DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office action in response to the amendment filed 03/03/2026 and the RCE filed 03/10/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 14-18 and 21-25 are pending;
Claims 1-13, 19, and 20 have been cancelled; claims 14-18 and 21-25 are currently amended;
Claims 14-18 and 21-25 are rejected herein.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed 03/03/2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 14-25 in the Office action mailed 12/17/2025 is withdrawn in view of Seils (US 1,706,634) and the newly discovered references, Rudolf (US 7,114,688 B2) and Valles-Navarro (US 5,908,181). Rejections based on the newly cited references follow.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in the remarks filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below in this Office action.
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed 03/03/2026 are accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 22 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22, line 2, "performs" denotes actual motion and should be functionally recited, e.g., as --is configured to perform-- or the like.
Claim 23, lines 3 and 4, the limitations "a second slot (1102) at a second end that allows the third actuator (503) to perform a sliding movement" appear to be fine when the fixing rods (2) are not installed. Should these limitations be --a second slot (1102) at a second end that allows the second actuator (502) to perform a sliding movement--, since the second actuator (502) is slidable relative to the third actuator (503)?
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 14-18 and 21-25 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.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations "a rest (4) for providing arm support while using the control (3)" in claim 14 (lines 5 and 6) are indefinite. These limitations appear to mean that the rest (4) uses the control (3). As best understood, it is the user who uses the control (3). It is advised that the limitations "a rest (4) for providing arm support while using the control (3)" in claim 14 (lines 5 and 6) be changed to --a rest (4) for providing arm support while the control (3) is in use-- or the like. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations "a cavity (7) located within the actuator (501), into which the rolling element (6) is placed to perform a rotational movement" in claim 14 (lines 12 and 13) are indefinite. It is not clear as to which recited element (i.e., the "cavity" or the "actuator") the language "into which" refers to. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations "wherein the plurality of inclined surfaces (10) contact the actuator (501)" in claim 14 (line 15) are indefinite. Since only one of the plurality of inclined surfaces (10) contacts the actuator (501) at a time, it is not clear as to how the plurality of inclined surfaces (10) "contact" the actuator (501). It is advised that these limitations be changed to --wherein each of the plurality of inclined surfaces (10) is configured to contact the actuator (501)--. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 22, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the fixing rod (12)" (claim 22, line 2) in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 23, the limitation "a fixing rod (12)" in claim 23 (line 3) is indefinite. It is not clear as to whether the limitation "a fixing rod (12)" in claim 23 (line 3) and the limitation "the fixing rod (12)" in claim 22 (line 2) refer to the same fixing rod (12) or different fixing rods (12). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 15-18, 21, 24, and 25 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected 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.
Claims 14-18, 21, and 25, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seils (US 1,706,634) in view of Rudolf (US 7,114,688 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Seils discloses a support system (see Figure 1) comprising: a control (C, fig 1, see annotation, the steering control of the vehicle) for maneuvering a vehicle and/or for controlling equipment located on the vehicle (see Figure 1, the control 1 is capable of performing the above intended use); a rest (1, fig 2) for providing arm support while using the control (see Figures 1-6, the rest 1 is capable of performing the above intended use), wherein a position of the rest is adjustable (see Figures 1-6, see page 1, lines 41-110, page 2, lines 1-3, the rest 1 is capable of performing the above intended use); an actuator (9, 12, fig 2) which is in connection with the rest and allows the position of the rest to be changed (see Figures 1-6, see page 1, lines 41-110, page 2, lines 1-3, the actuator 9, 12 is capable of performing the above intended use); a rolling element (14, fig 3) located between the actuator and the rest so as to enable the rest to rotate in all directions within a range of motion predetermined by a manufacturer (see Figures 1-6, see page 1, lines 41-110, page 2, lines 1-3, the rolling element 14 is capable of performing the above intended use); and a cavity (15, fig 3) located within the actuator, into which the rolling element is placed to perform a rotational movement (see Figures 1-6, see page 1, lines 41-110, page 2, lines 1-3, the rolling element 14 is capable of performing the above intended use).
PNG
media_image1.png
284
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (C – Control)][AltContent: arrow]
Seils does not disclose the support element comprising: a plurality of inclined surfaces formed on the rolling element to extend towards the rest, wherein the plurality of inclined surfaces contact the actuator to enable that the rotational movement of the rolling element in the cavity is limited to a predetermined angle value.
Rudolf teaches a support system (10, fig 1) comprising: a rolling element (R, fig 2, see annotation, the mounting element between the ball portion 36 and the screen 12) located between an actuator (14, 46, 52, fig 1) and a screen (12, fig 1) so as to enable the screen to rotate in all directions within a range of motion predetermined by a manufacturer (see Figures 1-7, the rolling element R is capable of performing the above intended use); a cavity (48, fig 2, see annotation, the cavity defined by the housing 46) located within the actuator (see Figure 2); and a plurality of inclined surfaces (40a, fig 2, see annotation, the inclined surfaces defined by the radial lugs 40) formed on the rolling element to extend towards the screen (see Figures 1-7), wherein the plurality of inclined surfaces contact the actuator to enable that the rotational movement of the rolling element is limited to a predetermined angle value (see Figures 1-7, the plurality of inclined surfaces 40a are capable of performing the above intended use).
PNG
media_image2.png
586
740
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (R – Rolling Element)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (40a – Inclined Surface)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
378
900
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (48 – Cavity)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (40a – Inclined Surface)]
Seils and Rudolf are analogous art because they are at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a plurality of inclined surfaces (Rudolf: 40a, fig 2, see annotation) on the rolling element (Seils: 14, fig 2) to extend towards the rest (Seils: 1, fig 2), wherein the plurality of inclined surfaces contact the (Seils: 9, 12, fig 2) to enable that the rotational movement of the rolling element in the cavity (Seils: 15, fig 2) is limited to a predetermined angle value (Rudolf: see Figures 1-7; Seil: see Figures 1-6), as taught by Rudolf, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to provide a designated limiting mechanism to regulate the rotational movement of the rest of Seils to avoid over-rotation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Seils and Rudolf to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, the support system comprising: a connecting element (Seils: 16, fig 2) which enables the rolling element to be attached to the actuator such that the rest faces the cavity (Seils: see Figures 1-6, see page 1, lines 41-110, page 2, lines 1-3, the connecting element 16 is capable of performing the above intended use); and a ball joint (Seils: 13, fig 2) which is fixed on the rolling element so as to perform a rotational movement around an axis along which the connecting element extends, thereby allowing the rolling element to move within the cavity (Seils: see Figures 1-6, see page 1, lines 41-110, page 2, lines 1-3, the ball joint 13 is capable of performing the above intended use).
Regarding claim 16, the support system comprising a slot (Seils: 8a, fig 2, see annotation, the slot of the vertical bearing 8) that allows the actuator removably attached therein to perform a sliding movement in a direction the actuator extends (Seils: see Figures 1-6, see page 1, lines 41-110, page 2, lines 1-3, the slot 8a is capable of performing the above intended use).
PNG
media_image4.png
466
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (8a – Slot)][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 17, wherein the cavity surrounds the rolling element so as to allow the rolling element to move together with the actuator, thereby allowing concurrent execution of processes which include a rotation of the rest and a height adjustment of the rest (Seils: see Figures 1-6, see page 1, lines 41-110, page 2, lines 1-3, the cavity 15 is capable of performing the above intended use).
Regarding claim 18, the support system comprising: a floor (Seils: see Figure 1, the vehicle floor) to which the control is connected (Seils: see Figures 1-6, see page 1, lines 41-110, page 2, lines 1-3); and wherein the actuator is configured to enable the rest to be moved up-down so as to increase or decrease a distance between the floor and the rest (Seils: see Figures 1-6, see page 1, lines 41-110, page 2, lines 1-3, the actuator 9, 12 is capable of performing the above intended use).
Regarding claim 21, the support system comprising a second actuator (Seils: 6, 8, fig 2) which allows the rest to be moved almost parallel to a floor and selectively positioned (Seils: see Figures 1-6, see page 1, lines 41-110, page 2, lines 1-3, the second actuator 6, 8 is capable of performing the above intended use).
Regarding claim 25, wherein a ball joint (Seils: 13, fig 2) is fixed on the rolling element (Seils: see Figures 1-6, see page 1, lines 41-110, page 2, lines 1-3) by a radial swaging method or a ring method.
Applicant is reminded that claim 25 is a product-by-process claim. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the instant case, Seils, as modified by Rudolf with respect to claim 14, teaches the product, i.e., a ball joint fixed on the rolling element. As such, claim 25 is unpatentable, since determination of patentability is based on the product itself.
Claims 22-24, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seils (US 1,706,634) in view of Rudolf (US 7,114,688 B2) and Valles-Navarro (US 5,908,181).
Regarding claim 22, Seils, as modified by Rudolf with respect to claim 14, does not teach the support system, does not teach the support system, comprising a third actuator which performs a sliding motion on the fixing rod to move the rest almost perpendicular to a direction along which the control lies on the floor, such that a distance between the rest and the control is increased or decreased.
Valles-Navarro teaches a support system (10, YY, figs 1 & 2, col 4, lines 12-16) comprising: a rest (22, fig 2); a first actuator (AA, fig 2) which is in connection with the rest and allows the position of the rest to be changed (see Figures 1 and 2, the first actuator AA is capable of performing the above intended use); a second actuator (A, B, F, G, H, V, fig 1, also see annotation below) which allows the rest to be moved almost parallel to a floor and selectively positioned (see Figures 1 and 2, the second actuator A, B, F, G, H, V is capable of performing the above intended use); and a third actuator (A, B, C, R, X, fig 1, also see annotation below) which performs a sliding motion on the fixing rod to move the rest almost perpendicular to a direction along which a stand (2, fig 1) lies on the floor, such that a distance between the rest and the stand is increased or decreased (see Figures 1 and 2, the third actuator A, B, C, R, X is capable of performing the above intended use).
[AltContent: textbox (Second Actuator)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image5.png
844
658
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Third Actuator)]
Valles-Navarro is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a third actuator (Valles-Navarro: A, B, C, R, X, fig 1, also see annotation above) between the base member (Seils: 3, fig 2) and the second actuator (Seils: 5, 8, fig 2), wherein the third actuator performs a sliding motion on the fixing rod to move the rest (Seils: 1, fig 2) almost perpendicular to a direction along which the control (Seils: C, fig 1, see annotation) lies on the floor (Seils: see Figures 1-6; Valles-Navarro: see Figures 1-7), such that a distance between the rest and the control is increased or decreased (Seils: see Figures 1-6; Valles-Navarro: see Figures 1-7), as taught by Valles-Navarro, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to enhance adjustability of the rest. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Seils, Rudolf, and Valles-Navarro to obtain the invention as specified in claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, wherein the third actuator has a first slot (Valles-Navarro: see Figure 1, the slot defined by the jaw D of the double clamp X at a first end that allows the third actuator to slide on a fixing rod (Valles-Navarro: A, fig 1) and a second slot (Seils: see Figure 2, the slot defined by the vertical bearing 5; Valles-Navarro: see Figure 1, the slot defined by the jaw D of the double clamp R) at a second end that allows the third actuator to perform a sliding movement.
Regarding claim 24, wherein the third actuator increases a wall thickness depending on an increase in a bending moment as the third actuator approaches the fixing rod, thus providing strength with an homogeneous distribution of a force thereon (Valles-Navarro: see Figure 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Guang H Guan whose telephone number is (571) 272-7828. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays (10:00 AM - 6:00 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 (571) 272-8227. 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.
/G. H. G./Examiner, Art Unit 3631
/JONATHAN LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights