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”.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Throughout the specification applicant has used the term “pair” when describing a feature that appears to be an axle or shaft about which the rotating body pivots. For example, applicant discloses the first rotating “pair” (2233) having a rotation axis (‘rotation center’) about which the traveling wheel (2221) rotates (see as an example [0099]).
However, the plain meaning of the term “pair” is ‘a set of two things’ or ‘an article consisting of two joined parts’ and not an axle or rotating shaft. Since applicant is free to act as their own lexicographer and has done so in this instance, for the purposes of examination on the merits (including for claims 8-14), the term ‘pair’ has been redefined and will be taken to mean an axle or rotation shaft.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 9/3/26. These drawings are unacceptable.
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the scan of the drawings submitted are hazy and not crisp. The lines for the reference numbers should be black, even, and consistent. The replacement drawings filed 9/3/26 as not acceptable and do not overcome this issue. For example, as seen in FIG.3 of the replacement drawings, the reference numerals on the left-hand-side which should be “10” now appears to be “0”. The replacement sheets do not help make the reference numerals crisp and clear. Again, for example in FIG. 4, the lead line for reference numeral “1” (the topmost instance) is broken and should be a solid line. All of the words in FIG.20 are blurry.
Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because in FIGS. 10, 11, and 12, the left-hand-most numeral “221” should apparently be “222”. 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.
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 one end of the support rod being pivotally connected to the transition platform of claim 17; the other end of the support rod “connected” to the arc-shaped guide groove which “moves relative” tot eh arc-shaped guide groove of claim 17 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 3, 17, and 23 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.
Claim 3 recites “two or more parallel arc-shaped guide rails” at lines 2-3 which lacks antecedent basis in the claims because the recitation does not refer back to the ‘arc-shaped guide rail’ of claim 1.
For claim 17, it is unclear how the support rod functions with respect to the transition platform and guide groove. The recitation of the one end of the support rod pivotally connected to the transition platform and the other end movably connected to the arc-shaped guide groove is reiterated from the specification, but no further details are provided and it is unclear how the support rod is connected to allow the mobile assemblies to function when stacked.
Claim 23 is indefinite because the claim newly recites that the controller locks a position of the mobile component of each mobile assembly relative to the base when the tilting condition exceeds a preset threshold range. This is in direct contradiction to the newly added limitations of claim 1 which require the mobile component to be transported “always in a balance position”. Locking the mobile component would prevent free movement to allow for the component to be “always” balanced. It is unclear how both scenarios could be accomplished simultaneously. Further explanation is requested. For the purposes of examination on the merits, this claim limitation will be interpreted as best understood.
Alternatively for claim 23, the newly added limitations of the controller “further configured to lock a position of the mobile component” relative to the base, when the tilting condition exceeds the preset threshold range likewise directly contradicts that which is required of claim 1. Again, this phrase is indefinite because it is unclear how both scenarios would be accomplished. Locking the mobile component would prevent free movement of the mobile component to allow for the component to be “always in a balance position”. Further explanation is requested. For the purposes of examination on the merits, this claim limitation will be interpreted as best understood.
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.
Claims 1-5, 16, 18, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers, Jr. in view of Searing ‘428.
For claim 1, Rogers, Jr. (3632076) discloses a balance bearing device (FIG.4) for a transport equipment, comprising:
a mobile assembly,
wherein the mobile assembly includes
a base, a mobile component, and an adjusting component,
the base comprises an arc-shaped guide rail (FIG.4),
the mobile component is arranged on the base and is able to move along an extension trajectory of the guide rail under the action of gravity, so that when the transport equipment tilts, the mobile component connected to a component to be transported is always in a balance position (Col 1, lines 28-34; Col 1, lines 53-60),
the adjusting component (46) is connected between the mobile component and the base, and is configured to limit a limiting position of the mobile component moving along the guide rail.
PNG
media_image1.png
248
270
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rogers, Jr. lacks the mobile assembly comprising two or more assemblies as recited.
Searing (2195428) teaches the use of two mobile assemblies (FIGS.1-4 or 7-9), stacked;
wherein extension directions of the guide rails of adjacent two mobile assemblies intersect with each other, and the base of one of the adjacent two mobile assemblies is connected to the mobile component of the other of the adjacent two mobile assemblies, and
in a stacking direction (Y) of the two or more mobile assemblies, the mobile assembly located at the topmost layer is able to be connected to a component (bed, occupant) to be transported through the mobile component.
PNG
media_image2.png
270
375
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
320
446
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
247
371
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 provided for Rogers, Jr. an additional mobile assembly thereof as taught by Searing in order to allow for self-leveling in a direction normal to that already provided.
For claim 2, wherein the mobile component comprises a bearing body and a plurality of mobile units,
the plurality of mobile units are distributed to be spaced apart and connected to the bearing body respectively, and
each mobile unit is movably connected to the guide rail.
For claim 3, Rogers, Jr., as modified, discloses the base of each mobile component comprises two or more parallel guide rails (see Rogers, Jr. FIG.2) which are arranged to be spaced apart, and each guide rail (FIG.2) is movably connected to at least one mobile unit.
For claim 4, wherein the mobile unit comprises a support frame (26), a traveling component (28) and a locking component (30),
the traveling component is connected to the support frame through the locking component (30),
the traveling component is able to move along the extension trajectory of the guide rail, and the locking component is configured to lock a position of the traveling component on the base.
For claim 5, in the stacking direction, the base (16) comprises a top surface and a bottom surface which are arranged to be opposite to each other, the top surface is an arc-shaped surface protruding toward a direction where the bottom surface is located,
the guide rail is arranged on the arc-shaped surface, the traveling component (30) is at least partially supported on the top surface (FIG.4), and
one of the traveling component (28,30,32) and the guide rails (34) extends at least partially into an interior of the other (the guide rail extends into the interior space formed by 28,30,32) and is movably connected to the other.
For claim 16, the balance bearing device further comprises an adapter assembly (26) which is connected between two adjacent mobile assemblies.
For claim 18, Rogers, Jr., as modified, discloses the balance bearing device according to claim 1, wherein the adjusting component comprises a telescopic cylinder (40), one of a cylinder body and a cylinder rod of the telescopic cylinder is connected to the mobile component and the other of the cylinder body and the cylinder rod of the telescopic cylinder is connected to the base.
For claim 26, Rogers, Jr. as modified, discloses a transport equipment, comprising the balance bearing device of claim 1.
Claims 7 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers, Jr., as modified above, and further in view of Searing.
For claim 7, Searing teaches the guide rail is an arc-shaped protrusion (“flange”, as seen in FIGS.15-16),
the guide rail is formed to protrude from the top surface toward a side away from the bottom surface,
the traveling component (FIG.14) comprises a traveling wheel (FIG.14) and a clamping groove (see groove, FIG.14) arranged on the traveling wheel,
the traveling wheel is supported on the top surface (FIGS.15-16), and
the clamping groove is clamped to the guide rail and is able to move along the extension direction of the guide rail (where the protrusion described as a “flange” acting to guide wheels and provides means for retaining the wheels on the tracks).
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 provided for Rogers, Jr., as modified, a guide rail protrusion as taught by Searing and corresponding clamping groove wheels as taught by Searing as an obvious expedient to allow the mobile assemblies to move. 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").
Moreover, applicant has not disclosed that the particular configuration by which the mobile assembly moves solves any stated problem (in the original disclosure) or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that other configurations would perform equally well, not change the use of the device, or produce an unexpected result.
For claim 27, Rogers, Jr., as modified, fails to provide, instead of a protrusion as disclosed, a recess as recited.
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 provided a recess instead of the protrusion because the mere reversal of parts has been held by the court to be an obvious modification. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 1-5, 16, 18, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Thiel et al. (2023/0011949) in view of Rogers, Jr. (3632076).
For claim 1, van Thiel et al. disclose all of the limitations of the invention as seen in FIG.3 including a balance bearing device for a transport equipment, comprising: two stacked mobile assemblies, each including a base and a mobile component. The base includes an arc-shaped guide rail. The mobile component is arranged on the base and moves along an extension trajectory of the rail under the action of gravity, so that when the transport equipment tilts, the mobile component connected to a component to be transported is always in a balance position ([0031-32])
As seen in FIG.3 the two stacked mobile assemblies have extension directions of the guide rails that interest each other where the base of one assembly is connected to the mobile component of the adjacent assembly. The assemblies are stacked in the Y direction where the topmost layer is able to support a load.
PNG
media_image5.png
416
635
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Van Thiel et al. lack the recited adjusting components for each mobile assembly, a feature taught by Rogers, Jr. (3632076) as seen with adjusting component (46) (FIG.4) connected between the mobile component and the base, configured to limit a limiting position of the mobile component moving along the guide rail.
PNG
media_image1.png
248
270
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 provided for each mobile assembly of van Thiel et al. an adjusting component as taught by Rogers, Jr. in order to allow the assemblies to be controlled a piston and cylinder combination (a force) which can be regulated as desired through the provision of means such as a bypass line for hydraulic fluid flow, the force acting on the mobile component opposite the moving direction thereof.
Claims 20-23, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Thiel et al., as modified above, or alternatively, over Rogers, Jr., as modified, further in view of Chen (‘960) and WO 2012/160400 (WO 400).
Van Thiel et al., as modified, and Rogers, Jr., as modified, both fail to include the detector and controller as recited.
However, these features are known from Chen (11052960) which discloses a transportation device (10), comprising a sensor (50) and a control circuit (60),
wherein the sensor is configured to detect a tilt angle ([0028]) of the transportation device, and the control circuit is configured not to enable auto-balancing until a lateral tilt angle is less than a threshold and to disable auto-balancing when the lateral tilt angle exceeds the threshold (the threshold being 10 degree).
For claim 22, WO 400, similar to Chen, further teaches a controller configured for auto (self) balancing based on sensed changes in displacement of the center of gravity.
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 provided for either van Thiel et al., as modified, or for Rogers, Jr., as modified, a sensor and control as taught by CN 449 in order to be able to select a tilting condition as a tilt angle A (taught by CN 499) or displacement B (taught by WO 400) of a moving member and a threshold to define the balanced position.
Regarding the range set forth in claim 21, it should be noted that if a claimed range and a prior art range do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, then there would be a prima facie case of obviousness and the set value in the claimed range is not deemed critical or inventive (MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, there is no evidence of criticality of the claimed range.
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 provided the claimed threshold range comprises -7°±0.5°<A<7°±0.5°since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See also MPEP 2144.05 II.
Van Thiel et al. was modified with Rogers, Jr. above discloses the features recited as does Rogers, Jr., as modified above. The reasoning is because Rogers, Jr. discloses the support member being controlled through the piston and cylinder combination (a force) which can be regulated as desired through the provision of means such as a bypass line for hydraulic fluid flow, the force acting on the mobile component opposite the moving direction thereof.
Regarding claim 23, as best understood, van Thiel et al., as modified, and Rogers, Jr., as modified, both provide for an always balanced position while allowing the adjusting component to limit movement beyond a threshold range. That is, when the speed of the seat is changed too quickly, the adjusting component “locks” the seat into a slowed movement to prevent hazards. Additionally, it should be noted that a PHOSITA understands that when the piston is fully extended the seat is locked at an outmost position (based on the outmost limit of the length of the piston).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 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 primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter for the claims in this application is the inclusion
in claim 8 of the specific locking component (223) comprising an installation body (2231) and a rotating body (2232), the installation body (2231) is connected to the support frame (221), the rotating body (2232) is rotatably connected to the installation body (2231) through a first rotating pair (2233), the traveling component (222) is rotatably connected to the rotating body (2232) through a second rotating pair (2234), and a rotational axis of the first rotating pair (2233) is parallel to a rotational axis of the second rotating pair (2234) and spaced apart from the rotational axis of the second rotating pair (2234); and
in claim 17 the inclusion of the specific transition platform (201) and support rod (202), the transition platform (201) being located between the two adjacent mobile assemblies (1), an arc-shaped guide groove (14) provided on the base of one of the two adjacent mobile assemblies (1), the transition platform (201) connected to the mobile component (20) of one of the two adjacent mobile assemblies (1) and connected to the base (10) of the other of the two adjacent mobile assemblies (1), one end of the support rod (202) hinged to the transition platform (201) and the other end of the support rod (202) movably connected to the arc-shaped guide groove (14), in combination with the other elements recited, which is not found in the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The replacement sheets provided are not acceptable. Some of the drawing objections remain.
Specifically, with regard to claim 17, applicant asserts that Figures 3 and 15 “clearly shows” the one end of the support rod pivotally connected to the transition platform and the other movably connected to the arc-shaped groove. The examiner disagrees. The drawings re far from clear when it comes the specifics of the connection of the rod. That is, the precise pivotal connection claimed is not clearly shown. The drawings, at best, show a connection in that the rod is touching the platform.
Some 112 rejections remain as set forth above.
Regarding the prior art rejections, applicant has amended the independent claim to further recite that when the transport equipment tilts, the mobile component connected to a component to be transported is always in a balance position. However, applicant does not argue that Rogers, Jr. fail to include this limitation.
Rogers, Jr. in view of Searing ‘428.
Instead, applicant asserts that what the prior is lacking is the adjusting component configured to limit a limiting position (Claim 1, lines 7-8). Examiner disagrees.
Adjusting component (46) (including piston (44)) is set forth to dampen movement of the mobile component and by doing so limits the positioning and movement of the mobile component. Specifically, as set forth at Col 1, lines 15-34, Rogers, Jr. describes that the mobile component (seat) “automatically levels” but, because changes of angularity can cause sudden corrections and/or subsequent uncontrollable oscillations which can pose a serious hazard, a dampening means is provided. The dampening means limits the degree of movement over time (ie it limits the speed of movement of the seat). In this way, the adjusting component limits a limiting position (which is the self-balanced position) of the seat at any given time and satisfies the claim limitations as broadly recited and interpreted.
Applicant further submits that Rogers, Jr. does not disclose "the two or more mobile assemblies are arranged to be stacked" and "wherein extension directions of the guide rails of adjacent two mobile assemblies intersect with each other, and the base of one of the adjacent two mobile assemblies is connected to the mobile component of the other of the adjacent two mobile assemblies, and in a stacking--direction of the two or more mobile assemblies, the mobile assembly located at the topmost layer is able to be connected to a component to be transported through the mobile component" of Claim 1.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant goes on to dissect Searing individually noting the reference includes a bottom frame with guide rails on an upper surface thereof; an intermediate frame with wheels (163,164,165,166) running on the guide rails of the bottom frame (page 1, lines 25-30); the intermediate frame has guide rails thereon; an upper frame has wheels (159,160,161,162) at a bottom thereof running on arc-shaped guide rails of the intermediate frame.
Examiner would like to add that the wheels are provided on corresponding tracks of the bottom frame and intermediate frame.
More succinctly, Searing discloses a bottom frame with guide rails – an intermediate frame with wheels and guide rails – and an upper frame with wheels.
Applicant then goes on to argue Searing does not disclose the base of one of two adjacent mobile assemblies connected to the mobile component of the other. Examiner disagrees.
The base (intermediate frame) of one of two adjacent mobile assemblies of Searing is connected (via wheels 163-166) to the mobile component (a track) of the bottom frame (FIG.7). Additionally, the base (upper frame) of Searing is connected (via wheels 159-162) to the mobile component (track) of the intermediate frame (FIG.4).
Examiner is not persuaded that Searing is lacking and finds no impermissible error with the rejection, which is maintained above.
Thiel et al. in view of Rogers, Jr.
Initially, applicant argues against Rogers, Jr. alone.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant goes on to assert that as shown in Figure 3 as below, Thiel et al. defines the first hole 221 and the second hole 241, the first hole 221 and the second hole 241 are already capable of positional limiting and stop and then concludes that therefore Thiel et al. does not need to be provided with the adjusting member of the present application.
Examiner disagrees. The holes 221 and 241 do not provide the damping and limiting feature as taught by the adjusting component of Rogers, Jr. Nothing in Thiel et al. vitiates the use of such an adjusting component nor is examiner convinced of impermissible error in the rejection. The rejection set forth above is hereby maintained above.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The other cited references show similar configurations as that provided in the current application.
CN 204615734 discloses two mobile assemblies for a lighting system.
PNG
media_image6.png
429
677
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Yajima et al. (2019/0045928) includes two stacked assemblies as well.
PNG
media_image7.png
570
646
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Searing (1970630) provides a stabilization platform with two mobile assemblies as seen in FIG.1.
PNG
media_image8.png
559
766
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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
Prosecution Insights