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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-13 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
Claims 1-13 are rejected herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, no information disclosure statement has been filed on behalf of this case.
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 9, 11 and 13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 9, 11 and 13 are indefinite because in light of the disclosure, it is unclear what part of the invention, the Applicant is claiming as “an antivibration member”.
Claim 9 is further indefinite because it is unclear whether the said equipment is claimed in combination or whether the equipment is merely functionally recited. Assuming arguendo the equipment is functionally recited. The Examiner suggests the use of the term “configured to”
Appropriate correction/explanation is required.
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 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 pre-AIA 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.
Claims 1, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hickman (U.S. Pat. No. 4,893,796).
Regarding claim 1, Hickman teaches an antivibration securement apparatus comprising:
a structure attachment member (12);
a vibration damper (8, 10, 11);
an elongated member (14);
an equipment attachment member (18); and
at least one fastener (20) to secure said equipment attachment member to an equipment.
Regarding claim 8, Hickman teaches said elongated member (14) is a threaded member.
Regarding claim 9, Hickman teaches an antivibration member (11) is placed between said equipment attachment member and said equipment.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoo (U.S. Pat. No. 5,881,507).
Regarding claim 10, Yoo teaches a method of securing equipment to a structure (13) using an antivibration securement apparatus comprising the steps of:
screwing a first end (tapered end of Y1 see annotated figure below) of a screw member (Y1 see annotated figure below) into a location at said structure;
affixing a first end (lower end of 8) of a vibration damper (8, 10) to a second end of said screw member (end having head);
affixing a first end of an elongated member (upper end of 7) to a second end (lower end of 8) of said vibration damper;
affixing an equipment attachment member (11) to a second end of said elongated member; and
affixing said equipment attachment member to equipment (14, 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
530
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hickman (U.S. Pat. No. 4,893,796) in view of Basham (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2011/0209733 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hickman teaches the vibration damper. However, Hickman is silent to disclose the damper is interchangeable with a different vibration damper. Basham teaches the damper is interchangeable [Basham; 0024 & 0037].
Hickman and Basham are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a shock absorbing apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the invention of Hickman having damper that is interchangeable with the different vibration damper. The motivation would have been to isolate the vibration based on the vibration frequencies.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hickman (U.S. Pat. No. 4,893,796) in view of Basham (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2011/0209733 A1) and further in view of Ervin (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0220681 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hickman teaches said vibration damper. However, Hickman does not explicitly teach the damper is rubber. Ervin taches the damper is rubber [0003 and 0018].
There are a finite number of choices available to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the invention of Hickman. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the invention of Hickman having the damper made of rubber. The motivation would have been to provide stronger support while damping vibration.
Regarding claim 4, Hickman as modified teaches said rubber has a Shore hardness of at least 30 and not more than 60 [Ervin; 0018 on the Shore D scale].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hickman (U.S. Pat. No. 4,893,796) in view of Basham (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2011/0209733 A1) and further in view of Michael (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0374168 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Hickman teaches the vibration damper. However, Hickman is silent to disclose the vibration damper is a wire rope isolator. Michael teaches the vibration damper is a wire rope isolator [Michael; 20-23].
Hickman and Michael are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for isolating vibrations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the invention of Hickman having the wire rope isolator as disclosed by Michael. The motivation would have been to make the damper durable and as well as capable of handling the vibration in any direction.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hickman (U.S. Pat. No. 4,893,796).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Hickman teaches said structure attachment member. However, Hickman is silent to disclose the structure attachment member is a wood/concrete screw member. The Examiner takes the official notice that providing wood/concrete screws are old and well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the invention capable of securing to wood and concrete.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD IJAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 am-10:00 pm.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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.
MUHAMMAD IJAZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3631
/Muhammad Ijaz/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631