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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “3 or more legs” should be corrected as --[[3]]three or more legs--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “3 or more legs” in line 4 should be corrected as --[[3]]three or more legs--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 5-6, 11-20 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 3: Claim 3 recites “it engages” in line 2. However, the term, “it” renders the scope of the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, “it engages” is interpreted as --[[it]]the pawl engages--.
Claim 5: Claim 5 recites “the spring housing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 4 recites “a spring housing”. For examination purposes, claim 5 is interpreted to be dependent on claim 4 instead of claim 1.
Claim 11: Claim 11 recites “the housing” in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 11 recites “a central housing” in line 6. For examination purposes, “the housing” is interpreted as --the central housing--.
Claim 16: Claim 16 recites the preamble, “The jack stand head”. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. Claim 15 (which upon claim 16 depends) recites a preamble of “The jack stand”. Claim 1 recites a preamble of “A jack stand head”. It is not clear whether claim 12 should depend on claim 1 or the preamble needs to be amended. For examination purposes, “The jack stand head” is interpreted as --The jack stand [[head]]--.
Claim 17: Claim 17 recites the preamble, “The jack stand head.” However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. As interpreted above, claim 16 (which upon claim 17 depends) recites the preamble as “The jack stand”. For examination purposes, “The jack stand head” is interpreted as --The jack stand [[head]]--.
Claim 18: Claim 18 recites “the housing” in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 18 recites “a central housing” and “a spring housing.” It is not clear whether “the housing” refers to one of “a central housing” or “a spring housing”, or if it is separate and distinct from both a central housing and a spring housing. For examination purposes, upon reviewing the originally filed drawings and specification, “the housing” is interpreted as --the central housing--.
Claims 6, 12-15, 19-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pachowicz (1,973,224).
Regarding claim 1¸ Pachowicz (‘224) discloses a jack stand head (figs1,3) comprising:
a threaded rod 1(pg1 line69);
a head 8 (a top one, pg1 lines93-94) affixed to the threaded rod 1;
a threaded nut 3 (pg1 line69-71) comprising a plurality of ridges (figA below); and
a central housing 4 (pg1 line72-73) comprising a pawl 3a (pg1 lines77-78),
wherein the threaded nut 3 is in operable communication with the threaded rod 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
336
487
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2¸ Pachowicz discloses the jack stand head of claim 1, wherein the pawl 3a engages the plurality of ridges in one direction and fails to engage the plurality of ridges in the other direction (pg1 lines77-92, due to a beveled portion, “proper direction”, fig3).
Regarding claim 3¸ Pachowicz discloses the jack stand head of claim 2, wherein the pawl 3a can be rotated to change the direction (pg1 lines81-82, “turned about an angle of 180 degrees”) in which the pawl 3a engages the plurality of ridges (pg1 lines82-91, “turned about an angle of 180 degrees”).
Regarding claim 4¸ Pachowicz discloses the jack stand head of claim 1, further comprising a spring housing (figA, figs1,3) extending from the central housing 4 (fig1).
Regarding claim 5¸ Pachowicz discloses the jack stand head of claim 4, further comprising a spring (figA, pg1 lines77-78, “spring” pressed pawl 3a) within the spring housing (figA).
Regarding claim 6¸ Pachowicz discloses the jack stand head of claim 5, wherein the spring is compressed between the spring housing and the pawl 3a (figA).
Regarding claim 7¸ Pachowicz discloses the jack stand head of claim 4, further comprising one or more handles 5,6 (pg1 lines73-75) extending from the central housing 4 (figs1,3).
Regarding claim 8¸ Pachowicz discloses the jack stand head of claim 7, wherein the spring housing is between about 15 degrees and about 90 degrees from one of the one or more handles 5,6 (fig3).
Regarding claim 9¸ Pachowicz discloses the jack stand head of claim 7, wherein the spring housing is between about 30 degrees and about 60 degrees from one of the one or more handles 5,6 (fig3).
Regarding claim 10¸ Pachowicz discloses the jack stand head of claim 7, wherein the spring housing is about 52 degrees from one of the one or more handles 5,6 (fig3, “about” 53 degrees).
Regarding claim 11¸ Pachowicz discloses a jack stand (fig1) comprising:
a base 16 (fig1, pg2 lines35-36);
a threaded rod 1 (pg1 line69) inserted into the base 16 (fig1);
a head 8 (a top one, pg1 lines93-94) affixed to the threaded rod 1;
a threaded nut 3 (pg1 lines69-71) in operable communication with the threaded rod 1; and
a central housing 4 (pg1 lines72-73) comprising a pawl 3a (pg1 lines77-78),
wherein the pawl 3a engages the threaded nut 3 so that the threaded nut 3 rotates when the central housing 4 is rotated in one direction (pg1 lines77-92, figs1,3).
Regarding claim 13¸ Pachowicz discloses the jack stand of claim 11, wherein the pawl 3a can be rotated about 180 degrees (pg1 lines81-82).
Regarding claim 14¸ Pachowicz discloses the jack stand of claim 13, wherein the about 180 degrees rotation of the pawl 3a changes the direction in which the pawl 3a causes the nut to rotate (pg1 lines82-91).
Regarding claim 15¸ Pachowicz discloses the jack stand of claim 11, further comprising a spring housing (figA above) extending from the central housing 4.
Regarding claim 16¸ Pachowicz discloses the jack stand of claim 15, further comprising a spring (figA above, pg1 lines77-78, “spring” pressed pawl 3a) within the spring housing (figA).
Regarding claim 17¸ Pachowicz discloses the jack stand of claim 16, wherein the spring is compressed between the spring housing and the pawl 3a (figA).
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.
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) 12, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pachowicz (1,973,224) in view of Collins, Jr. et al (5,297,779).
Regarding claim 12¸ Pachowicz discloses the jack stand of claim 11, however, does not explicitly disclose a use of three or more legs connected to a central tube. Collins, Jr. et al (‘779) teaches a use of three legs 14,16,18 (fig1, col.4 lines64) to provide better stability for a jack stand. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pachowicz to use three legs, as taught by Collins, Jr. et al, to provide better stability of the jack stand.
Regarding claim 18¸ Pachowicz discloses a jack stand (fig1) comprising:
a base 16 (fig1, pg2 lines35-36) comprising:
a central tube 8 (bottom one, figs1-2); and
a threaded rod 1 (pg1 line69) inserted into the central tube 8;
a head 8 (a top one, pg1 lines93-94) affixed to the threaded rod 1;
a threaded nut 3 (pg1 lines69-71) in operable communication with the threaded rod 1;
a central housing 4 (pg1 lines72-73) comprising a pawl 2a (pg1 lines77-78);
a spring housing (figA above) extending from the central housing 4; and
one or more handles 5,6 (pg1 lines73-75) extending from the central housing 4,
wherein the pawl 3a engages the threaded nut 3 so the threaded nut 3 rotates when the central housing 4 is rotated in one direction (pg1 lines77-92, figs1,3), and
wherein the spring housing is between about 15 degrees and about 90 degrees from one of the one or more handles 5,6 (figA above).
However, Pachowicz does not explicitly disclose a use of three or more legs connected to a central tube. Collins, Jr. et al (‘779) teaches a use of three legs 14,16,18 (fig1, col.4 lines64) to provide better stability for a jack stand. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pachowicz to use three legs, as taught by Collins, Jr. et al, to provide better stability of the jack stand.
Regarding claim 19¸ the combination of Pachowicz and Collins, Jr. et al teaches the jack stand of claim 18. Pachowicz further discloses wherein the spring housing is between about 30 degrees and about 60 degrees from one of the one or more handles 5,6 (figA above).
Regarding claim 20¸ the combination of Pachowicz and Collins, Jr. et al teaches the jack stand of 18. Pachowicz further discloses wherein the spring housing is about 52 degrees from one of the one or more handles 5,6 (figA above, “about”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Steele (3,314,655) teach similar jack stand / jack stand head.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm ET.
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 Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723