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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roberts, U.S. Patent 4,890,416.
Regarding claim 1, Roberts discloses a guard device comprising: a body (20) being in the form of a collar (see Fig. 2) and comprising a base portion (bottom cylindrical portion, see Fig. 4 annotated below) and an upper portion (upper cylindrical portion, see Fig. 4 annotated below); said base portion being substantially cylindrical (see Fig. 3); said upper portion being substantially tapered (at edges; see Fig. 4) or conical or comprising one or more shoulder surfaces (upper surface; see Fig. 4 annotated below); said upper portion comprising a passage (opening in top portion within 25, see Fig. 4 annotated below) configured to receive and enclose a portion of a jack shaft, a top of said base portion extending from a bottom of said upper portion such that an entirety of said passage is positioned fully within said upper portion (see Fig. 4 annotated below); said body being divided into a first section (30) and a second section (31) pivotably connected together by a hinge structure (32) to permit said first section and said second section to be moved apart from one another to open said body and then moved back together to close said body around a jack shaft; and a locking arrangement (35) being configured to lock together said first section and said second section to releasably lock said body around a jack shaft. The phrases “configured to receive and enclose a portion of a jack shaft,” “to permit said first section and said second section to be moved apart from one another to open said body and then moved back together to close said body around a jack shaft,” and “configured to lock together said first section and said second section to releasably lock said body around a jack shaft” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
432
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Roberts discloses a guard device wherein: said locking arrangement comprises a locking tab (37) disposed on said first section and a locking bracket (36) disposed on said second section; and said locking tab is configured to be inserted into said locking bracket in a snap-fit connection. The phrase “configured to be inserted into said locking bracket in a snap-fit connection” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and 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.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Roberts discloses a guard device wherein said base portion is substantially hollow and has an inner diameter substantially greater than the diameter of said passage (at 40, see Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Roberts discloses a guard device wherein said upper portion comprises an interior portion (23) that is solid (the tube wall is of a solid material) and configured to define said passage and enclose a portion of a jack shaft. The phrase “configured to define said passage and enclose a portion of a jack shaft” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and 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.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Roberts discloses a guard device wherein said passage is configured to fit tightly onto a jack shaft to form a friction fit (if a jack is so sized). The phrase “configured to fit tightly onto a jack shaft to form a friction fit” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5-9, 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts, U.S. Patent 4,890,416 in view of Tufts, U.S. Patent 54,232.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Roberts discloses a guard device but does not specifically disclose wherein said interior portion comprises a shoulder surface disposed about said passage and configured to rest against and support said body on an adjustment pin projecting out of a jack shaft. Tufts teaches an inner portion (A) comprising a shoulder (see Fig. 3) configured to support a guard device (C) utilizing a pin (D). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such an inner portion rather than the inner portion and teeth of Roberts to allow for easier assembly and adjustment of the guard device. The phrase “configured to support a guard device utilizing a pin” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and 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.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Roberts discloses a guard device wherein said interior portion comprises a resilient gasket (44) attached to wall of said upper portion or is as an integral part of said upper portion.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Roberts discloses a guard device, but does not disclose wherein said passage comprises a rectangular passage configured to match and fit onto a rectangular jack shaft. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the opening passage rectangular in shape for a more versatile device depending on a user’s needs, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23. The phrase “configured to match and fit onto a rectangular jack shaft” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and 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.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Roberts discloses a guard device but does not disclose wherein said passage comprises a square-shaped passage configured to match and fit onto a square-shaped jack shaft. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the opening passage rectangular in shape for a more versatile device depending on a user’s needs, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23. The phrase “configured to match and fit onto a square-shaped jack shaft” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and 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.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Roberts discloses a guard device wherein said passage comprises a cylindrical passage (see Figures) configured to match and fit onto a cylindrical jack shaft. The phrase “configured to match and fit onto a cylindrical jack shaft” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A base portion and a top portion as claimed are disclosed in the prior art, see rejection as set forth above.
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 GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633