DETAILED ACTION
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 1-17 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.
In re Claims 1, 14, and 16, the language specifies a spherically shaped surface. However, this surface, while rounded, is not shaped like a sphere. This lack of clarity renders the scope of the claim indefinite. An appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-12, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen et al. (U.S. 6,021,992) in view of Collins (U.S. 2,002,934) .
In re Claims 1, 15, and 16. Yen teaches a base(122) including a spherically shaped, concave upper base surface; a slider (16) including a slider body, a spherically shaped, convex upper slider surface on an upper end of the slider body and a convex lower slider surface on the lower end of the slider body, and a pedestal (140) including a pedestal body, a spherically shaped, concave lower pedestal surface on a lower end of the pedestal body and a flat upper pedestal surface on an upper end of the pedestal body, the concave lower pedestal surface disposed on the convex upper slider surface. A structure (52), is supported on the pendulum/base/slider isolation system. (Figures 1-6, Annotated Figure)
PNG
media_image1.png
401
609
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yen does not teach a first plurality of bearings supported within the spherically shaped, concave upper base surface or the convex lower slider surface disposed on the first plurality of bearings.
Collins teaches a seismic resistant foundation (12) where ball bearings (22) are placed between metal plates (16,31,32,38). (Figures 1-10)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yen with the teachings of Collins. The ball bearings allow freedom of movement in multiple directions. Ball bearings are also durable and stable in varying environmental conditions. In the combination the plurality of bearings supported within the spherically shaped, concave upper base surface and the convex lower slider surface would be disposed on the first plurality of bearings. In the combination, the ball bearings would allow the structure (supported by the rolling pendulum base system) to roll in a lateral direction in response to a lateral force. The concave surface of the base would make it obvious to center the rolling pendulum base system since gravity would settle the ball bearings (and the pendulum base system they support) at the low central point of the concave upper base surface.
In re Claims 5 and 6, Yen modified by Collins has been previously discussed. The concave upper base surface and the convex lower slider surface have a first radius R1 and the convex upper slider surface and the concave lower pedestal surface have a second radius R2. These radii appear to be different, however should the applicant dispute this, changes in size, shape, and proportion which have been held to involve only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 137; In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402. Therefore, having the radii be different would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. A more gradual curvature at the upper base surface and lower sider surface would provide a more stable supportive surface.
In re Claims 7, Yen modified by Collins has been previously discussed. Collins teaches a perimeter curb (upstanding retaining arms (17,31 on base 16,32). In the combination, they would be disposed on a perimeter of the upper base surface.
In re Claims 8 and 9, Yen modified by Collins has been previously discussed. Yen teaches the concave upper base surface has a circular shape having a first diameter. The convex lower slider surface has a circular shape having a second diameter. (Figures 1-6, Annotated Figure) Figure 2 shows that the convex lower slider surface (second diameter) is smaller that the concave upper base surface (first diameter). Therefore, the first diameter is greater than the second diameter.
In re Claims 10 and 11, Yen modified by Collins has been previously discussed. Yen teaches the concave lower pedestal surface has a circular shape having a third diameter and wherein the convex upper slider surface has a circular shape having a fourth diameter. The third diameter is equal to or greater than the fourth diameter (Figures 1-6, Annotated Figure)
In re Claim 12, Yen modified by Collins has been previously discussed but does not teach that the fourth diameter is equal to or greater than the third diameter. However, changes in size, shape, and proportion which have been held to involve only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 137; In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402 Having the fourth diameter larger than the third diameter would result in a more substantial slider that would provide more material to the support the weight of the overlying structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 13, 14, and 17 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. The prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest a panel with the combination of characteristics specified in the claims. In particular are the requirements for the first, second, third and fourth curved metal sheets or the plurality of dimples on the plurality of surfaces of the bearings. There is no cogent reasoning that is unequivocally independent of hindsight that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art to obtain the applicant's invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM G BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
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.
/ADAM G BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633