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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
the sensor mounted to the bumper (as recited in the alternative) of claims 1 and 11;
two of the four first members on either side of the central axis and the other two of the four first members on either side of the central axis of claims 4 and 14;
the sensors on either side of the central axis on the bumper of claims 5 and 15;
the sensors angularly inclined on the bumper of claims 6 and 16;
the cavity in one of the support and bumper of claims 8 and 18;
the projection in the support and bumper of claims 8 and 18;
the projection projecting into the cavity if claims 8 and 18;
the projection capable to restrict movement of the bumper of claims 8 and 18; and
the self-driving vehicle, an automated guided vehicle, a car, an automatic door, a tactile floor depression sensing device, and a production line conveyor belt of claim 20
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 4-5, 8, 14-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 14 both recite the expression "two of the four first members are positioned on either side of the central axis on a first surface of the support, and the other two of the four first members are positioned on either side of the central axis on a second surface of the support opposite the first surface". It is not clear whether the four first members are positioned on the same side of the central axis or on a different side of the central axis, and the scope of protection sought in claims 4 and 14 thus appears to be ambiguous.
Claims 5 and 15 both recite "the central axis" which lacks antecedent basis in the claims because neither of claims 5 nor 15 depend from claims 4 or 14 which initially recite a first instance of “a central axis”. For the purposes of examination on the merits for claims 5 and 15, respectively, these claims will be taken to depend directly from claims 4 and 14, respectively.
Claims 5 and 15 further are indefinite as the recitation of the two sensors positioned on either side of the central axis is entirely unclear. The phrase is awkward in that multiple interpretations are possible, such that both sensors are positioned on one side of the axis (not shown), one sensor is positioned on each side of the axis (shown), or both sensors are positioned on the other side of the axis (not shown). Clarification is requested.
Claims 8 and 18 both recite the support and bumper having either a cavity or projection therein where the projection projects into the cavity and movement of the projection is restricted to within a boundary of the cavity to thereby restrict movement of the bumper with respect to the support. The precise process by which this function occurs is unclear and further explanation is requested. The claims will be examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 11, 17, 19-20, and 8 and 18, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN104309558 (CN 558).
For claim 1, CN 558 discloses a bumper system (FIG.1) comprising:
a support (frame beam 1) including at least one first member (electromagnet 6 fixed on guide seat 5);
a bumper (bumper shell/housing 2) including at least one second member (permanent magnet 7 fixed on ram/jack/ejector pin 8),
the bumper being maintainable by the support in
a rest position with respect to the support due to magnetic attraction between the at least one first member and the at least one second member when no force is applied to the bumper (electromagnet 6 is energized and has magnetic pole opposite to that of permanent magnet 7), and
dislodgeable from the rest position towards the support when a force is applied to the bumper, and
wherein when the force is removed from the bumper, the magnetic attraction between the at least one first member and the at least one second member returns the bumper to the rest position (during collision, ejector rod 8 shrinking against magnetic force between electromagnet 6 and permanent magnet 7 and electromagnet 6 being energized to push permanent magnet 7 forward for shock absorption); and
at least one sensor (displacement sensor 3) mounted to the bumper (bumper shell 2) for detecting dislodgement of the bumper from the rest position.
For claim 11, CN 558 discloses a device comprising: a body (car/automobile); and the bumper system of claim 1 attached to the body.
PNG
media_image1.png
355
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claims 7 and 17, movement of the bumper with respect to the support is restricted to ensure that when the force is removed from the bumper, there is sufficient magnetic attraction between the at least one first member and the at least one second member to return the bumper to the rest position ([0016], when the detected distance is less than the predetermined distance, the controller 4 controls the electromagnet, when not electrified the electromagnet 6 does not push the permanent magnet 7 forward due to opposite polarity and the bumper is at rest).
For claims 8 and 18, as best understood, one of the support and the bumper includes a cavity (guide sleeve 9) therein and the other of the support and the bumper includes a projection (ejector pin/rod 8) that projects into the cavity and movement of the projection is restricted to within a boundary of the cavity to thereby restrict movement of the bumper with respect to the support ([0017]).
For claims 9 and 19, at least one and in this instance both of the first member (6) and the second member (7) are a magnet.
For claim 20, the device is a car/automobile ([0013]).
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 16-17, 19, and 4-5 and 14-15, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 210319023 (CN 023).
For claim 1, CN 023 discloses a bumper system (Fig. 1, magnetic levitation mechanism for pipeline vibration reduction) comprising:
a support (fixing ring 1) including at least one first member (magnet fixing seat 6);
a bumper (coil fixing device 3) including at least one second member (magnet 5), the bumper being
maintainable by the support in a rest position with respect to the support due to magnetic attraction between the at least one first member and the at least one second member when no force is applied to the bumper (when coil is driven, magnet holder 6 forming an electromagnet to attract magnet 5), and
dislodgeable from the rest position towards the support when a force is applied to the bumper, and
wherein when the force is removed from the bumper, the magnetic attraction between the at least one first member and the at least one second member returns the bumper to the rest position (when a position change is detected, magnet 5 being attracted to generate a magnetic force having opposite direction to vibration direction); and
PNG
media_image2.png
569
665
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
361
387
media_image3.png
Greyscale
at least one sensor (laser displacement sensor 4) mounted to one of the support and the bumper for detecting dislodgement of the bumper from the rest position.
For claim 11, CN 023 discloses a device (a pipe) comprising: a body; and the bumper system of claim 1 attached to the body.
For claims 4 and 14, as best understood, the bumper system has a central axis (the central axis of pipe 7),
wherein the at least one first member includes four first members, and the at least one second member includes four second members,
wherein two of the four first members are positioned on either side of the central axis on a first surface of the support, and the other two of the four first members are positioned on either side of the central axis on a second surface of the support opposite the first surface, and the four second members are positioned on the bumper such that they interact with the four first members to allow the bumper to be maintained in the rest position (two pairs of magnet holder 6 and magnet 5 on each fixing ring 1).
For claims 2 and 12, the bumper comprises: a mount including the at least one second member (5); and a plate detachably mounted to the mount.
For claims 5 and 15, as best understood, the at least one sensor (4) comprises two sensors positioned on either side of the central axis (see FIGS.2-3 where two sensors are provided on one side of the pipe and two are provided on the opposite side thereof, such that there are four sensors equally spaced about the circumference/perimeter of the pipe) on one of the support and the bumper, and
wherein both sensors (on either side of the pipe) are actuatable when the force is applied to a medial position of the bumper, and only one sensor is actuatable when the force is applied to a side of the bumper (when the force is applied to one side of the pipe, only the sensors on that side would be actuated).
For claims 6 and 16, the two sensors (4) are mounted to surfaces of one of the support and the bumper that are angularly inclined (FIG.1) with respect to the central axis (of pipe 7).
PNG
media_image4.png
334
564
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
405
527
media_image5.png
Greyscale
For claims 7 and 17, movement of the bumper with respect to the support is restricted to ensure that when the force is removed from the bumper, there is sufficient magnetic attraction between the at least one first member and the at least one second member to return the bumper to the rest position (the sensor allows for continuous adjustment of the output signal and corresponding magnetic field strength).
For claims 9 and 19, at least one of the first member (6) and the second member (5) is a magnet.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either of CN 558 or CN 023 as applied above with respect to claim 9 and in view of the well known prior art.
Neither CN 558 nor CN 023 specifically disclose the magnets being of about N45 maximum energy product. Examiner takes official notice that this type of magnet is well known in the prior art for its desirable magnetic strength.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have substituted the magnets of CN 558 or CN 023 for that of a N45 maximum energy product of the well known prior art as an obvious expedient in order to perform the same task. Modifying in this way would not change the use of the device nor have produced an unexpected result.
The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR, 550 US at 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR) supports this rationale of a simple substitution.
Courts have recognized that it would have been obvious to substitute one known element for another that performs the same function, where the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See, e.g., Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Circ. 2008) (concluding that the claims were obvious, noting that “[t]he asserted claims simply substitute a resistive electrical switch for the mechanical pressure switch").
Applicant may seasonally challenge, for the official record in this application, this and any other statement of judicial notice in a timely manner in response to this office action. Please specify the exact statement to be challenged. Applicant is reminded, with respect to the specific challenge put forth, of the duty of disclosure under Rule 56 to disclose material which is pertinent to patentability including claim rejections challenged by applicant.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 023 in view of KR 100202937 (KR 937) or Sukala, Jr. (310516).
CN 023 fails to provide specifics of the attachment of the plate with the mount particularly lacking the plate detachably mounted to the mount via at least one magnet on one of the mount and the plate.
Attaching vehicle components with magnets is well known in the art as evidenced by at least KR 937 where a magnetic clip (6) fastens components (FIG.1b) or Sukala, Jr. which shows a bumper protector magnetically adhered to a body component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have made the mount and plate separable and detachably mounted via magnets as taught by either KR 937 or Sukala, Jr. because the court has held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to make the components separable, it would be obvious to do so for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Moreover, detachably mounting components via magnets is an obvious expedient to mechanical fastening. The desire to modify in this manner is based on factors such as its suitability for the intended use, to optimize the cost of the product made in light of size, capacity to manufacture, manufacturing technology, safety, easy to manufacture, replaceability (to replace damaged parts; for aesthetics), and manpower for assembling parts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B