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 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.
(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 1-3,11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Davi (US 2016/0161048).
Re claim 1, Davi teaches (see figures) a device for maintaining an equipment, configured to maintain a to-be- maintained equipment 10,12, the to-be-maintained equipment comprising a first side and a second side opposite to the first side, and the device comprising: at least one guide rail 120,124 extending in a first direction, wherein the first direction is a direction pointing from the first side to the second side; a sliding mechanism 110,114,150,etc. (see figures) arranged on the guide rail and configured to support the to-be- maintained equipment; and a driving mechanism 130,132 configured to drive the sliding mechanism and the to-be- maintained equipment to move along the guide rail, wherein the device for maintaining an equipment is configured to allow the to-be- maintained equipment to move along the guide rail to change a maintenance space on the first side or the second side.
Re claim 2, Davi teaches (see figures) the driving mechanism 130,132 comprises: a support base; and a hydraulic cylinder (188, [0064] ) arranged on the support base (not numbered, see figures 4,12) and configured to drive the sliding mechanism and the to-be-maintained equipment to move.
Re claim 3, Davi teaches (see figures 2-4,12) the driving mechanism further comprises: a connecting base (not numbered / 178,110,114, figures 2-4,9,10,12) arranged on a piston rod of the hydraulic cylinder 188 and configured to be connected with the sliding mechanism 110,114,150,178 and/or the to-be-maintained equipment 10,12.
Re claim 11, Davi teaches (see figures) a method for maintaining an equipment, comprising: moving the to-be-maintained equipment by using the device for maintaining an equipment according to claim 1, so that a maintenance space on a second side of the to-be-maintained equipment increases after the to-be-maintained equipment is moved to a first side, wherein the first side and the second side are respectively located on opposite sides of the to-be-maintained equipment 10,12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davi (US 2016/0161048) in view of Ningbo (CN209829678U).
Re claim 4, Davi shows (see figures 4,12) the piston rod of the hydraulic cylinder 188 is provided with a joint bearing (not numbered), and the connecting base (not numbered / 178,110,114, figures 4,9,10) appearing as hinged with the joint bearing around a first rotating shaft (figure 4), and the hydraulic cylinder is hinged with the support base around a second rotating shaft (figures 12,2-4). Davi’s figures show what is commonly understood in the art as hinged connections, but does not explicitly discuss those features. Ningo (see 100, 300,311,311a,310,312,170, figures 1,3,6) shows hinged connections 170,etc. between a hydraulic cylinder piston 300,330 and sliding mechanism/ equipment 100 allowing reduced stress, movement tolerant connections. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Davi as claimed in order to allow reduced stress, movement tolerant connections to extend service life via smoother, longer lasting connections.
Claims 5,7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davi (US 2016/0161048) in view of Schoettke (WO2006024522A).
Re claims 5,7, Davi teaches the sliding mechanism comprises: a frame (not individually numbered, figures 2-4,9-11,15-19) configured to support the to-be-maintained equipment 10,12 under an action of an external force, so that the frame and the to-be-maintained equipment move along the guide rail (which is said to an H-beam [0056]). Davi teaches moving on slide / skids on guide rails rather than rollers. However, moving on rollers in guide rails is already a well-known equivalent alternative as shown for example by Schoettke teaches (figures 1a,1b,2) linear movement of two parts 12,14 via rollers 20 in H-shaped guide rails (figure 2) allowing reduced friction guided movement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Davi as claimed in order to use a well-known equivalent alternative for manufacturing flexibility and allowing reduced friction guided movement.
Re claim 8, Davi teaches the frame is provided with a positioning block (174, etc., [0061],[0075]) configured to be fixedly connected with the to-be-maintained equipment.
Re claim 9, Davi teaches each of the at least one guide rail is provided with two sliding mechanisms (110,114,150,172,176, see figures 2-4,8-10), the two sliding mechanisms are respectively located on two sides of the to-be- maintained equipment in a state where the to-be-maintained equipment is moved along the guide rail.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davi (US 2016/0161048) in view of Schoettke (WO2006024522A) and China (CN206969602U).
Re claim 10, Davi teaches guide rails and an inherent limit to the sliding mechanism but does not teach the fixed base on the guide rails limiting the sliding mechanism. China shows this is known with slide limit blocks 4 limiting movement of frame 12 with rollers 7 on the guide rails 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Davi as claimed in order to limit the sliding mechanism and movement to a desired range for safety and avoid potential damage.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davi (US 2016/0161048) in view of Schoettke (WO2006024522A) and Burington (US 2,781,920).
Re claim 6, Davi teaches the frame has a load-bearing side but not that that load bearing side has a damping layer. However, Burington teaches the loadbearing side of a frame having a damping layer 12 for protectively holding in place the equipment 14 as it is guided along a surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Davi as claimed in order to protectively hold the equipment as it is moved.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sauret teaches a roller slide (cover figures and abstract) with protective damping rubber pads 26.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LOWE whose telephone number is (571)272-6929. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling M,Th,F & alternating W 6:30am-6:30pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 5712727097. 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.
MICHAEL S. LOWE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/MICHAEL S LOWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights