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 following informalities: The acronyms GTI and PTJ in paragraphs [0005] and [0006] are not defined.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the strand grabber mechanically coupled to the extending body must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simms (US 3,184,219) in view of Stankus et al. (US 6,283,451 B1)
Claims 1 and 8: Simms discloses a frameless lightweight jack comprising: a pressure cylinder (31 of Figure 1), the pressure cylinder having a pressure cylinder passage; a pressure cylinder bod (28 of Figure 1), the pressure cylinder body being a block through which a pressure cylinder body passage is formed, the pressure cylinder body mechanically coupled to the pressure cylinder; a first and a second hydraulic actuator (4,5 of Figure 1), the first and the second hydraulic actuator each coupled to the pressure cylinder body on a proximal end, wherein the first and the second hydraulic actuator are in hydraulic communication through a cylinder loop hose (27 of Figure 1) connected to a port in a distal end of each of the first and second hydraulic actuator; an extending body (8 of Figure 1), the extending body coupled to the first and the second hydraulic actuator, the extending body being a block through which an extending body passage is formed, wherein the pressure cylinder passage, the pressure cylinder body passage, and the extending body passage are aligned to form a tension member channel (as depicted in Figure 5); and a strand grabber assembly (6 of Figure 1), the strand grabber assembly mechanically coupled to the extending body (Col. 3, Lines 63-74), and wherein the pressure cylinder body is configured to not touch the extending body when the frameless lightweight jake is in a retracted position (as depicted in Figure 1, the bolts provide an offset). Simms fails to explicitly disclose that the pressure cylinder, pressure cylinder body, and extending body are comprised of aluminum, titanium, fiber reinforced plastic, polymers, or carbon fiber.
However, Stankus et al. teaches that it is known in the art to form jacks such as cable tensioning devices primarily from aluminum in order to reduce their weight and facilitate portability and ease of use (Col. 5, Lines 39-59). Further titanium, fiber reinforced plastic, polymers, or carbon fiber are all known lightweight materials from which mechanical devices are known to be made.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute aluminum, titanium, fiber reinforced plastic, polymers, or carbon fiber for the material of which the pressure cylinder, pressure cylinder body, and extending body of Simms are made because it is prima facie obvious to substitute one known prior art element for another in order to achieve a predictable result (MPEP 2413(B)). In the instant case the predictable result would be that the jack of Simms would include components that would made of a lightweight materail.
Claim 3: Simms further discloses that the first and the second hydraulic actuator each have an internal piston (24, 25 of Figure 4).
Claim 4: Simms further discloses that the first and the second hydraulic actuator are each coupled to the pressure cylinder body at a proximal end of the internal piston of each hydraulic actuator (Col. 3, Lines 6-21)
Claim 7: Stankus et al. further teaches that it is known in the art to locate a port in a distal end of each of a first and second hydraulic actuator on a circumferential surface of each hydraulic actuator (as depicted in Figure 1).
Claim 9: Simms further discloses there is a gap between the pressure cylinder body and the extending body when the frameless lightweight jack is in the retracted position (as depicted in Figure 1, the bolts provide an offset).
Claim 10: Simms fails to explicitly disclose that the gap is at least 1 inch.
However, Simms does disclose a gap of a certain size.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the size of the gap of Simms such that it was at least 1 inch since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim 11: Concerning method claim 11 in view of the structure disclosed by Simms as modified above by Stankus et al., the method of operating the device would have been inherent, since it is the normal and logical manner in which the device could be used.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simms (US 3,184,219) in view of Stankus et al. (US 6,283,451 B1) and Goldring (US 2,976,845).
Claim 2: Simms fails to explicitly disclose that the hydraulic actuators are pneumatically actuated.
However, Goldring teaches a pneumatically actuated hydraulic cylinder (Col. 5, Lines 14-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute pneumatically actuated hydraulic actuators for the hydraulic actuators of Simms because it is prima facie obvious to substitute one known prior art element for another in order to achieve a predictable result (MPEP 2413(B)). This modification would have been advantageous because air driven systems are more economical and hydraulic systems are more predictable in their motion.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simms (US 3,184,219) in view of Stankus et al. (US 6,283,451 B1) and Prince et al. (US 6,224,036B1).
Claim 5: Simms further discloses that the strand grabber assembly (6 of Figure 1) includes a strand grabber (39,40); a grabber block (32); and a grabber retaining plate (36,37), but fails to disclose that the strand grabber assembly includes a strand grabber handle.
However, Prince et al. teaches a strand grabber assembly (62 of Figure 7) that includes a strand grabber handle (66 of Figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the strand grabber assembly of Simms such that it included a handle as taught by Prince et al. This modification would have been advantageous because the strand grabber assembly of Simms would be more easily grasped.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simms (US 3,184,219) in view of Stankus et al. (US 6,283,451 B1) and Biass (US 4,615,509)
Claim 6: Simms fails to disclose that the first and the second hydraulic actuator are free floating on the distal ends.
However, Biass teaches a cable tensioning apparatus that includes a first and second actuator that are free floating on a distal end (as depicted in Figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Stankus et al. such that the first and the second hydraulic actuator are free floating on the distal ends because this would reduce the weight of the apparatus by eliminating the end plate 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON L VAUGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5704. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/JASON L VAUGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726