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to strengthen the table board at the point of contact with the pivot bar and to further reduce wear due to friction between the table and the pivoting bar.
The combination fails to disclose the first sidewall is made of plastic.
Neunzert discloses table top sections (Fig. 3, table top sections 32a, 32b) having sidewalls made of plastic (Col. 7, lines 34-35, “the table top is constructed from plastic, such as high density polyethylene”).
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 table boards of Zhang in view of Hong in further view of Kelis such that they are made of plastic, such as taught by Neunzert, in order to provide a strong, lightweight, rigid and sturdy table top to be quickly and easily manufactured (Col. 7, lines 37-39) as well as generally weather resistant and temperature insensitive, which may allow the table to be used in a wide variety of locations and environments (Col. 3, lines 27-30). It is further noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. Pat. No. 11819123) in view of Hong (U.S. Pat. No. 7976034) in further view of Strong (U.S. Pat. No. 7640870).
With respect to claim 10, Zhang in view of Hong discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein the first anti-misalignment structure (Hong, strengthening pins 100) comprises the first protruding portion (first individual strengthening pin 100); the second anti-misalignment structure (Hong, receiving structure) comprises the first limiting slot (first individual receiving structure that receives individual strengthening pin 100), the first limiting slot is adapted to the first protruding portion (first individual strengthening pin 100 is received by first individual receiving slot), and a second protruding portion is adapted to the second limiting slot (second individual strengthening pin 100 is received by second individual receiving slot); and in the closed state, the first protruding portion is located in the first limiting slot (Fig. 8, first individual strengthening pin 100 is received by first individual receiving slots), and the second protruding portion is located in the second limiting slot (second individual strengthening pin 100 is received by second individual receiving slot), such that the first anti-misalignment structure and the second anti-misalignment structure are coupled (Hong, Col. 7, lines 40-43, “each strengthening pin 100 extending between the center deck mount 130 and outside deck mount 140 may be captured by one of the deck mounts and slidably received in the corresponding opposing deck mount”).
Zhang in view of Hong fails to disclose the first anti-misalignment structure comprises the first protruding portion and the second limiting slot, and the second anti-misalignment structure comprises the first limiting slot and the second protruding portion.
Strong discloses a first anti-misalignment structure comprises a first protruding portion (Fig. 4, tongue 290) and a second limiting slot (groove 280), and a second anti-misalignment structure comprises a first limiting slot (tongue 282) and a second protruding portion (groove 288).
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 strengthening pins/receiving slots of Zhang in view of Hong such that they alternate on the table board side walls, such as taught by strong, with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. Pat. No. 11819123) in view of Hong (U.S. Pat. No. 7976034) in further view of Huffaker (U.S. Pat. No. 2548606).
With respect to claim 15, Zhang in view of Hong discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Zhang) further discloses wherein the first table-top (left table board 1) and the second table-top (right table board 2) have at least one set of features selected from O set of features or P set of features: O set of features: the first table-top comprises at least one first drawer and at least one first slide groove, the at least one first drawer comprises a first recess, the at least one first slide groove is configured to allow the first drawer to slide, a first protrusion is provided on the first slide groove, the first recess is configured to engage with the first protrusion so as to prevent the first drawer from sliding out of a drawer opening; or P set of features: the second table-top (right table board 2) comprises at least one second drawer (Fig. 2, drawer 19) and at least one second slide groove (Fig. 3, cavity that houses drawer 19), the at least one second slide groove is configured to allow the second drawer to slide (Figs. 2 and 3 show drawer 19 can slide in and out of the cavity).
The combination fails to disclose the at least one second drawer comprises a second recess, and a second protrusion is provided on the second slide groove, the second recess is configured to engage with the second protrusion so as to prevent the second drawer from sliding out of a drawer opening.
Huffaker discloses at least one drawer comprises a recess (Figs. 1 and 2, drawer 21 with recesses 23), and a protrusion is provided on the slide groove (projection detents 24 provided on the side wall of the drawer-receiving recess 19), the recess (recess 23) is configured to engage with the protrusion (projection detent 24) so as to precent the drawer from sliding out of a drawer opening (Col. 2, lines 39-43, “recesses 23 to releasably receive detents 24… for releasably latching the drawers 20 in fully closed or partially extended positions”).
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 drawer and drawer cavity of Zhang to include recesses and detents, such as taught by Huffaker, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to securely hold the drawers in a closed position or an extended position.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. Pat. No. 11819123) in view of Hong (U.S. Pat. No. 7976034) in further view of Voden (U.S. Pat. No. 7387299).
With respect to claim 16, Zhang in view of Hong discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Zhang) further discloses wherein a side wall of the first table-top (left table board 1) has a first handle (Fig. 1, handle 15 attached to a side wall of left table board 1). Zhang fails to disclose a side wall of the second table-top has a second handle; and when the table-tops are being folded, the first handle and the second handle are brought together.
Voden discloses a side wall of a first table-top has a first handle (Fig. 13, edge rail 128 of first table top section 134 has a first handle 198); a side wall of a second table top has a second handle (edge rail 128 of second table top section 134 has a second handle 198); and when the table-tops are being folded, the first handle and the second handle are brought together (in folded position of Fig. 3, first and second handle 198 are brought together and coupled via strap 200).
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 table of Zhang in view of Hong to further include a second corresponding handle, such as taught by Voden, in order to more evenly distribute and center the weight of the table across two handles during transportation. It is further noted that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI (B).
With respect to claim 17, Zhang in view of Hong in further view of Voden discloses the limitation set forth above. Voden further discloses wherein at least one of a position where the first handle is installed on the side wall of the first table-top (first handle 198 on first table top section 134) or a position where the second handle is installed on the side wall of the second table-top (second handle 198 on second table top section 134) has a reinforcing rib (see annotated Fig. 13 below, reinforcing rib of the recessed handle portion).
PNG
media_image4.png
402
657
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 13
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when modifying the table to include a corresponding handle as taught by the claim 16 rejection above, to further include the recessed handle potions with the reinforcing rib in order to bring the handles closer to each other when the table is folded, reducing the strain on the handles when they are coupled together, while maintaining a thick and durable tabletop structure.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. Pat. No. 11819123) in view of Hong (U.S. Pat. No. 7976034) in further view of Teichner (U.S. Pat. No. 4887536).
With respect to claim 18, Zhang in view of Hong discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Zhang) further discloses a locking mechanism (Fig. 5, lock catches 14) configured to restrict the relative movement between the first table top () and the second table top (right table board 14) when the table is folded (Col. 5, lines 64-66, “by means of the arrangement of the, lock catches 14, the folded left table board 1 and right table board 2 are effectively prevented from being suddenly unfolded”).
The combination fails to disclose wherein the locking mechanism comprises at least one of a buckle structure, a magnetic attraction structure, a clamping structure, or a strap structure.
Teichner discloses a locking mechanism comprised at least one of a buckle structure, a magnetic attraction structure, a clamping structure, or a strap structure (Fig. 1, Velcro locking straps 82 secures to recesses 84 in order to lock first shell 20 and second shell 22 in a folded, closed position).
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 invention of Zhang in view of Hong by replacing the lock catches with locking straps/recesses, such as taught by Teichner, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to form a flexible, light-weight locking structure that sits flush within the table side walls.
Claims 1, 2, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. Pat. No. 11819123) in view of Dent (U.S. Pat. No. 12024333).
With respect to claim 1, Zhang discloses a table-top foldable table, comprising: a hinge (Fig. 2, hinge 10); a first table-top (left table board 1), rotatably connected to the hinge (Fig. 4, left table board 1 is rotatably connected to the right-side portion of hinge 10 via the left-side portion of hinge 10); and a second table-top (right table board 2), rotatably connected to the hinge (Fig. 4, right table board 1 is rotatably connected to the left-side portion of hinge 10 via the right-side portion of hinge 10), when the table-tops are unfolded and facing upward (left and right table boards 1 and 2 are folded from a position of Fig. 5 to an open position of Fig. 2), both the first table-top and the second table-top are configured to support puzzle pieces thereon (left and right table boards 1 and 2 are planar flat surfaces and can therefore support puzzle pieces. Note that the table boards may be unfolded and floor-supported before the legs are attached to the underside of the table).
Zhang fails to disclose wherein the first table-top is slidably connected to the second table-top by the hinge, when unfolded, the table-tops have a closed state and a foldable state, in the closed state, the second table-top slides to a first position relative to the first table-top, and the first table-top and the second table-top are closed together, and in the foldable state, the second table-top slides to a second position relative to the first table-top, and the first table-top and the second table-top are separated and foldable about the hinge.
Dent discloses a hinge (Fig. 5, articulation device 4); a first leaf (side wall 2), rotatably connected to the hinge (Fig. 5, articulation device 4 and side wall 2 are rotatably connected); and a second leaf (door 3), rotatably connected to the hinge (Fig. 5, articulation device 4 and door 3 are rotatably connected); wherein the first leaf (side wall 2) is slidably connected to the second leaf (door 3) by the hinge (Figs. 5E and 5F show door 3 sliding toward side wall 2 via the articulation body 4), when unfolded, the leaves have a closed state (Fig. 5F shows unfolded, locked position) and a foldable state (Fig. 5E shows unlocked, foldable position), in the closed state, the second leaf slides to a first position relative to the first leaf (Figs. 5E and 5F, door 3 slides toward side wall 2 into the first, locked position), and the first leaf and the second leaf are closed together (Fig. 5F door 3 and side wall 2 abut each other), and in the foldable state, the second leaf slides to a second position relative to the first leaf (Fig. 5E, door 3 is slid away from side wall 2 into the second, unlocked position), and the first leaf and the second leaf are separated and foldable about the hinge (Figs. 5A-5E show door 3 and side wall 2 are separated and foldable).
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 hinges of Zhang such that they are articulation devices set within the table boards, such as taught by Dent, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to easily secure the table leaves in a sturdy, unfolded, locked position when in use, and to further allow the table leaves to be easily folded into a compact configuration for storage. Note that the table boards of Zhang in view of Dent would maintain the ability to support puzzle pieces in the unfolded position, in either the locked or unlocked positions of Dent, since Zhang may be floor supported as further discussed in the Response to Arguments section below.
With respect to claim 2, Zhang in view of Dent discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Dent) further discloses a first rotation shaft (Fig. 5, first hinge pin 8); and a second rotation shaft (second hinge pin 9), wherein the hinge comprises a hinge bracket (articulation device comprises main body 7), a first end of the first rotation shaft is connected to the hinge bracket (Fig. 3, a first end of first hinge pin 8 is connected to main body 7), and a second end of the first rotation shaft is connected to a side wall of the first table-top (Fig. 6, a second end of first hinge pin 8 is connected to wall portion 21 of side wall 2/left table board 1 of modified Hong), so that the first table-top is rotatably connected to the hinge bracket through the first rotation shaft (modified table board 1 of Hong rotates relative to main body 7 of Dent), a first end of the second rotation shaft is connected to the hinge bracket (Fig. 3, a first end of second hinge pin 9 is connected to main body 7), a side wall of the second table-top has a slide groove (Figs. 5 and 6, guiding groove 17), a second end of the second rotation shaft is located in the slide groove (Fig. 6 shows a second end of second hinge pin 9 in guiding groove 17) and is rotatable and slidable relative to the second table-top (second hinge pin 9 rotates and slides relative to door 3/right table board 2 of modified Hong), so that the second table-top is rotatably and slidably connected to the hinge bracket through the second rotation shaft (modified table board 2 of Hong rotates and slides relative to main body 7 of Dent).
With respect to claim 11, Zhang in view of Dent discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein a first table-top (Zhang, left table board 1 as modified by Dent) comprises a first side wall and a second side wall (see annotated Fig. 4 of Zhang below, first and second side walls), and the second table-top (right table board 2 as modified by Dent) comprises a fifth side wall and a sixth side wall (see modified Fig. 4 of Zhang below, fifth and sixth side walls); a first docking slot is formed at a connection between the first side wall and the second side wall (see annotated Fig. 8 of Dent below, first docking slot); a second docking slot is formed at a connection between the sixth side wall and the fifth side wall (see annotated Fig. 8 of Dent below, second docking slot); and a portion of the hinge is disposed in the first docking slot (first portion of articulation device 4 is located within first docking slot), and another portion of the hinge is disposed in the second docking slot (second portion of articulation device 4 is located within second docking slot), so as to connect the first table-top and the second table-top (Zhang, table boards 1 and 2 connected via articulation device 4 of Dent).
PNG
media_image5.png
639
617
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
610
652
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figs. 4 and 8
With respect to claim 12, Zhang in view of Dent discloses the limitation set forth above. Dent further discloses wherein a reinforcing structure (see annotated Fig. 8 below, reinforcing ribs) is provided in at least one of the following ways providing a reinforcing rib on the slot wall of the second docking slot (annotated Fig. 8 shows reinforcing ribs are provided on the walls of the docking slot), or increasing a wall thickness of the second docking slot to be greater than a wall thickness of the sixth side wall and greater than a wall thickness of the fifth side wall.
PNG
media_image7.png
610
624
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when modifying the table of Zhang to include the articulation device, as taught by the claim 1 rejection above, to further include the reinforcing ribs in order to strengthen the open area surrounding the articulation device.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. Pat. No. 11819123) in view of Hong (U.S. Pat. No. 7976034) in further view of De Luca (U.S. Pub. No. 20220048322).
With respect to claim 20, Zhang in view of Hong discloses the table-top foldable table according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above) except at least one wheel, wherein back sides of the first and second table-tops are provided with at least one mounting cavity, and the at least one wheel is installed in the at least one mounting cavity.
De Luca discloses at least one wheel (Fig. 1, rolling elements 3), wherein the backsides of a body is provided with at least one mounting cavity (perimeter of underside 41a of anchoring body 4 is provided with a plurality of seats 42), and the at least one wheel is installed in the at least one mounting cavity (Figs. 2 and 3, a rolling element 3 is installed in each seat 42).
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 table of Zhang in view of Hong such that the underside perimeter includes a plurality of seats with rolling elements, as taught by De Luca, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to easily move or reposition the unfolded table across a floor surface.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neunzert (U.S. Pat. No. 7735431) in view of Diego (U.S. Pat. No. 4611945).
With respect to claim 1, Neunzert discloses a table-top foldable table, comprising: a hinge (Fig. 2, hinge assemblies 50a, 50b attached to side rails 44a, 44b); a first table-top (Fig. 3, first table-top section 32a), rotatably connected to the hinge (first table-top section 32a is rotatably connected to a second/right portion of hinge assemblies 50a, 50b via a first/left portion of the hinge assemblies); and a second table-top (second table top section 32b), rotatably connected to the hinge (second table-top section 32b is rotatably connected to a first/left portion of hinge assemblies 50a, 50b via a second/right portion of the hinge assemblies) when the table-tops are unfolded and facing upward (Fig. 1, table-top section 32a, 32, are unfolded and facing upward), both the first table-top and the second table-top are configured to support puzzle pieces thereon (table-top section 32a, 32b are planar flat surfaces and can therefore support puzzle pieces. Note that the table boards may be unfolded and floor-supported before the legs are deployed from a collapsed position as shown in Fig. 4 to the extended position of Fig. 1).
Neunzert fails to disclose wherein the first table-top is slidably connected to the second table-top by the hinge, when unfolded, the table-tops have a closed state and a foldable state, in the closed state, the second table-top slides to a first position relative to the first table-top, and the first table-top and the second table-top are closed together, and in the foldable state, the second table-top slides to a second position relative to the first table-top, and the first table-top and the second table-top are separated and foldable about the hinge.
Diego discloses a hinge (Fig. 2, linking element 18); a first structure (tubular section 10), rotatably connected to the hinge (tubular section 10 pivots at pivot pin 14a); and a second structure (tubular section 12), rotatably connected to the hinge (tubular section 12 pivots at pivot pin 16a); wherein the first structure (10) is slidably connected to the second structure (12) by the hinge (18), when unfolded, the structures (10 and 12) have a closed state (Fig. 1 shows closed state) and a foldable state (Fig. 2 shows foldable state), in the closed state (Fig. 1), the second structure slides to a first position relative to the first structure (10 and 12 are slid toward each other in a first position), and the first structure and the second structure are closed together (10 and 12 abut each other), and in the foldable state (Fig, 2), the second structure slides to a second position relative to the first structure (Fig. 2 shows 10 and 12 are slid away from each other), and the first structure and the second structure are separated and foldable about the hinge (Fig. 3 shows 10 and 12 separated and folding about linking element 18).
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 table side rails of Neunzert by replacing the hinges with linking elements, such as taught by Diego, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to easily secure the table leaves in a sturdy, unfolded, locked position and to further allow the table leaves to be easily folded into a compact configuration for storage. Note that the table top sections of Neunzert in view of Diego would maintain the ability to support puzzle pieces in the unfolded position, in either the locked or unlocked positions of Diego, since Neunzert may be floor supported as further discussed in the Response to Arguments section below.
With respect to claim 4, Neunzert in view of Diego discloses the limitation set forth above. Diego further discloses wherein the hinge comprises a hinge bracket (linking element 18 is a bracket), and the hinge bracket has a locking mechanism (Fig. 4, locking pins 24 and 26 within slotted holes 20 and 22 of linking element 18); the locking mechanism comprises a pin (locking pins 24, 26 are pins) and is configured to have a locked state (Figs. 1 and 5, locking pins 24, 26 are fully inserted into linking element 18 in a locked state) and an unlocked state (Figs. 2 and 8 locking pins 24, 26 are pulled outwardly form linking element 18 in an unlocked state); in the unlocked state, the locking mechanism (24, 26) allows the second table-top to slide between the first position and the second position (Col. 4, lines 12-21, “By pulling the respective protruding head 24b, 26b of the locking pin 24, 26 outwardly… the two tubular sections 10 and 12 will be unlocked from each other, and can be pulled apart”); and in the closed state, the locking mechanism is allowed to enter the locked state to lock the second table-top at the first position (Col. 3, lines 45-50, “For purposes of locking the tubular sections 10, 12 in an axially aligned, abutting position as shown in FIG. 1, the locking pins 24 and 26 normally pass through the slots of each linking flange 18b, 18c at the ends thereof furthest from the central cylindrical portion 18a of the linking element 18”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when modifying the table side rails of Neunzert to include linking elements of Diego, as taught in the claim 1 rejection above, to further include the locking pins in order to secure the left and right table top sections in an unfolded and usable position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 5 would be allowable for disclosing a first end of the pin comprises a knob, and the knob is configured to rotate to drive the pin to make a linear motion in an axial direction relative to the pin hole, so that a second end of the pin enters or exits the limiting portion, thereby enabling the locking mechanism to switch between the locked state and the unlocked state. Neunzert in view of Diego fails to disclose a knob capable of rotating to drive the pin to make a linear motion in an axial direction to the pin hole. The locking pins 24, 26 of Diego each have a head 24b, 26b however these heads are for gripping and pulling the pins outwardly to unlock/fold the tubular sections. The rotation of the heads 24b, 26b would not result in an axial movement of the pin into or out of the pin hole. Based on the configuration, it would be improper hindsight to further modify the combination such that the pins have a knob capable of rotating to drive a linear motion of the pin.
Claim 6 would be allowable for depending from claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Zhang in view of Hong
Regarding Applicant's argument on page 18 that Zhang is silent on the new limitation "when the table-tops are unfolded and facing upward, both the first table-top and the second table-top are configured to support puzzle pieces thereon", the Examiner notes that the table boards 1 and 2 of Zhang are fully capable of supporting puzzle pieces. When moved from a folded position of Fig. 5 to an unfolded position, the upward-facing surface is capable of supporting puzzle pieces by virtue of being a table that supports items above the ground. While Zhang alone does not disclose the two-state unfolded position, Zhang in view of Hong does, as mapped in the claim 1 rejection above.
Applicant further argues that Zhang provides no teaching or suggestion that the table should be modified to include the two-state unfolded configuration as taught by Hong. The Examiner takes the position that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the simple hinge of Zhang with the pivoting structure of Hong in order to improve the load-bearing capacity of the table. The structure of the hinge of Zhang, as shown in Figs. 2 and 4 is not rigidly locked and is therefore easily foldable and would be subject to unexpected folding in the instance that a heavily object was placed at the center of the table. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use a hinging structure with a reinforced latching or locking system, such as that of Hong, in order to improve the capabilities of the table and prevent folding during use. By Applicant's own admission, the pivoting structure of Hong is designed to support the dynamic load of a person using a skateboard, therefore it would provide sufficient support to items such as puzzle pieces.
Regarding Applicant's argument that the foldable skateboard of Hong is nonanalogous art to the claimed invention, citing MPEP 2141.01(a); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, (Fed. Cir. 2004), the Examiner takes the position that Hong satisfies the conditions of analogous art because (1) the reference (Hong) is from the same field endeavor as the claimed invention by virtue of being a substantially planar support surface formed by two hinging planar surfaces that fold compactly for storage and transportation and expand and connect together for supporting weight; additionally, (2) the reference (Hong) is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor as stated in the specification of the instant application "to provide a table-top foldable table that facilitates the folding of the table-top, has a stable structure, and improves the user experience" (Paragraph 0004). The problem to be solved is an improvement of the folding or hinge structure of two folding planar surfaces, therefore the solution is related to hinges, which are not limited to hinges on tables. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a hinge outside of the table arts, as long as the hinge can support two planar surfaces. Hong's pivoting structure is a hinge that allows two substantially planar surfaces to fold for "being compactly collapsed to be stored in small spaces" while maintaining the ability to support large amounts of weight when unfolded (Col. 3, lines 63-67) and is therefore pertinent to the problem to be solved by the instant application.
Applicant argues on pages 19 and 21 that the problem addressed by the present invention is "to provide a foldable table that maintains a supportive surface for puzzle pieces when the first table-top and the second table-top are closed together or separated during folding, thereby allowing a user to assemble the puzzle pieces in different unfolded states" however, the Examiner notes that maintaining a supportive surface for puzzle pieces in the two unfolded states ("closed state" of Fig. 4A and "foldable state" of Fig. 2B) is not contemplated in the specification. In fact, the specification of the instant application specifically states that foldable tables with gaps (such as the gap between the two table tops in the "foldable state") create a risk of puzzle pieces falling into the gap, affecting the user's game experience (Paragraph 0033-0035). The ability to use the table in both the closed and foldable states is merely a result of the table being floor-supported.
Applicant further argues that Hong's separated configuration is a non-use configuration not meant to support the weight of a person. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is the combination of Zhang in view of Hong that would result in a useable table in both the closed and foldable states. The table of Zhang can be floor supported as shown in Fig. 5, with the legs removed. The legs are stored inside of the table, therefore the table would have to be unfolded before even being able to access the legs. The unfolded, legless table would be supported on a floor and therefore capable of supporting puzzle pieces whether in the closed/locked state or the open/unlocked state of Hong's pivoting structure. Therefore, Zhang in view of Hong teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 19, Zhang in view of Hong teaches all the limitations for the same reasons as above.
Zhang in view of Dent
Applicant argues on pages 21-22 that Dent fails to teach a table-top configured to support puzzle pieces, and the two-state configuration of a table. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is the combination of Zhang in view of Dent that teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mapped in the claim 1 rejection above. The hinge of Zhang is used to fold and unfold two planar surfaces into a parallel and coplanar position. Similarly, the hinge of Dent is used to fold, unfold, and rigidly lock two planar surfaces into a parallel and coplanar position. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to substitute the known hinge of Zhang with another known hinge of Dent to obtain predictable results. There would be no unexpected or critical results from using the hinge of Dent in place of the hinge of Zhang. Therefore, Zhang in view of Dent teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Neunzert in view of Diego
Regarding Applicant's argument on pages 22-23 that Neunzert fails to teach the new limitation "when the table-tops are unfolded and facing upward, both the first table-top and the second table-top are configured to support puzzle pieces thereon", the Examiner notes that the table sections 32a, 32b of Neunzert are fully capable of supporting puzzle pieces. When moved from a folded position of Fig. 4 to an unfolded position, the upward-facing surface is capable of supporting puzzle pieces by virtue of being a table that supports items above the ground. While Neunzert alone does not disclose the two-state unfolded position, Neunzert in view of Diego does as mapped in the claim 1 rejection above.
Applicant further argues that Diego is nonanalogous art, however the Examiner takes the position that Diego satisfies the conditions of analogous art because the reference (Diego) is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor as stated in the specification of the instant application "to provide a table-top foldable table that facilitates the folding of the table-top, has a stable structure, and improves the user experience" (Paragraph 0004). The problem to be solved is an improvement of the folding or hinge structure of two folding planar surfaces, therefore the solution is related to hinges, which are not limited to hinges on tables. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a hinge outside of the table arts, as long as the hinge can support two planar surfaces.
Diego's articulating joint is a hinge that allows two tubular structures (such as the tubular side rails 46a, 46b of Neunzert's table) to fold or collapse to reduce size for portability or storage (Col. 1, lines 17-22) and is therefore pertinent to the problem to be solved by the instant application.
Applicant further argues that Diego’s two tubular members, when separated, do not have load bearing function when separated. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is the combination of Neunzert in view of Diego that teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Since Neunzert can be unfolded and floor supported before the legs are deployed, the table sections 32a, 32b of Neunzert can support the load of puzzle pieces whether in the closed state (Fig. 1) or the open state (Fig. 2) of Diego's articulating joint. Therefore, Neunzert in view of Diego teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Drawings
37 C.F.C. §1.83(a) states “the drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box).”
Claim 3: Per 37 C.F.C. §1.83(a) the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The slide groove included on the hinge bracket as claimed would operate in a mechanically different manner than the assembly of the hinge bracket and table slide groove as shown in the Figures. Therefore, the feature must be shown.
Claims 12 and 17: Per 37 C.F.C. §1.83(a) even if a reinforcing rib/increased wall thickness is a conventional feature, it should be illustrated in the drawing in at least the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation.
Claims 14 and 18: Per 37 C.F.C. §1.83(a), the first and second locking mechanism should be illustrated in the drawing in at least the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation.
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 ELIZABETH IRENE ARTALEJO whose telephone number is (571)272-4292. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6.
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.
/E.I.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3637 /DANIEL J TROY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights