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 .
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 4/27/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 21-40 share the shock-absorbing tray module recited in independent claims 21 and 35. The traversal has been considered but is not found persuasive. Although Group I and II share the shock-absorbing tray, the shared tray features do not constitute special technical features because they are disclosed by Wei ‘926 and therefore do not define a contribution over the prior art. Thus, the groups do not form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rules 13.1 and 13.2.
Further, Applicant has not identified any shared technical feature that defines a contribution over Wei ’926 that would link Groups I and II to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.2
The prior international search of all claims and applicants’ assertion of no undue examination burden do not establish unity of invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 214296926 to Wei.
Regarding claim 21, Wei ‘926 discloses a shock-absorbing tray module comprising: a tray plate 1; a bottom casing 7 located under the tray plate 1; a guide plate 5 (Fig. 3 - note the plate-like flange of element 5) coupled to the bottom casing 7, the guide plate 5 being configured to be movable within a predetermined range along the bottom casing; at least one damper 11 connecting the tray plate 1 to the guide plate 5, the at least one damper 11 being configured to vary in length depending on a movement of the tray plate 1; and at least one return spring 8 connecting the tray plate 1 to the bottom casing 7.
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) 22 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 214296926 to Wei in view of US 11,419,442 to Nguegang.
Regarding claim 22, Wei ‘926 discloses, wherein the at least one damper includes a plurality of dampers but is silent as to the dampers being spaced apart from each other at an equal spacing along a circumference of the tray plate.
However, Nguegang ‘442 teaches dampers 130 being spaced apart from each other at an equal spacing along a circumference of the tray plate 110 (note the circular shape - Figs. 3-4 and claims 12-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spacing of the dampers taught in Wei ‘926 with the equidistance spacing as taught in Nguegang ‘442 when employing a circular shaped tray, to provide balanced vibration attenuation and stable support of the tray plate.
Regarding claim 28, Wei ‘926 discloses a bottom casing and guide plate but is silent as to at least one rolling pin protruding from the bottom casing, the at least one rolling pin contacting the guide plate.
Nguegang ‘442 discloses at least one rolling pin 131 (in the form of a roller) protruding from the bottom casing 135, the at least one rolling pin 131 contacting the guide plate 110 (Figs. 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bottom casing and guide plate taught in Wei ‘926 with the protruding rolling pin as taught in Nguegang ‘442 in order to reduce friction and aid in movement between the plate and casing.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 214296926 to Wei in view of US 11,419,442 to Nguegang as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of CN 205857445 to Han.
Regarding claim 23, Wei ‘926, as modified, discloses, wherein the at least one return spring 8 includes a plurality of return springs 8 spaced apart from each other at an equal spacing along the circumference of the tray plate 1 (as modified by Nguegang ‘442 – note the springs are spaced with the dampers), but is silent as to each return spring being located between adjacent dampers of the plurality of dampers.
However, Han ‘445 teaches each return spring 3 being located between adjacent dampers 4 of the plurality of dampers 4 (Figs. 6 and claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the spring arrangement taught in Wei ‘926 with the placement of springs between the dampers as taught in Han ‘445 in order to provide vibration control and automatic reset.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-27 and 29-34 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: note the configuration of the pivotal damper, vertical return spring force, air cylinder, and positioning of upper and lower guide plates positioning and fastening.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and could be used in subsequent office action rejections.
The list of supports is as follows: US-11975656-B2 OR US-12337735-B2 OR US-10631431-B2 OR US-9520158-B1 OR US-12163566-B2 OR US-10743433-B2 OR US-10490228-B2 OR US-9165608-B2 OR US-11400885-B2 OR US-8413948-B2 OR US-10323713-B2 OR US-20130328337-A1 OR US-20230182628-A1 OR US-20220296018-A1.
Any injury concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA E MILLNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7507. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:00pm.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/MONICA E MILLNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights