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 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the elastic member each of the first and second receivers” should be “wherein the elastic member of each of the first and second receivers”. 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.
Claim 16 is 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.
With Respect to Claim 16
The phrase "plate-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent #350,523 to Bodley (Bodley). Bodley discloses:
With Respect to Claim 1
An attachment system configured to carry an item and configured for attachment to a utility vehicle (capable of this use with an appropriate utility vehicle) , the attachment system comprising: a first receiver (A, FIG. 1 or 2), the first receiver comprising: a body (A) having a peripheral outer edge (outer wall of e and portion opposite e in FIG. 1, or outer wall of each e or of one e and central a in FIG. 2) and inner sidewalls (outer walls of O), the inner sidewalls defining a slot that extends from an interior of the body through the peripheral outer edge (FIG. 1 or 2), wherein the slot defines: a mouth (opening into O) extending through the peripheral outer edge, wherein the peripheral outer edge is curved at the mouth to assist in guiding the item into the slot (noting curve of e in FIG. 1 or 2 or curve of a in FIG. 2); a seat (portion between band c and e in FIG. 1 or 2, noting also H shown in FIG. 2 in this location) configured to receive the item (capable of this use which is also the intended use); and a throat (FIGS. 1-2) extending between and connecting the mouth and the seat; and at least one elastic member (c), the elastic member comprising a first end and a second end, wherein the first and second ends are coupled to the body and the elastic member extends across the mouth, and wherein the elastic member is configured to releasably secure the item within the seat (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see also FIGS. 1-2 showing them extending across the mouth when not in use).
With Respect to Claim 2
The attachment system of claim 1, wherein one or more of the inner sidewalls defines a continuous curvilinear guiding surface extending from the mouth to the seat (FIGS. 1-2).
With Respect to Claim 3
The attachment system of claim 1, wherein the throat comprises: a first throat portion extending from the mouth towards the interior of the body in a first direction; and a second throat portion extending from the first throat portion towards the seat in a second direction that is different than the first direction (it extends towards B, then laterally to b, then away from B to the seat).
With Respect to Claim 4
The attachment system of claim 3, wherein the throat further comprises a third throat portion extending between the first and second throat portions in a third direction that is different than both the first and second directions.
The attachment system of claim 1, wherein the first end of the elastic member is coupled to the body proximate the mouth, and wherein the second end of the elastic member is coupled to the body proximate the seat (FIGS. 1-2 both show attachment in these locations).
With Respect to Claim 6
The attachment system of claim 1, wherein the elastic member is configured to elastically elongate from an initial position as the item is inserted into the mouth, to a second position as the item is positioned in the throat, and wherein the elastic member is configured to partially elastically recover from the second position to a third position when the item is releasably secured in the seat (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. Bodley lines 46-54).
With Respect to Claim 7
The attachment system of claim 1, wherein the inner sidewalls define a finger extending into the throat between the mouth and the seat (the area between the two is a finger to the extent claimed).
With Respect to Claim 16
The attachment system of claim 1, wherein the body is a flat, plate-like body (noting that A as shown is a plate).
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 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #350,523 to Bodley (Bodley).
With Respect to Claim 15
The attachment system of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising a second receiver couplable to the utility vehicle at a second location different than the first receiver, and wherein the first and second receivers are configured to simultaneously receive the item.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a second identical receiver that is separate from the first receiver, in order to hold additional items, and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere duplication of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04). It is Examiner’s position that the second receiver is capable of the claimed use, e.g. by attaching it to an appropriate vehicle an appropriate distance below or above the first receiver and aligned therewith to hold a broom or similar elongate object.
With Respect to Claim 15
The attachment system of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising a second receiver separate from the first receiver.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a second identical receiver that is separate from the first receiver, in order to hold additional items, and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere duplication of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
With Respect to Claim 17
The attachment system of claim 1, but does not detail a particular size for the parts and so does not disclose wherein the mouth has a mouth width between approximately 0.5 inches and 2 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to form the mouth with a width between approximately 0.5 and 2 inches, in order to hold a broom or other elongated item having a width equal to or slightly less than that width, as a mere selection of an art appropriate sizing for the parts, and/or as doing so instead of sizing it larger or smaller than this would constitute at most a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Claims 1-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #6,510,953 to Daniels (Daniels) in view of U.S. Patent #350,523 to Bodley (Bodley).
With Respect to Claim 1
An attachment system configured to carry an item and configured for attachment to a utility vehicle, the attachment system comprising: a first receiver (upper rack member 23), the first receiver comprising: a body having a peripheral outer edge (outer edges of 21) and inner sidewalls (sidewalls of slot 31), the inner sidewalls defining a slot (31) that extends from an interior of the body through the outer edge, wherein the slot defines: a mouth (51 alone or in combination with adjacent portions of 53) extending through the peripheral outer edge; a seat (59 or 57, see e.g. FIG. 5) configured to receive the item (capable of this use which is also the intended use, noting rod 81 or other disclosed items such as pool cues); and a throat (55 alone or in combination with adjacent portions of 53 and/or 57) extending between and connecting the mouth and the seat; and at least one elastic member (cord 71, see e.g. abstract), the elastic member comprising a first end and a second end, wherein the first and second ends are coupled to the body (at 71A and 71B or alternately extension through 23H also couples it to the body) and the elastic member extends across the mouth, and wherein the elastic member is configured to releasably secure the item within the seat (FIGS. 5-6 and description); but does not disclose wherein the peripheral outer edge is curved at the mouth to assist in guiding the item into the slot.
However, Bodley discloses forming a similar first receiver wherein the peripheral outer edge is curved at the mouth to assist in guiding the item into the slot (for clarity, Bodley does not explicitly detail this functionality, but the structure as shown will provide this function, i.e. it provides a slightly larger area at the opening which then narrows and so serves to guide the item into the slot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Bodley, to add a curve to the peripheral outer edge at the mouth as taught by Bodley, in order to assist in guiding the item into the slot and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
With Respect to Claim 2
Taking the mouth to be all of 53, the throat to be 55, and the seat to be 57, the attachment system of claim 1, and wherein one or more of the inner sidewalls (55B) defines a continuous curvilinear guiding surface extending from the mouth to the seat.
With Respect to Claim 3
The attachment system of claim 1, wherein the throat comprises: a first throat portion (53) extending from the mouth towards the interior of the body in a first direction; and a second throat portion (55) extending from the first throat portion towards the seat in a second direction that is different than the first direction (see, e.g. FIG. 6).
With Respect to Claim 4
The attachment system of claim 3, wherein the throat further comprises a third throat portion (portion of 57 adjacent 55) extending between the first and second throat portions in a third direction that is different than both the first and second directions (for clarity, the first direction is parallel to the sidewalls 53A/B, the second direction is diagonally through 55 between 57 and 53, substantially parallel to the central portion of the curve of 55A or B, and the third direction is parallel to 57A or 57B or an angle between these two).
With Respect to Claim 5
The attachment system of claim 1, wherein the first end of the elastic member is coupled to the body proximate the mouth (noting 71B proximate the mouth of the first slot), and wherein the second end of the elastic member is coupled to the body proximate the seat (noting 23H adjacent the first slot).
With Respect to Claim 6
The attachment system of claim 1, wherein the elastic member is configured to elastically elongate from an initial position as the item is inserted into the mouth, to a second position as the item is positioned in the throat, and wherein the elastic member is configured to partially elastically recover from the second position to a third position when the item is releasably secured in the seat (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. Col. 2 lines 51-62).
With Respect to Claim 7
The attachment system of claim 1, wherein the inner sidewalls define a finger (noting finger formed by 55A and adjacent sidewalls) extending into the throat between the mouth and the seat (FIGS. 5-6).
With Respect to Claim 16
The attachment system of claim 1, wherein the body is a flat, plate-like body.
With Respect to Claim 17
The attachment system of claim 1, wherein the mouth has a mouth width between approximately 0.5 inches and 2 inches (it is disclosed that the mouth can for example have a width of ¾ of an inch which is within the claimed range, and it is Examiner’s position that as modified to add a curvature it would be obvious to maintain it within the claimed range as a mere selection of an art appropriate size or at most a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A))).
Claims 1-8 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodley or Daniels in view of Bodley as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #6,910,592 to Lindenmeyer (Lindenmeyer).
With Respect to Claims 1-7
As to claims 1-7, Lindenmeyer discloses attaching a holding rack for elongated objects similar to the Bodley or Daniels rack with a vehicle attachment structure to allow for attachment to a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Lindenmeyer, to add a vehicle attachment structure (either bores for fasteners or fasteners as taught by Lindenmeyer or any other suitable art known attachment structure) to the Bodley or Daniels rack, in order to allow for attachment to a vehicle or other structure as taught by Lindenmeyer.
This combination is presented as an alternative rejection of these claims as this combination also similarly meets all of the limitations of those claims as Bodley or Daniels in view of Bodley, with the addition of more clearly fulfilling the unclear functional limitations related to use on a utility vehicle.
With Respect to Claim 8
Bodley or Daniels in view of Bodley discloses the attachment system of claim 1, and Daniels discloses further comprising a second receiver (25) wherein the first and second receivers are configured to simultaneously receive the item, but Bodley does not disclose a second receiver as claimed and Daniels does not disclose that the second receiver is couplable to the utility vehicle at a second location different than the first receiver.
However, Lindenmeyer discloses forming a similar elongated item holder (it is noted that it also explicitly discloses fishing rods like Daniels does) comprising a first receiver (4) couplable to the utility vehicle (for clarity, clearly capable of attachment to an appropriate utility vehicle as it is attachable to a vehicle) at a first location and a second receiver (the other 4) coupled to the utility vehicle at a second location, and wherein the first and second receivers are configured to simultaneously receive the item, and that this allows for carrying the item(s) during transport.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Lindenmeyer, to add a second receiver that is identical to the first to the rack of Bodley, in order to secure the other end of the elongated item as taught by Lindemeyer.
It would similarly have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Lindenmeyer, to replace the two receivers connected by sidewalls rack of Daniels with two separate receivers attachable to different locations, in order to allow for easier movement and storage of the rack and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making separable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
With Respect to Claim 15
The attachment system of claim 1, further comprising a second receiver separate from the first receiver (per Lindenmeyer).
With Respect to Claim 16
The attachment system of claim 1, wherein the body is a flat, plate-like body (all three references disclose the body as a flat, plate-like body).
With Respect to Claim 17
The attachment system of claim 1, wherein the mouth has a mouth width between approximately 0.5 inches and 2 inches (obvious using the same reasoning used to reject claim 17 using Bodley or Daniels in view of Bodley above).
Claims 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodley in view of U.S. Patent #6,910,592 to Lindenmeyer (Lindenmeyer).
With Respect to Claim 20
Bodley in view of Lindenmeyer (see the rejection of claim 8 above for details of this combination) discloses an attachment system configured to carry an item and configured for attachment to a utility vehicle, the attachment system comprising: a first receiver (A per Bodley or 23 per Daniels); and a second receiver (duplicate A per Lindenmeyer) separate from the first receiver (per Lindemeyer), each of the first receiver and the second receiver comprising: a body having a peripheral outer edge and inner sidewalls, the inner sidewalls defining a slot that extends from an interior of the body through the peripheral outer edge, wherein the slot defines: a mouth extending through the peripheral outer edge; a seat configured to receive the item; and a throat extending between and connecting the mouth and the seat (see Bodley FIG. 1 or 2); and at least one elastic member (c), the elastic member comprising a first end and a second end, wherein the first and second ends are coupled to the body and the elastic member extends across the mouth (see Bodley FIG. 1 or 2), and wherein the elastic member is configured to releasably secure the item within the seat (capable of this use which is also the intended use).
With Respect to Claim 21
The attachment system of claim 20, wherein one or more of the inner sidewalls of each of the first and second receivers defines a continuous curvilinear guiding surface extending from the mouth to the seat.
With Respect to Claim 22
The attachment system of claim 20, wherein the throat of each of the first and second receivers comprises: a first throat portion extending from the mouth towards the interior of the body in a first direction; and a second throat portion extending from the first throat portion towards the seat in a second direction that is different than the first direction (Bodley discloses the throat portion extending inwardly then to the side and then outwardly).
With Respect to Claim 23
The attachment system of claim 22, wherein the throat each of the first and second receivers further comprises a third throat portion extending between the first and second throat portions in a third direction that is different than both the first and second directions (again, Bodley discloses the throat portion extending inwardly then to the side and then outwardly).
With Respect to Claim 24
The attachment system of claim 20, wherein the first end of the elastic member each of the first and second receivers is coupled to the body proximate the mouth, and wherein the second end of the elastic member each of the first and second receivers is coupled to the body proximate the seat (see the rejection of claim 5 above for details).
With Respect to Claim 25
The attachment system of claim 20, wherein the elastic member each of the first and second receivers is configured to elastically elongate from an initial position to a second position in the throat, and wherein the elastic member is configured to partially elastically recover from the second position to a third position (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. Bodley lines 46-54).
With Respect to Claim 26
The attachment system of claim 20, wherein the peripheral outer edge each of the first and second receivers is curved at the mouth (see, e.g. FIG. 1 or 2) to assist in guiding the item into the slot.
Claims 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels in view of U.S. Patent #6,910,592 to Lindenmeyer (Lindenmeyer).
With Respect to Claims 20-25
Daniel in view of Lindenmeyer (see the rejection of claim 8 above for details of this combination) discloses an attachment system configured to carry an item and configured for attachment to a utility vehicle, the attachment system comprising: a first receiver (23); and a second receiver (25) separate from the first receiver (per Lindemeyer), each of the first receiver and the second receiver comprising: a body having a peripheral outer edge and inner sidewalls, the inner sidewalls defining a slot that extends from an interior of the body through the peripheral outer edge, wherein the slot defines: a mouth extending through the peripheral outer edge; a seat configured to receive the item; and a throat extending between and connecting the mouth and the seat (see Daniels); and at least one elastic member (71 per Daniels), the elastic member comprising a first end and a second end, wherein the first and second ends are coupled to the body and the elastic member extends across the mouth (see Daniels FIGS. 5-6), and wherein the elastic member is configured to releasably secure the item within the seat (capable of this use which is also the intended use).
With Respect to Claim 21
The attachment system of claim 20, wherein one or more of the inner sidewalls of each of the first and second receivers defines a continuous curvilinear guiding surface extending from the mouth to the seat.
With Respect to Claim 22
The attachment system of claim 20, wherein the throat of each of the first and second receivers comprises: a first throat portion extending from the mouth towards the interior of the body in a first direction; and a second throat portion extending from the first throat portion towards the seat in a second direction that is different than the first direction (Daniels discloses the throat portion extending inwardly then to the side and then outwardly).
With Respect to Claim 23
The attachment system of claim 22, wherein the throat each of the first and second receivers further comprises a third throat portion extending between the first and second throat portions in a third direction that is different than both the first and second directions (again, Daniels dislcoses the throat portion extending inwardly then to the side and then outwardly).
With Respect to Claim 24
The attachment system of claim 20, wherein the first end of the elastic member each of the first and second receivers is coupled to the body proximate the mouth, and wherein the second end of the elastic member each of the first and second receivers is coupled to the body proximate the seat (see the rejection of claim 5 above for details).
With Respect to Claim 25
The attachment system of claim 20, wherein the elastic member each of the first and second receivers is configured to elastically elongate from an initial position to a second position in the throat, and wherein the elastic member is configured to partially elastically recover from the second position to a third position (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. Daniels Col. 2 lines 51-62).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels in view of U.S. Patent #6,910,592 to Lindenmeyer (Lindenmeyer) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Bodley.
With Respect to Claim 26
Daniels in view of Lindenmeyer and Bodley (see the rejection of claims 1 and 8 above for details of this combination) discloses the attachment system of claim 20, wherein the peripheral outer edge each of the first and second receivers is curved at the mouth (per Bodley) to assist in guiding the item into the slot.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels in view of Bodley, either alone or further in view of Lindenmeyer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #10,322,683 to Lawrence (Lawrence).
With Respect to Claim 5
As an alternative to the rejections above for claim 5, Lawrence discloses forming a holder for only a single object (FIG. 8 embodiment) as an alternative to forming it for multiple objects (e.g. FIGS. 9-10 embodiment), and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Lawrence, to form the structure with only a single holding slot and the elastic band extending over the mouth of that holding slot and attached adjacent each end of the mouth (i.e. there is no need or particular benefit for the ends of the band to attach farther apart and so this modification is obvious), as doing so constitutes at most a mere omission of an element (i.e. the other holding slots) and its function (i.e. holding additional items) which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels in view of Lindenmeyer as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #10,322,683 to Lawrence (Lawrence).
With Respect to Claim 24
As an alternative to the rejection of claim 24 above using Daniels in view of Lindenmeyer alone, the combination with Lawrence provides a structure more closely resembling the invention and also meeting the limitations of the claim, see the rejection of claim 5 above using these references for details of the combination.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels in view of Bodley, either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #6,910,592 to Lindenmeyer (Lindenmeyer), alone or also in view of U.S. Patent #10,322,683 to Lawrence (Lawrence).
With Respect to Claim 2
As an alternative to the rejection(s) of claim 2 above using Daniels in view of Bodley or in view of Bodley and Lindenmeyer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to replace the straight sidewalls of Daniels with curved walls, in order to decrease the overall size of the structure to make it more compact, and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04). It is noted that Daniels does not disclose any particular benefit to the walls being straight instead of curved.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodley or Daniels in view of Bodley, either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #6,910,592 to Lindenmeyer (Lindenmeyer), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #4,286,717 to Liesinger (Liesinger) or U.S. Patent #1,552,535 to Beerstecher, either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #4,056,219 to Hine (Hine).
With Respect to Claim 18
The attachment system of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the elastic member includes a coiled extension spring.
However, Liesinger or Beerstecher discloses the use of a coiled extension spring as an elastic member on a similar receiver to secure an elongated object against a curved wall of the receiver; Hine discloses that a metal spring is an art known substitute for an elastic cord as a resilient member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Liesinger or Beerstecher, to replace the elastic band of Bodley or Daniels in view of Bodley with a coiled extension spring, for the art known benefits of such a spring and/or as a mere substitution of one art known elastic/resilient member for another. Alternately, Hine provides additional evidence of the obviousness of this type of substitution.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodley or Daniels in view of Bodley, further in view of U.S. Patent #4,286,717 to Liesinger (Liesinger) or U.S. Patent #1,552,535 to Beerstecher, either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #4,056,219 to Hine (Hine) and/or U.S. Patent #6,910,592 to Lindenmeyer (Lindenmeyer), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2014/0090145 to Strum (Strum).
With Respect to Claim 19
The attachment system of claim 18, but does not disclose wherein the elastic member includes a surrounding sleeve configured to mitigate wear.
However, Strum discloses the use of a rubber sleeve around a coil spring (33) in order to provide a protective surface that is sufficient flexible to flex with the spring during operation ([0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Strum, to add a rubber sleeve around the spring of the combination, in order to provide a protective surface that is sufficient flexible to flex with the spring during operation as taught by Strum, and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate spring/resilient structure to use.
It is noted that as to the combinations including Hine, Hine discloses the use of a protective cover on the spring, which provides additional evidence of the obviousness of this modification as the sleeve is a type of protective cover.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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 J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734