DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-2, 5-6, 8-11, 13, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peck (US 1252611).
Re claim 1, Peck teaches a device for reducing impact forces upon a surface (26), comprising: a base (27) comprising a contact portion; a contact member (29) adjacent the contact portion, the contact member being movable away from contact with and toward the surface; and a biasing member (30) biasing the contact member toward the surface; wherein a first portion of an impact force upon the surface is transferred from the contact member to the biasing member as the contact member moves away from the surface, and a second portion of the impact force is subsequently returned to the surface, the second portion being less than the first portion. (Fig. 6) See also Fig. 2 which teaches a surface (8), base (2), contact member (13) and biasing member (16).
Peck does not teach the contact portion comprising an adhesive for securing the base to the surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use an adhesive between the base and surface since adhesives are well known for securing or providing further security between components.
Re claims 2, 9 and 17, Peck as modified teaches wherein movement of the contact member (13, 29) away from the surface (8, 26) temporarily separates the contact member from the surface.
Re claims 5 and 10, Peck as modified teaches wherein the biasing member (16, 30) is adjustable. See elements 17 and 13 which have a screw connection and are therefore capable of adjustment to the same extent as Applicant’s invention.
Re claims 6 and 11, Peck as modified teaches wherein the biasing member (16, 30) is a helical spring.
Re claim 8, Peck teaches a device for inhibiting breakage, consisting of: a housing (2, 27) having a contact end and a distal end, a contact member (13, 29) at least primarily disposed inside the housing, the contact member being movable inside the housing; and a biasing member (16, 30) biasing the contact member toward the contact end and away from the distal end; wherein a first portion of an impact force upon the surface is transferred from the contact member to the biasing member as the contact member moves away from the surface, and a second portion of the impact force is subsequently returned to the surface, the second portion being less than the first portion. (Fig. 2, 6)
Peck does not teach the contact end having adhesive for securing the contact end to a surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use an adhesive between the contact end and surface since adhesives are well known for securing or providing further security between components.
Re claims 13 and 19, Peck as modified teaches,wherein the contact member is spherical.
Re claim 15, Peck as modified teaches wherein the surface (26) is glass. (Fig. 6)
Re claim 16, Peck teaches a device for inhibiting a surface from breaking, comprising: a housing (2, 27) having a contact end and a distal end, the housing having a cavity (15); a contact member (13, 29) at least primarily disposed inside the cavity, the contact member being movable inside the housing toward and away from contact with the contact end; and a biasing member biasing the contact member toward the contact end and away from the distal end; wherein the housing has means for preventing the contact member from fully exiting the cavity; and wherein a first portion of an impact force upon the surface is transferred from the contact member to the biasing member as the contact member moves away from the surface, and a second portion of the impact force is subsequently returned to the surface, the second portion being less than the first portion.
Peck does not teach the contact end having adhesive for securing the contact end to a surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use an adhesive between the contact end and surface since adhesives are well known for securing or providing further security between components.
Re claim 20, Peck as modified teaches wherein the biasing member (16, 30) is at least one item selected from the group consisting of a helical spring, a flat spring, a gas spring, a hydraulic spring, and a magnetic spring.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 7, 12, 14, and 18 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8 and 16 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 argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
MTW
September 23, 2026
