DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Examiner suggests the following title: --MULTIDIRECTIONAL TILTING AND LIFTING MECHANISM WITH LOCKING HINGE--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 1 and 3 be found allowable, claims 18-21 will be objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof (claims 18 and 20-21 are substantial duplicates of claim 1; claim 19 is a substantial duplicate of claim 3). When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. MPEP § 608.01(m). Examiner suggests canceling claims 18-21.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 11-13 and 20-21 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 11 recites the limitation “wherein the locking member is a fork that is linearly slideable into and out of a respective receiver to transition the hinge between the catch state and the release state.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, is this fork the same as or in addition to the “bridge and two cylindrical tongs” recited in claim 1 (from which claim 11 depends), which also performs the recited “linearly slideable” function? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claims 12-13 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 11.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “a multi-dimensional hinge disposed at each corner of the base frame and the deck frame, each multi- dimensional hinge selectively engageable to allow the deck frame to tilt relative to the base frame in at least two-degrees of freedom.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, are these multi-dimensional hinges the same as or in addition to the “four multi-dimensional hinges” recited in claim 1 (from which claim 11 depends)? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claim 21 is rejected on the basis it incorporates this limitation of claim 20.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Johannesson in view of Hall, AAPA, and Kaneyuki
Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15, 17-21, 30-31, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over WO 03020566 A1 (“Johannesson”) in view of US 20020003341 A1 (“Hall”), Applicant’s admitted prior art (Spec. Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0004-0005, 0023) (“AAPA”), and JP H04349043 A (“Kaneyuki”) (citations are to the translation filed herewith).
Johannesson pertains to a lifting device to raise, lower, and tilt objects (Abstr.; Figs. 2-5, 6A-D, 7). AAPA pertains to a lifting device to raise, lower, and tilt objects (Spec. Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0004-0005, 0023). Kaneyuki pertains to a lifting device to raise, lower, and tilt objects (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5). These references are in the same field of endeavor. Hall pertains to a ball and socket joint and locking mechanism (Abstr.; Fig. 2) and is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it involves the design of a ball and socket joint, with a locking mechanism, that allows for freedom of movement when coupled (e.g., when used as a trailer coupler).
Regarding claim 1, Johannesson discloses a tilting mechanism (Figs. 2-5, 6A-D, 7, tilting mechanism 1) comprising:
a base having a rectangular base frame having four corners (Figs. 2-5, 7; p. 4, lines 14-22, p. 5, lines 31-33, base 8 having a rectangular base frame with four corners);
a tilting deck having a rectangular deck frame (Figs. 2-5, 7; p. 4, lines 14-22, p. 5, lines 31-33, tilting deck 5 having a rectangular deck frame);
four multi-dimensional hinges with one hinge positioned adjacent each corner of the base frame and the deck frame, each hinge comprising a globe and a receiver with the globe or the receiver secured to the base frame or the deck frame and the other of the globe or the receiver secured to the other of the base frame or the deck frame (Figs. 2-5, 7, globe (ball) 9a and receiver (socket) 9b at each corner; p. 5, lines 17-19, “a ball joint 9 is arranged at the respective corner between the frame 5 and the supporting frame 8, comprising a ball 9a connected with the supporting frame 8 and a corresponding ball glove 9[b] arranged at the frame 5”),
and a lifting member secured at a...center of the base frame and a...center of the deck frame (Figs. 2-5, 7; p. 4, lines 14-25, p. 5, lines 17-23, lifting members 3 secured at center of base frame 8 and deck frame 5; Examiner notes that the limitation “lifting member” does not invoke interpretation under § 112(f) as the term has an ordinary and customary meaning to person of ordinary skill in the art and denotes the type of structural device that includes linkages, mechanical lifts, pneumatic lifts, and electrical lifts),
the lifting member configured to urge the deck frame away from the base frame such that selective engagement allows for tilting of the deck frame relative to the base frame in at least four directions (Figs. 2-5, 6A-D, 7, hinge 9a/9b at each corner is capable of being selectively engaged (e.g., when ball 9a fits inside socket 9b), which allows for tilting as recited; p. 6, lines 4-6, “since all four sides of the cable lift 1 have ball joints 9 and lifting units 3, a loaded container 4 can be rotated/wobbled in four directions, i.e. orthogonally to the four sides of the cable lift”).
Johannesson does not explicitly disclose:
each hinge further comprising a locking member such that each hinge has a catch state in which the locking member secures the respective globe within the respective receiver and a release state in which the locking member allows the respective globe to enter and exit the respective receiver;
each locking member including a bridge and two cylindrical tongs that extend from the bridge, each cylindrical tong being linearly translatable into and out of the respective receiver to selectively secure the respective globe within the respective receiver;
a lifting member secured at a geometric center of the base frame and a geometric center of the deck frame.
However, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious this claim.
Hall discloses:
each hinge further comprising a locking member such that each hinge has a catch state in which the locking member secures the respective globe within the respective receiver and a release state in which the locking member allows the respective globe to enter and exit the respective receiver (Figs. 2, 3, 4, locking member 48 has a catch state (Fig. 3) and a release state (Fig. 4) to lock and release globe/ball 24; Examiner notes that the limitation “locking member” does not invoke interpretation under § 112(f) as the term has an ordinary and customary meaning to person of ordinary skill in the art and denotes the type of structural device that includes locks, tabs, and bars that are arranged to provide a friction or interference fit);
each locking member including a bridge and two...tongs that extend from the bridge, each...tong being linearly translatable into and out of the respective receiver to selectively secure the respective globe within the respective receiver (Figs. 2, 3, 4; ¶¶ 0053-0056, locking member 48 includes bridge (at reference 48 in Fig. 2) and two tongs (at reference 48 in Fig. 3), where the tongs are linearly translatable as recited).
AAPA discloses:
a tilting mechanism (Spec. Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0004-0005, 0023, device 910) comprising:
a base having a rectangular base frame having four corners (Spec. Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0004-0005, 0023, base 915 having a rectangular base frame with four corners);
a tilting deck having a rectangular deck frame (Spec. Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0004-0005, 0023, tilting deck 920 having a rectangular deck frame);
and a lifting member secured at a geometric center of the base frame and a geometric center of the deck frame (Spec. Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0004-0005, 0023, lifting member 930 is secured at a geometric center of the base frame 915 and tilting deck 920).
Kaneyuki discloses:
a tilting mechanism (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5, device as shown) comprising:
a base having...four corners (Figs. 1-5, base 10 having four corners (corners at reference 2));
a tilting deck having a rectangular deck frame (Figs. 1-5, tilting deck 1 having a rectangular deck frame as shown);
four multi-dimensional hinges with one hinge positioned adjacent each corner of the base frame and the deck frame, each hinge comprising a globe and a receiver with the globe or the receiver secured to the base frame or the deck frame and the other of the globe or the receiver secured to the other of the base frame or the deck frame (Figs. 1-5, four hinges 2 at each corner, having globe (ball) 24 (secured to the base frame) and receiver (socket) 20 (secured to the deck frame)),
each hinge further comprising a locking member such that each hinge has a catch state in which the locking member secures the respective globe within the respective receiver and a release state in which the locking member allows the respective globe to enter and exit the respective receiver (Figs. 1-5; ¶¶ 0008-0016, hinge 2 having locking member 22 fitting into hole 28, which provides for a catch state and release state as recited (locking member 22 secures globe 24 inside receiver 20 when the locking member 22 is engaged with hole 28));
each locking member including a bridge and two cylindrical tongs that extend from the bridge, each cylindrical tong being linearly translatable into and out of the respective receiver to selectively secure the respective globe within the respective receiver (Figs. 1-5; ¶¶ 0008-0016, locking member 22 includes a bridge (e.g., the portion of element 22 not inserted into hole 28) and a cylindrical tong (e.g., the portion of element 22 that inserts into hole 28), where the cylindrical tong performs the recited function; see discussion below re “two cylindrical tongs”);
a lifting member secured at a geometric center of the base frame and a geometric center of the deck frame (Figs. 1-5, lifting member 4 at the geometric center of the base frame and deck frame),
the lifting member configured to urge the deck frame away from the base frame such that selective engagement allows for tilting of the deck frame relative to the base frame in at least four directions (Figs. 1-5; ¶¶ 0008-0016, selective engagement of the hinges 2 allows for tilting of the deck frame relative to the base frame in three directions (left side, right side, back side)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Hall with Johannesson by modifying the hinge assembly 9a/9b of Johannesson to include the Hall locking member 48, including the bridge and two tongs (and related parts, e.g., 50, 52, 54, 58, 74). This would have been obvious because locking member 48, as taught by Hall, is configured to lock the ball 24 (analogous to ball 9a of Johannesson) inside the socket 36 (analogous to socket 9b of Johannesson) (Hall ¶¶ 0053-0056). A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to improve safety, e.g., by preventing the accidental slippage of ball 9a out of socket 9b (Johannesson appears to be silent concerning a locking device for preventing ball 9a from exiting socket 9b). For example, when the Johannesson device is tilted beyond certain angles, the “displacement protection 12” may not be sufficient to prevent the lateral displacement of frame 5 relative to frame 8 (see Fig. 4).
With respect to the “two cylindrical tongs” limitation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Kaneyuki with the Johannesson/Hall combination to modify the two tongs of Hall (which are not cylindrical) to two cylindrical tongs. Kaneyuki has many similarities with Johannesson and Hall as indicated above, and teaches the use of four corner hinges, each with a single cylindrical tong for securing a ball 27 inside socket 20, in order to accomplish the function of tilting the deck frame in several different directions depending on the selective engagement of the hinges (Kaneyuki ¶¶ 0008-0016). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the use of two cylindrical tongs (as opposed to flat, rectangular tongs as taught by Hall) would provide for a stronger lock (due to the difference between the cross section of the cylindrical tong of Kaneyuki and the cross section of the flat, rectangular tong of Hall (given the same tong width/diameter)) while minimizing surface friction to allow for smooth and efficient tilting (each of the cylindrical tongs when engaged would at most contact the ball at a single point).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of AAPA and/or Kaneyuki with the Johannesson/Hall/Kaneyuki combination by modifying the placement of the lifting members 3 of Johannesson such that one of the lifting members 3 is at the geometric center of the base frame 8 and deck frame 5 (and adding a contact point on the deck frame 5 to correspond to this geometric central lifting member if necessary). This would have been obvious because Johannesson already discloses two lifting members 3 along a centerline of the tilting mechanism (Fig. 7), and the reduction of those two lifting members 3 to a single lifting member located between them at the geometric center of the tilting mechanism would allow for a reduction in cost (while still preserving the same overall lifting and tilting functionality), especially when the application does not warrant multiple lifters (e.g., a heavy lifting capacity is not needed).
Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious the tilting mechanism of claim 1 as applied above. Johannesson further discloses wherein the tilting deck is configured to support a weighing platform, the weighing platform configured to determine an amount of fluid disposed within one or more containers disposed on the weighing platform (Fig. 2-5, 6A-D, 7, tilting deck 5 is capable of supporting a weighing platform, and all weighing platforms are capable of determining the amount of fluid in a container by determining the weight of the container with fluid versus the container without fluid; Examiner notes that the “weighing platform”, the “amount of fluid”, and the “one or more containers” are not positively claimed; Examiner notes that this limitation includes a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)).
Regarding claim 3, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious the tilting mechanism of claim 1 as applied above. Johannesson further discloses wherein the lifting member is a lifting bag that expands in response to receiving fluid therein (Figs. 2-5, 6A-D, 7; p. 4, lines 22-23, lifting members 3 are pneumatic, expandable bags, “Preferably, the lifting units 3 are pneumatically driven”).
Regarding claim 4, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious the tilting mechanism of claim 3 as applied above. Johannesson further discloses wherein the lifting bag is an airbag that expands in response to receiving gas therein (Figs. 2-5, 6A-D, 7; p. 4, lines 22-23, lifting members 3 are pneumatic, expandable bags, “Preferably, the lifting units 3 are pneumatically driven”).
Regarding claim 5, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious the tilting mechanism of claim 3 as applied above. Johannesson further discloses wherein the lifting bag is in fluid communication with a pump, the pump providing fluid to expand the lifting bag (Figs. 2-5, 6A-D, 7; p. 4, lines 22-23, lifting members 3 are pneumatic, expandable bags, “Preferably, the lifting units 3 are pneumatically driven”, a pump in fluid communication with the lifting units 3 is inherently disclosed as such a device is required in order to operate/expand the pneumatic lifting units 3; Examiner notes that the “pump” and the “fluid” are not positively claimed).
Regarding claim 6, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious the tilting mechanism of claim 1 as applied above. Johannesson further discloses wherein the tilting deck has a neutral position when the lifting member is in a non-extended position in which each globe is disposed in a respective one of the receivers (Fig. 2-5, 6A-D, 7, “neutral position” shown where lifting units 3 are not extended and each globe 9a is disposed in its receiver 9b; Examiner interprets “neutral position” to mean a level position, a rest position, and/or a default position (Spec. ¶¶ 0067-0068)).
Regarding claim 7, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious the tilting mechanism of claim 1 as applied above. Johannesson (as modified by Hall, AAPA, and Kaneyuki) further discloses wherein the tilting deck has a first tilted position in which a first hinge and a fourth hinge of the four hinges are in the catch state and a second hinge and a third hinge of the four hinges are in the release state such that the tilting deck is tilted about a first tilting axis defined through the first hinge and the fourth hinge in response to extension of the lifting member (Figs. 2-5, 6A, 7, first hinge (elements 9a/9b on left side (visible)) and fourth hinge (elements 9a/9b on left side, behind (not shown, see Fig. 7)) are in the catch state, the second hinge (elements 9a/9b on right side (visible)) and third hinge (elements 9a/9b on right side, behind (not shown, see Fig. 7)) are in the release state, resulting tilt is about an axis through the first and fourth hinges; note that the Johannesson hinges 9a/9b have been modified by Hall and Kaneyuki to have a locking member, as discussed in claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious the tilting mechanism of claim 7 as applied above. Johannesson (as modified by Hall, AAPA, and Kaneyuki) further discloses wherein the tilting deck has a second tilted position in which the first hinge and the fourth hinge are in the release state and the second hinge and the third hinge are in the catch state such that the tilting deck is tilted about a second tilting axis defined through the second hinge and the third hinge in response to extension of the lifting member (Figs. 2-5, 6C, 7, for the tilt as shown in Fig. 6C, the second hinge and third hinge are in a catch state, and the first hinge and fourth hinge are in a release state, the resulting tilt is about an axis through the second and third hinges).
Regarding claim 10, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious the tilting mechanism of claim 9 as applied above. Johannesson (as modified by Hall, AAPA, and Kaneyuki) further discloses wherein the tilting deck has a third tilted position in which the first hinge and the second hinge are in the catch state and the third hinge and the fourth hinge are in the release state such that the tilting deck is tilted about a third tilting axis defined through the first hinge and the second hinge in response to extension of the lifting member (Figs. 2-5, 6D, 7, for the tilt as shown in Fig. 6D, the first hinge and second hinge are in a catch state, and the third hinge and fourth hinge are in a release state, the resulting tilt is about an axis through the first and second hinges).
Regarding claim 11, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious the tilting mechanism of claim 1 as applied above. Hall further discloses wherein the locking member is a fork that is linearly slideable into and out of a respective receiver to transition the hinge between the catch state and the release state (Figs. 2, 3, 4, locking member 48 is a fork with two tongs (one tong shown near reference 48 in Fig. 3) that linearly slides into and out of socket 36 between the catch and release states).
The obviousness rationale for claim 11 is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious the tilting mechanism of claim 11 as applied above. Hall further discloses a linear actuator, a solenoid, or a pneumatic actuator (Figs. 2, 3, 4; ¶ 0045, “Remote control assembly 98 generally includes a motor 100 or other device such as but not limited to an air cylinder, solenoid or vacuum cylinder which mechanically lifts pin 76”).
Johannesson, Hall, AAPA, and Kaneyuki do not explicitly disclose wherein the fork is linearly actuated by a linear actuator, a solenoid, or a pneumatic actuator. However, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious this claim.
Hall discloses a linear actuator, a solenoid, or a pneumatic actuator that moves pin 76 in a direction perpendicular to the motion of the fork (Figs. 2, 3, 4; ¶ 0045, “Remote control assembly 98 generally includes a motor 100 or other device such as but not limited to an air cylinder, solenoid or vacuum cylinder which mechanically lifts pin 76”).
The obviousness rationale for claim 12 is the same as for claim 11 with the addition that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination by placing motor 100 inside the housing 34, and attaching the motor (rotated 90 degrees) to fork 48, to directly actuate and lock the fork 48 instead of using pin 76 to lock the movement of fork 48. This would have been obvious because under some circumstances, it may be difficult to uncouple ball 24 from socket 36 because the fork 48 cannot be retracted (e.g., due to dirt, rust, excessive friction), and this modification makes it possible to decouple ball 24 from socket 36 (using the modified linear actuator) without manual intervention by the operator (Hall ¶ 0021, “Yet another object of the present invention to provide a new and improved trailer coupler which is remotely actuated to release the coupler off the receiver without the need of the operator to physically access the coupler.”). Further, this modification would result in fewer parts (e.g., pin assembly 74, tab 58, and spring 60 are not needed and motor 100 could provide adequate force to lock fork 48 in the catch state) that could all be contained in the housing 34 and protected from the elements (e.g., no pin 74 that is exposed to rain, snow, etc.).
Regarding claim 13, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious the tilting mechanism of claim 11 as applied above. Hall further discloses wherein the hinge includes a biasing member that urges the fork into or out of the receiver (Figs. 2, 3, 4, springs 52 and 54 urge locking member 48 into the receiver towards the catch position; Examiner notes that the limitation “biasing member” does not invoke interpretation under § 112(f) as the term has an ordinary and customary meaning to person of ordinary skill in the art and denotes the type of structural device that includes springs).
The obviousness rationale for claim 13 is the same as for claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, Johannesson discloses a multi-dimensional hinge (Figs. 2-5, 7, hinge including globe (ball) 9a and receiver (socket) 9b) comprising:
a globe; a receiver configured to selectively receive the globe (Figs. 2-5, 7, globe (ball) 9a and receiver (socket) 9b at each corner; p. 5, lines 17-19, “a ball joint 9 is arranged at the respective corner between the frame 5 and the supporting frame 8, comprising a ball 9a connected with the supporting frame 8 and a corresponding ball glove 9[b] arranged at the frame 5”),
the receiver movable in at least two degrees of freedom relative to the globe when the globe is secured within the receiver (Figs. 2-5, 6A-D, 7, hinge 9a/9b at each corner, where the socket 9b is capable of being moved in at least two degrees of freedom as recited when ball 9a fits inside socket 9b; p. 6, lines 4-6, “since all four sides of the cable lift 1 have ball joints 9 and lifting units 3, a loaded container 4 can be rotated/wobbled in four directions, i.e. orthogonally to the four sides of the cable lift”).
Johannesson does not explicitly disclose:
a locking member linearly translatable between a catch position in which the globe is secured within the receiver and a release position in which the globe is allowed to enter and exit the receiver,
the locking member having a bridge and two cylindrical tongs that extend from the bridge, each cylindrical tong being linearly translatable into and out of the receiver to selectively secure the globe within the receiver.
However, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious this claim.
Hall discloses:
a locking member linearly translatable between a catch position in which the globe is secured within the receiver and a release position in which the globe is allowed to enter and exit the receiver, the receiver movable in at least two degrees of freedom relative to the globe when the globe is secured within the receiver (Figs. 2, 3, 4; ¶¶ 0053-0056, locking member 48 has a catch state (Fig. 3) and a release state (Fig. 4) to lock and release globe/ball 24, where the locking member 48 is are linearly translatable as recited, and the receiver 32 is capable of being moved in at least two degrees of freedom as recited; Examiner notes that the limitation “locking member” does not invoke interpretation under § 112(f) as the term has an ordinary and customary meaning to person of ordinary skill in the art and denotes the type of structural device that includes locks, tabs, and bars that are arranged to provide a friction or interference fit);
the locking member having a bridge and two...tongs that extend from the bridge, each...tong being linearly translatable into and out of the receiver to selectively secure the globe within the receiver (Figs. 2, 3, 4; ¶¶ 0053-0056, locking member 48 includes bridge (at reference 48 in Fig. 2) and two tongs (at reference 48 in Fig. 3), where the tongs are linearly translatable as recited).
Kaneyuki discloses:
a multi-dimensional hinge (Figs. 1-5, hinges 2) comprising:
a globe; a receiver configured to selectively receive the globe (Figs. 1-5, four hinges 2 at each corner, having globe (ball) 24 (secured to the base frame) and receiver (socket) 20 (secured to the deck frame)),
a locking member linearly translatable between a catch position in which the globe is secured within the receiver and a release position in which the globe is allowed to enter and exit the receiver, the receiver movable in at least two degrees of freedom relative to the globe when the globe is secured within the receiver (Figs. 1-5; ¶¶ 0008-0016, hinge 2 having locking member 22 fitting into hole 28, which provides for a catch state and release state as recited (locking member 22 secures globe 24 inside receiver 20 when the locking member 22 is engaged with hole 28), where the receiver 20 is capable of being moved in at least two degrees of freedom as recited);
the locking member having a bridge and two cylindrical tongs that extend from the bridge, each cylindrical tong being linearly translatable into and out of the receiver to selectively secure the globe within the receiver (e.g., the portion of element 22 not inserted into hole 28) and a cylindrical tong (e.g., the portion of element 22 that inserts into hole 28), where the cylindrical tong performs the recited function; see discussion below re “two cylindrical tongs”).
The obviousness rationale for claim 15 is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious the tilting mechanism of claim 15 as applied above. Hall further discloses a biasing member configured to urge the locking member towards the catch position or the release position (Figs. 2, 3, 4, springs 52 and 54 urge locking member 48 into the receiver towards the catch position; Examiner notes that the limitation “biasing member” does not invoke interpretation under § 112(f) as the term has an ordinary and customary meaning to person of ordinary skill in the art and denotes the type of structural device that includes springs).
The obviousness rationale for claim 17 is the same as for claim 15.
Regarding claim 19, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious the tilting mechanism of claim 18 as applied above. Johannesson further discloses wherein the lifting member is an extendable bag disposed between the base frame and the deck frame (Figs. 2-5, 6A-D, 7; p. 4, lines 22-23, lifting members 3 are pneumatic, expandable bags, located between the base frame 8 and the deck frame 5, “Preferably, the lifting units 3 are pneumatically driven”).
Regarding claim 20, the Johannesson/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious the tilting mechanism of claim 18 as applied above. Johannesson further discloses a multi-dimensional hinge disposed at each corner of the base frame and the deck frame (Figs. 2-5, 7, globe (ball) 9a and receiver (socket) 9b at each corner; p. 5, lines 17-19, “a ball joint 9 is arranged at the respective corner between the frame 5 and the supporting frame 8, comprising a ball 9a connected with the supporting frame 8 and a corresponding ball glove 9[b] arranged at the frame 5”),
each multi-dimensional hinge selectively engageable to allow the deck frame to tilt relative to the base frame in at least two-degrees of freedom (Figs. 2-5, 6A-D, 7, hinge 9a/9b at each corner is capable of being selectively engaged (e.g., when ball 9a fits inside socket 9b); p. 6, lines 4-6, “since all four sides of the cable lift 1 have ball joints 9 and lifting units 3, a loaded container 4 can be rotated/wobbled in four directions, i.e. orthogonally to the four sides of the cable lift”).
Regarding claim 21, the Johannesson/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious the tilting mechanism of claim 20 as applied above. Johannesson further discloses wherein the multi-dimensional hinge includes a globe secured to one of the base frame or the deck frame and a receiver secured to the other of the base frame and the deck frame, the receiver configured to selectively secure the globe therewithin (Figs. 2-5, 6A-D, 7, receiver (socket) 9b secures globe (ball) 9a therewithin (e.g., when ball 9a fits inside socket 9b); p. 5, lines 17-19, “a ball joint 9 is arranged at the respective corner between the frame 5 and the supporting frame 8, comprising a ball 9a connected with the supporting frame 8 and a corresponding ball glove 9[b] arranged at the frame 5”).
Regarding claim 31, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious the tilting mechanism of claim 1 as applied above. AAPA and Kaneyuki further disclose wherein the tilting mechanism includes only the lifting member at the geometric center of the base frame and the geometric center of the deck frame to urge the tilting deck away from the base frame (Kaneyuki Figs. 1-5, lifting member 4 at the geometric center of the base frame and deck frame; Spec. Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0004-0005, 0023, a single lifting member 930 is secured at a geometric center of the base frame 915 and tilting deck 920; Examiner interprets this claim to mean that the tilting mechanism can have only one lifting member, while the tilting mechanism of claim 1 may (but is not required to) have more than one lifting member).
The obviousness rationale for claim 31 is the same as for claim 1, with the addition that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination to remove lifting members 3 of Johannesson other than the one lifting member placed at the geometric center per the teachings of AAPA and Kaneyuki (as discussed in claim 1). Similar to claim 1, this would have been obvious because the reduction of lifting members 3 to a single lifting member located at the geometric center of the tilting mechanism would allow for a reduction in cost (while still preserving the same overall lifting and tilting functionality), especially when the application does not warrant multiple lifters (e.g., a heavy lifting capacity is not needed).
Claim 30 is rejected on the same basis as claim 31, except as depending from claim 18.
Regarding claim 33, the claim recites the same limitations as claim 1 except for the last limitation. These limitations in combination are made obvious by the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination as discussed for claim 1 above.
Regarding the last limitation of claim 33, Johannesson further discloses the lifting member configured to urge the deck frame away from the base frame such that transitioning the states of the hinges allows for tilting of the deck frame relative to the base frame in at least two directions (Figs. 2-5, 6A-D, 7, hinge 9a/9b at each corner is capable of transitioning between the states (i.e., catch state vs. release state) of the hinges (e.g., when ball 9a fits inside socket 9b and as modified by the locking member of Hall re “locking member”), which allows for tilting as recited; p. 6, lines 4-6, “since all four sides of the cable lift 1 have ball joints 9 and lifting units 3, a loaded container 4 can be rotated/wobbled in four directions, i.e. orthogonally to the four sides of the cable lift”).
The obviousness rationale for claim 33 is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding claim 34, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious this claim for the same reasons discussed for claim 31, except as depending from claim 33.
Johannesson in view of Hall, AAPA, Kaneyuki, and Wisniewski
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over WO 03020566 A1 (“Johannesson”) in view of US 20020003341 A1 (“Hall”), Applicant’s admitted prior art (Spec. Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0004-0005, 0023) (“AAPA”), JP H04349043 A (“Kaneyuki”) (citations are to the translation filed herewith), and US 20040109385 A1 (“Wisniewski”).
Johannesson pertains to a lifting device to raise, lower, and tilt objects (Abstr.; Figs. 2-5, 6A-D, 7). AAPA pertains to a lifting device to raise, lower, and tilt objects (Spec. Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0004-0005, 0023). Kaneyuki pertains to a lifting device to raise, lower, and tilt objects (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5). Wisniewski pertains to a lifting device (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor. Hall pertains to a ball and socket joint and locking mechanism (Abstr.; Fig. 2) and is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it involves the design of a ball and socket joint, with a locking mechanism, that allows for freedom of movement when coupled (e.g., when used as a trailer coupler).
Regarding claim 8, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious the tilting mechanism of claim 7 as applied above. Johannesson, Hall, AAPA, and Kaneyuki do not explicitly disclose wherein in the first tilted position, the tilting deck is rotated about the first tilting axis at an angle in a range of 5 degrees to 45 degrees. However, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki/Wisniewski combination makes obvious this claim.
Wisniewski discloses wherein in the first tilted position, the tilting deck is rotated about the first tilting axis at an angle in a range of 5 degrees to 45 degrees (Figs. 2, 3; ¶ 0035, “Container 10 attached to base 20 may be tilted relative to movable platform 30, as illustrated in FIGS. 2, 3, and 6-9. For example, a first end 22 of base 20 may be tilted relative to a second end 24 of base 20 and thus platform 30 such that an angle 25 therebetween may be up to about 45 degrees. Further, a third end 27 of base 20 may be tilted relative to a fourth end 28 of base 20 such that an angle 29 therebetween may be up to about 45 degrees.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Wisniewski with the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination regarding the range of tilt. Johannesson does not explicitly disclose an angle of tilt, although various angles of tilt could be seen in the figures (Johannesson Figs. 3-4, 6A-D). This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II). Here, the tilt angle range is a known result-effective variable because it achieves the recognized result of dictating the amount of tilt on the tilting deck relative to the base, which is relevant to the desired amount of gravitational force used to assist in loading onto or unloading objects from the tilting deck (Johannesson p. 6, lines 4-8, “a loaded container 4 can be rotated/wobbled in four directions, i.e. orthogonally to the four sides of the cable lift, see Figs. 6a-6d. This wobbling can facilitate at the unloading of goods, for instance unloading of bulk goods enclosed in the container 4, whereby this goods can be poured out of the container 4.”). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the effect of this variable and found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980). Accordingly, the claimed tilt angle range is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any criticality or significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular tilt angle range. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Johannesson in view of Hall, AAPA, Kaneyuki, and Zefira
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over WO 03020566 A1 (“Johannesson”) in view of US 20020003341 A1 (“Hall”), Applicant’s admitted prior art (Spec. Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0004-0005, 0023) (“AAPA”), JP H04349043 A (“Kaneyuki”) (citations are to the translation filed herewith), and US 5922998 A (“Zefira”).
Johannesson pertains to a lifting device to raise, lower, and tilt objects (Abstr.; Figs. 2-5, 6A-D, 7). AAPA pertains to a lifting device to raise, lower, and tilt objects (Spec. Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0004-0005, 0023). Kaneyuki pertains to a lifting device to raise, lower, and tilt objects (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5). Zefira pertains to a lifting device (Abstr.; Fig. 2). These references are in the same field of endeavor. Hall pertains to a ball and socket joint and locking mechanism (Abstr.; Fig. 2) and is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it involves the design of a ball and socket joint, with a locking mechanism, that allows for freedom of movement when coupled (e.g., when used as a trailer coupler).
Regarding claim 2, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious the tilting mechanism of claim 1 as applied above. To the extent the limitation a “weighing platform” is positively claimed and is not a mere statement of intended use, Johannesson, Hall, AAPA, and Kaneyuki do not explicitly disclose this limitation. However, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki/Zefira combination makes obvious this claim.
Zefira discloses wherein the tilting deck is configured to support a weighing platform, the weighing platform configured to determine an amount of fluid disposed within one or more containers disposed on the weighing platform (Fig. 2, deck 18 is capable of supporting a weighing platform 16, which is capable of determining the amount of fluid in a container by determining the weight of the container with fluid versus the container without fluid; 3:17-30, “When a load, such as a container on a pallet, is placed on the weighing platform, the force F of the weight of the load is applied to the platform 16...the load cells 34a and 34b, respectively, which measure the force F and translate it into a quantity which represents the weight of the load.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Zefira with the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination to add a weighing platform to the tilting deck because it would provide weight information about the items on the device, which could increase safety by indicating to the operator when a load is exceeds the load capacity of the device.
Johannesson in view of Hall, AAPA, Kaneyuki, and Peterman
Claims 3-5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over WO 03020566 A1 (“Johannesson”) in view of US 20020003341 A1 (“Hall”), Applicant’s admitted prior art (Spec. Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0004-0005, 0023) (“AAPA”), JP H04349043 A (“Kaneyuki”) (citations are to the translation filed herewith), and US 20120023724 A1 (“Peterman”).
Johannesson pertains to a lifting device to raise, lower, and tilt objects (Abstr.; Figs. 2-5, 6A-D, 7). AAPA pertains to a lifting device to raise, lower, and tilt objects (Spec. Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0004-0005, 0023). Kaneyuki pertains to a lifting device to raise, lower, and tilt objects (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5). Peterman pertains to a lifting device (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2). These references are in the same field of endeavor. Hall pertains to a ball and socket joint and locking mechanism (Abstr.; Fig. 2) and is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it involves the design of a ball and socket joint, with a locking mechanism, that allows for freedom of movement when coupled (e.g., when used as a trailer coupler).
Regarding claim 3, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious the tilting mechanism of claim 1 as applied above. To the extent Johannesson does not disclose the limitations of claim 3 as applied above, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki/Peterman combination makes obvious this claim.
Peterman discloses wherein the lifting member is a lifting bag that expands in response to receiving fluid therein (Figs. 2-3, lifting bag 46/50; ¶¶ 0026, 0028, “Each of the air bags 46 has a corresponding low profile electric air compressor 52 mounted in the sled 10 that inflates and deflates the actuation sack 50.”).
To the extent Johannesson does not disclose the limitations of claim 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Peterman with the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination to use a lifting airbag 46/50 that is connected to a pump 52 for expansion. This would have been obvious because Johannesson already discloses a pneumatic lifter (Johannesson Figs. 2-5, 6A-D, 7; p. 4, lines 22-23, lifting members 3 are pneumatic, expandable bags, “Preferably, the lifting units 3 are pneumatically driven”), and the use of an airbag connected to a pump is a commonly known type of and configuration for a pneumatic lifter (compare pneumatic lifters 3 of Johannesson Figs. 2-5, 7 with lifting bag 50 of Peterman Fig. 3). Further, the presence of a pump integrated into the lifting device would be convenient in not requiring an external pump to expand the pneumatic lifters.
Regarding claim 4, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki/Peterman combination makes obvious the tilting mechanism of claim 3 as applied above. To the extent Johannesson does not disclose the limitations of claim 4 as applied above, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki/Peterman combination makes obvious this claim.
Peterman discloses wherein the lifting bag is an airbag that expands in response to receiving gas therein (Figs. 2-3, lifting bag 46/50; ¶¶ 0026, 0028, “Each of the air bags 46 has a corresponding low profile electric air compressor 52 mounted in the sled 10 that inflates and deflates the actuation sack 50.”).
The obviousness rationale for claim 4 is the same as for claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki/Peterman combination makes obvious the tilting mechanism of claim 3 as applied above. To the extent Johannesson does not disclose the limitations of claim 5 as applied above, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki/Peterman combination makes obvious this claim.
Peterman discloses wherein the lifting bag is in fluid communication with a pump, the pump providing fluid to expand the lifting bag (Figs. 2-3, lifting bag 46/50; ¶¶ 0026, 0028, “Each of the air bags 46 has a corresponding low profile electric air compressor 52 mounted in the sled 10 that inflates and deflates the actuation sack 50.”).
The obviousness rationale for claim 5 is the same as for claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious the tilting mechanism of claim 18 as applied above. To the extent Johannesson does not disclose the limitations of claim 19 as applied above, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki/Peterman combination makes obvious this claim.
Peterman discloses wherein the lifting member is an extendable bag disposed between the base frame and the deck frame (Figs. 2-3, lifting bag 46/50; ¶¶ 0026, 0028, “Each of the air bags 46 has a corresponding low profile electric air compressor 52 mounted in the sled 10 that inflates and deflates the actuation sack 50.”).
The obviousness rationale for claim 19 is the same as for claim 3, except as depending from claim 18.
Voute in view of Nutter, Wisniewski, Johannesson, Hall, AAPA, and Kaneyuki
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070084222 A1 (“Voute”) in view of US 4411295 A (“Nutter”), US 20040109385 A1 (“Wisniewski”), WO 03020566 A1 (“Johannesson”), US 20020003341 A1 (“Hall”), Applicant’s admitted prior art (Spec. Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0004-0005, 0023) (“AAPA”), and JP H04349043 A (“Kaneyuki”) (citations are to the translation filed herewith).
Voute pertains to a cart device for the storage and transportation of biopharmaceutical liquids (Abstr.; Fig. 14). Nutter pertains to a liquid distribution filling device (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Johannesson pertains to a lifting device to raise, lower, and tilt objects (Abstr.; Figs. 2-5, 6A-D, 7). AAPA pertains to a lifting device to raise, lower, and tilt objects (Spec. Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0004-0005, 0023). Kaneyuki pertains to a lifting device to raise, lower, and tilt objects (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5). Wisniewski pertains to a lifting device (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor as the present invention. Hall pertains to a ball and socket joint and locking mechanism (Abstr.; Fig. 2) and is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it involves the design of a ball and socket joint, with a locking mechanism, that allows for freedom of movement when coupled (e.g., when used as a trailer coupler).
Regarding claim 14, Voute discloses a fill and draining system comprising (Fig. 14; ¶ 0065):
a platform configured to support at least one container to be filled or drained (Fig. 14, platform of cart 1100 with supports 1110 that support containers 1130; ¶ 0065, “movable cart 1100 may be utilized to transport the containers from...a filling station for filling containers with biopharmaceutical material, or various other locations”; see ¶ 0054, “As shown in FIG. 6, flexible container 10 may include one or more ports or conduits 120 to allow filling or draining of biopharmaceutical materials”; Examiner notes that the limitation “at least one container” is not positively claimed).
Voute does not explicitly disclose a valve tower configured to distribute fluid to each container of the at least one container; and a tilting mechanism according to claim 1, the tilting mechanism supporting the platform on the tilting deck thereof. However, the Voute/Nutter/Wisniewski/Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious this claim.
Nutter discloses a valve tower configured to distribute fluid to each container of the at least one container (Fig. 1; 2:50-66, valve tower 10 distributes fluid to containers; Examiner notes that the limitations “fluid” and “each container” are not positively claimed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Nutter with Voute to add a valve tower (sized for the application with tank 174) to the cart/container system of Voute because doing so could reduce the cost and processing time required to fill a large number of containers. For example, instead of having to transport each cart (with containers) to a central refilling station, and then connecting numerous hoses to each of the containers prior to filling them with fluid, having a valve tower attached to the cart would distribute this work among the number of carts (where containers can be placed and removed from the carts as needed). However, by having the valve tower on the cart, this would allow for economy of scale, where multiple workers could operate multiple carts to fill a large number of containers using the attached valve tower, and would only need to return to the central refilling station to periodically replenish the fluid in the valve tower.
Regarding the limitation “a tilting mechanism according to claim 1, the tilting mechanism supporting the platform on the tilting deck thereof”, the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination makes obvious this limitation as discussed in claim 1 above, where the tilting mechanism is capable of supporting the platform (e.g., on top of the tilting deck 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki tilting mechanism with the Voute/Nutter combination because of the teachings of Wisniewski. Wisniewski discloses a tilting mechanism for processing biopharmaceutical material, which includes a platform for tilting an object placed thereof (Figs. 2-3), which is conducive for such processing activity (Wisniewski ¶ 0030, “Such movement of container 10 via the movement of platform 30 promotes thawing and mixing of biopharmaceutical materials held in container 10. Such mixing could be performed for the purpose of processing and could be combined therewith, such as: dissolution, homogenization, chemical/biochemical reactions, formulations, or compounding.”). Thus, in light of Wisniewski’s teachings about tilting biopharmaceutical fluids, it would have been obvious to modify the Voute/Nutter combination to include the tilting mechanism of the Johannesson/Hall/AAPA/Kaneyuki combination. Examiner notes that Applicant admits the existence of tilting mechanisms (e.g., a cart with a tilting function) and that they are available (Spec. Fig. 1 (labeled as “PRIOR ART”); ¶ 0004, discussion about a prior art cart with a tilting function).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claims 16, 22-29, 32, and 35-36 have been canceled. Claims 1-15, 17-21, 30-31, and 33-34 are pending. Claims 1-15, 17-21, 30-31, and 33-34 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
As an initial matter, Examiner notes that Applicant provided no information responsive to the Request for Information in the 12/29/2025 Office Action, stating that, “Applicant does not have and cannot readily obtain the information requested as the information is unknown and cannot be readily obtained.” (Reply at 9).
The new grounds of rejection are based on Applicant’s submitted reference JP H04349043 A (“Kaneyuki”). Accordingly, the previously indicated allowable subject matter is withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the allowability of the claims (Reply at 10-11) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
Conclusion
Applicant’s submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 C.F.R. § 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(p) on 04/07/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action (i.e., JP H04349043 A (“Kaneyuki”)). Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL in accordance with MPEP § 609.04(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights