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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 7-8, and 10-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 2, and 11 use the following terms to refer to the vertically elongated case sleeve 107:
In claim 1, “bottom, first one of the sleeves” is recited.
In claim 1, the phrase “bottom first one of the case sleeves” is recites.
In claim 1, the phrase “bottom, first one” is recited.
In claim 11, the phrase “bottom, first sleeve” is recited.
In claims 2 and 11, the phrase” bottom, first case sleeve” is recited.
In claim 1, the phrase “bottom, case sleeve” is recited.
In claims 1, 2, and 11, the phrase “first case sleeve” is recited.
Claims 1, 2, and 11 use the following terms to refer to the elevator sleeve 110
In claim 1, the phrase “elevator sleeve” is recited.
In claim 1, the phrase “said elevator sleeve” is recited.
In claim 1, the phrase “second one of the elevator sleeves” is recited.
In claim 2, the phrase “Second elevator sleeve” is recited.
In claim 11, the phrase “second case sleeve” is recited.
Claims 2-4 use the following terms to refer to the elevator tube 11
In claim 2, the phrase “top, third elevator tube” is recited.
In claim 3, the phrase “third, top elevator tube” is recited.
In claim 3, the phrase “third, top case sleeve” is recited.
In claim 4, “elevator tube” is recited.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, and 10 use the following terms to refer to the plurality of telescoping sleeves
In claims 7, 8, and 10, the phrase “plurality of case sleeves” is recited.
In claim 5, the phrase "plurality of elevator sleeves” is recited.
In claims 1 and 2, the phrase “plurality of telescoping sleeves” is recited.
In claims 1 and 3, the phrase “the sleeves” is recited.
Examiner recommends using the same term for the vertically elongated case sleeve 107, elevator sleeve 110, elevator tube 11, and the plurality of telescoping sleeves.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "at least three stop mechanism configured to engage one another " in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In paragraph 0032, it is noted that “at least three stop mechanisms comprise of at least three lances on a plurality of inner case sleeves and at least three guiding lances on a plurality of outer case sleeves.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “case sleeves” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret the claim as the telescoping sleeves.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “elevator sleeves” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret the claim as the second one of the telescoping sleeves.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "elevator tube" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret the claim as the top, third elevator tube.
Claim 8 recites a method for retaining case sleeve resistance on a screw jack system, yet the claim comprises a structural description, and not procedural steps. The claim scope is uncertain to the examiner since there are not procedural steps within the method claim. For examination purposes, examiner will interpret the claim as a system claim.
Claim 9 recites “the method of claim 5,” however claim 5 is not a method claim. Claim 5 is a dependent claim of claim 1, which is a system claim. Furthermore, claim 5 further describes the system of claim 1. The claim scope is indefinite since it is unknown to the examiner a method in claim 5. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret the claim as to being dependent on the system of claim 5.
Claim 10 recites “the method of claim 5,” however claim 5 is not a method claim. Claim 5 is dependent claim of claim 1, which is a system claim. Furthermore, claim 5 further describes the system of claim 1. The claim scope is indefinite since it is unknown to the examiner a method in claim 5. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret the claim as to being dependent on the system of claim 5.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "plurality of case sleeves" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, and 11 are also rejected as being dependent on a previously rejected claim.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (U.S. 6,659,428 B2), in view of Lucker (U.S. 2,096,050 A) and Liu et al. (CN 206,513,187 U).
Regarding claim 1, Kubota teaches a screw jack system (Paragraph 0023, Figures 1-6) comprising:
a base (Column 5, Lines 22-23, substantially rectangular base 1); a case body (Column 5, Lines 26-29, housing 3) having a drive gear (Column 5, lines 32-35, substantially bowl-shaped bevel gear 30) to provide rotational motion; a rotational input (Column 6, Lines 44-48, drive gear 32) for driving the gear; a drive screw (Column 6, lines 30-34, first screw shaft 29) perpendicular to said drive gear and rotatable therewith to convert rotation motion into linear motion; a plurality of telescoping sleeves (substantially rectangular pipe-shaped upper half portion of housing 3 (Lines 26 – 29, Column 5), ram guide 45 (lines 26 – 32, Column 7), and ram 47 (lines 44-49 Column 7) extendible and retractable relative to one another to permit vertical elevation, a raising and lowering mechanism within said sleeves for extending and lowering comprising an internally threaded shaft (Column 5 and 6, lines 67 and 1-10, respectively, second screw shaft 40 with female thread portion 41) meshed with the drive screw such that rotation of the drive screw raises and lowers the internally threaded shaft linearly to extend and retract the sleeves relative to one another; wherein a bottom, first one of the sleeves is connected to the base (See Annotated Figure 1); and a load rest (Column 9, Lines 44-48, vehicle mounting table 50) affixed atop said plurality of sleeves for engagement under a vehicle.
Kubota does not teach wherein an upper portion of the bottom, first one of the case sleeves and a lower portion of a second one of the elevator sleeves telescopingly received in the bottom, first one each have at least three stop mechanisms configured to engage one another on at least three locations when said elevator sleeve is fully extended with respect to the bottom, case sleeve to retain the elevator sleeve against withdrawal from the first case sleeve.
However, Lucker teaches a screw jack system wherein an upper portion of the bottom, first one of the case sleeves and a lower portion of a second one of the elevator sleeves telescopingly received in the bottom, first one each have one stop mechanism (Page 2, Lines 22 – 34, See Annotated Figure 1) configured to engage one another on one location when said elevator sleeve is fully extended with respect to the bottom, case sleeve to retain the elevator sleeve against withdrawal from the first case sleeve.
Kubota and Lucker are both considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jack of Kubota with the stop mechanism in Lucker to secure the sleeves (Page 2, Lines 15-35),
PNG
media_image1.png
528
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1: Stop mechanism including lance and guiding lance
Kubota, as modified by Lucker, does not teach at least three lances on a plurality of inner case sleeves and at least the guiding lances on a plurality of outer case sleeves.
However, Liu et al. teaches at least three lances on a plurality of inner case sleeves and at least three guiding lances on a plurality of outer case sleeves (See Annotated Figure 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
692
710
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2: Lances and Guided Lances on Sleeves
Kubota and Lucker are both considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Liu et al. is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to problem faced by the inventor in having multiple lances and guide lances on telescopic sleeves for supporting a structure from deformation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jack of Kubota, as modified by Lucker, with the teachings of Liu et al. Increasing the number of projections and guide grooves would reduce any motion (Description, Advantage 2).
Regarding claim 2, Kubota in view of Lucker and Liu et al., teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of telescoping sleeves has three sleeves including the bottom, first case sleeve (Column 5, lines 26 – 29, substantially rectangular pipe-shaped upper half portion of housing 3), the second elevator sleeve (Column 7, lines 26 – 32, ram guide 45) telescopingly receiving in the bottom, first case sleeve, and a top, third elevator tube (Column 7, lines 44-49, ram 47) telescopingly received in the second elevator sleeve, the load rest (Column 9, Lines 44-48, vehicle mounting table 50) being mounted atop the top, third elevator tube;
Kubota does not teach that the internally threaded shaft is an elevator screw that is also threaded externally and the top, third elevator tube is internally threaded and meshed with the external threads of the elevator screw such that rotation of the elevator screw raises and lowers the top, third elevator tube.
However, Lucker teaches a lifting jack where the internally threaded shaft (Page 1 and 2, lines 55 and 1-2, respectively, intermediate screw sleeve 28) is an elevator screw that is also externally threaded (Page 2, Column 1, lines 2-6, intermediate screw sleeve 28) and the top, third elevator tube is internally threaded and meshed with the external threads of the elevator screw (Page 2, lines 7-11, sleeve member 30), such that rotation of the elevator screw raises and lowers the top, third elevator tube.
Kubota and Lucker are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified jack of Kubota, with the teachings of Lucker to have an externally/internally threaded elevator screw mesh with the third elevator internally threaded elevator tube providing the predictable result of the rotation of the elevator screw raising and lowering the third elevator tube (Page 1 and 2, lines 55 and 1-11)
Regarding claim 3, Kubota in view of Lucker and Liu et al. teaches the system of claim 2. Kubota further teaches wherein the elevator screw is internally threaded only at a lower end thereof (Column 6, lines 67 to Column 7, line 1, female portion 41), the drive screw has a stop (Column 9, lines 59-65, pin 39) at an upper end thereof and the elevator screw has a stop (Column 10, lines 15-18, pin 43) at an upper end thereof, such that (a) as the drive screw is rotated to extend the sleeves the elevator screw is driven upward by the drive screw until the stop on the drive screw engages an upper edge of the internal threading of the elevator screw (Column 9, lines 59-65) which then rotatably drives the elevator screw to continue extending the third, top elevator tube until the stop on the third, top elevator tube engages an upper edge of the internal threading of the third, top case sleeve (Column 9 , line 66 to Column 10, line 28), and (b) as the drive screw is rotate to retract the sleeves the drive screw rotates in an opposite direction to lower the elevator screw and rotate the drive screw to lower the third, top elevator tube (Column 10, lines 29-37).
Kubota does not teach that the third, elevator tube is internally threaded at only a lower end thereof.
Lucker does teach that the third elevator tube is internally threaded at only a lower end thereof (Page 2, Column 1, lines 6-12, sleeve member 30).
Kubota and Lucker are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jack of Kubota, with the teachings of Lucker to have an internally threaded elevator screw only at the lower end providing the predictable result of the elevator screw only meshing with the lower portion of the elevator tube for engagement (Page 2, Column 1, lines 6-12, sleeve member 30).
Regarding claim 4, Kubota in view of Lucker and Liu et al. teaches the system of claim 3. Kubota, as modified, further teaches wherein each stop is a drive pin (See Kubota Column 9 and 10, lines 59-65 and lines 15-18, pins 39 and 43, respectively).
Regarding claim 5, Kubota in view of Lucker and Liu et al. teaches the system of claim 1. Kubota, as modified, further teaches wherein the raising mechanism further comprises a plurality of elevator sleeves (See Annotated Figure 3 of Kubota) that vertically elevate and lower said elevator tube.
PNG
media_image3.png
744
465
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3: Elevator Sleeves that vertically elevate and lower elevator tube
Regarding claim 6, Kubota in view of Lucker and Liu et al. teaches the system of claim 1, but Kubota fails to teach the at least three lances present on a plurality of inner case sleeves and at least three guiding lances on a plurality of outer case sleeves.
However, Lucker teaches the stop mechanisms of two lances on a plurality of inner case sleeves and two guiding lances(channel) on a plurality of outer case sleeves (See Annotated Figure 7).
Kubota and Lucker are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jack of Kubota, with the teachings of Lucker. Doing so would create a screw jack sleeve with two stop mechanism comprising two lances on a plurality of inner case sleeves and at least two guiding lances on a plurality of outer case sleeves in order to prevent withdrawal of the sleeve from the outer most sleeve or lance from guiding lance section (Page 2, Column 1, Lines 22-34).
PNG
media_image4.png
608
420
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4: Stop Mechanisms on Plurality of Inner and Outer Sleeves
Kubota, as modified by Lucker fails to teach the number (at least three) of lances and guiding lances on the plurality of inner case sleeves and outer case sleeves, respectively.
However, Liu et al., teaches at least three lances and guiding lances, on an inner case sleeve and outer case sleeve, respectively.
Kubota and Lucker are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Liu et al. is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to problem faced by the inventor in having multiple lances and guide lances on telescopic sleeves for supporting a structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jack of Kubota, as modified by Lucker, with the teachings on Liu et al. Doing so would create a screw jack sleeve with at least three stop mechanism comprising three lances on a plurality of inner case sleeves and at least three guiding lances on a plurality of outer case sleeves. The three lances and guiding lances included to reduce any motion (Description, Advantage 2).
Regarding claim 7, Kubota in view of Lucker and Liu et al. teaches the system of claim 1.
Kubota fails to teach the at least three stop mechanisms retain said plurality of case sleeves on at least three locations equally spaced apart on the circumference of each case sleeve.
Lucker teaches the stop mechanism (See Annotated Figure 1).
Kubota and Lucker are both considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jack of Kubota with the stop mechanism in Lucker to secure the sleeves (Page 2, Column 1, Lines 15-35),
Lucker does not teach the number (three) stop mechanisms as well as them retaining said plurality of case sleeves on at least three locations equally spaced apart on the circumference of each case sleeve.
However, Liu et al. teaches the lances and guiding lances (which make up said stop mechanisms) equally spaced apart on the circumference of each case sleeve (See Annotated Figure 5).
PNG
media_image5.png
538
562
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5: Equally Spaced Lances and Guiding Lances
Kubota and Lucker are both considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Liu et al. is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to problem faced by the inventor in having multiple lances and guide lances on telescopic sleeves for supporting a structure from deformation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jack of Kubota, as modified by Lucker with the teachings of Liu et al. Doing so would create a jack with an increased number of projections and guide grooves (which make up stop mechanisms) that are equally spaced apart on the circumference of each case sleeve to reduce any motion. (Description, Advantage 2).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Kubota teaches the system for retaining case sleeve resistance on a screw jack (Paragraph 0023, Figures 1-6) comprising: a raising mechanism (an internally threaded shaft (Column 5 and 6, lines 67 and 1-10, respectively, second screw shaft 40 with female thread portion 41) meshed with the drive screw such that rotation of the drive screw raises and lowers the internally threaded shaft linearly to extend and retract the sleeves relative to one another) that vertically elevates and lowers, wherein said raising mechanism comprises a plurality of case sleeves (substantially rectangular pipe-shaped upper half portion of housing 3 (Lines 26 – 29, Column 5), ram guide 45 (lines 26 – 32, Column 7), and ram 47 (lines 44-49 Column 7) to permit vertical elevation.
Kubota does not teach the at least three stop mechanisms (lances and guiding lances) to retain said plurality of case sleeves on at least three locations.
However, Lucker does teach a stop mechanism at a single location (See Annotated Figure 1).
Kubota, as modified by Lucker does not teach the number (three) stop mechanisms to retain the plurality of case sleeves at three locations. Kubota and Lucker are both considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jack of Kubota with the stop mechanisms of Lucker. Doing so would prevent withdrawal of the sleeve from the outer most sleeve or lance from guiding lance section (Page 2, Column 1, Lines 22-34).
Liu et al., teaches the number of stop mechanisms (lances and guiding lances) to retain the plurality of case sleeves at three locations (See Annotated Figure 2).
Kubota and Lucker are both considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Liu et al. is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to problem faced by the inventor in having multiple lances and guide lances on telescopic sleeves for supporting a structure from deformation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jack of Kubota with the stop mechanism in Lucker, and ultimately increased the number of projections and guide grooves with the teaching in Liu et al to reduce any motion (Description, Advantage 2).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Kubota in view of Lucker and Liu et al. teaches the system of claim 5.
Kubota does not teach the at least three stop mechanisms comprising at least three lances on an inner sleeve and at least three guiding lances on an outer case sleeve.
However, Lucker does teach a single lance on the inner sleeve and a single guiding lances on an outer case sleeve (See Annotated Figure 1).
Kubota and Lucker are both considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Liu et al. is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to problem faced by the inventor in having multiple lances and guide lances on telescopic sleeves for supporting a structure from deformation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jack of Kubota with the stop mechanism in Lucker in order to prevent withdrawal of the sleeve from the outer most sleeve or lance from guiding lance section (Page 2, Column 1, Lines 22-34).
Kubota, as modified by Lucker does not teach the number (at least three) of lances and guiding lances.
However, Liu et al. teaches a plurality of lances and guiding lances on the case sleeves (See Annotated Figure 2).
Kubota and Lucker are both considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Liu et al. is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to problem faced by the inventor in having multiple lances and guide lances on telescopic sleeves for supporting a structure from deformation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jack of Kubota, as modified by Lucker, with the teachings of Liu et al. Increasing the number of projections and guide grooves would reduce any motion (Description, Advantage 2).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Kubota in view of Lucker and Liu et al. teaches the system of claim 5.
However, Kubota does not teach that the at least three stop mechanisms retain said plurality of case sleeves on at least three locations equally spaced apart on the diameter of each case sleeve.
Lucker teaches the stop mechanisms that retain said plurality of case sleeves.
Kubota and Lucker are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to have modified the jack of Kubota, with the teachings of stop mechanisms by Lucker. Doing so would prevent withdrawal of the sleeve from the outer most sleeve or lance from guiding lance section (Page 2, Column 1, Lines 22-34).
Kubota, as modified by Lucker does not teach plurality of case sleeves on at least three locations equally spaced apart on the diameter of each case sleeve.
Lui et al. teaches the number (at least three) stop mechanisms (plurality of lances and guiding lances) on at least three locations equally spaced apart on the diameter of each case sleeve (See Annotated Figure 6).
PNG
media_image6.png
538
563
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6: Stop Mechanisms Spaced Apart on the Diameter
Kubota and Lucker are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Liu et al. is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to problem faced by the inventor in having multiple lances and guide lances on telescopic sleeves for supporting a structure from deformation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jack of Kubota, as modified by Lucker, with the teachings of Liu et al. Doing so would allow for the at least three stop mechanisms to retain the plurality of case sleeves on at least three locations equally spaced apart on the diameter of each case sleeve to reduce any motion (Description, Advantage 2).
Regarding claim 11, Kubota in view of Lucker and Liu et al. teaches the system of claim 1.
Kubota does not teach that the stop mechanisms on the bottom, first sleeve are spaced axially below an upper edge of the bottom first, case sleeve, such that when fully extended bottom portion of the second case sleeve and an upper portion of the first case sleeve overlap axially.
Lucker teaches that the stop mechanisms on the bottom, first sleeve are spaced axially below an upper edge of the bottom first, case sleeve, such that when fully extended bottom portion of the second case sleeve and an upper portion of the first case sleeve overlap axially (See Annotated Figure 7).
PNG
media_image7.png
580
501
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 7: Axial Placement of Stop Mechanisms and Overlap Between Case Sleeves
Kubota and Lucker are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same field of endeavor of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the jack of Kubota, with the teachings of Lucker. Doing so would create a jack with the axial overlapping of an upper portion of the bottom first, case sleeve and the fully extended bottom portion of the second case sleeve in order to prevent the withdrawal of the second case sleeve from the first (Page 2, lines 33-34).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kawasaki et al. (US 6499722 B1) teaches a screw jack
Ivanova (US 6145812 A) teaches a vehicle jack
Rothbaner (US 5664762 A) teaches an automotive screw jack
Krenze (US 1829662 A) teaches a lifting jack.
Akins (US 2096022A) teaches a lifting jack.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S LUNDY whose telephone number is (571)270-0752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 3:00pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 5712724475. 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.
/Daniel Lundy/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
7/8/2026
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights