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 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 1-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, the phrase “even if” - which is vague and indefinite.
Claim 1 recites, “…allowed to be associated…” on lines 6 and 7 – which, as written, is vague and indefinite. Who is doing the allowing in this case? Allowed to be associated – how so? Claim 4 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 1 recites, “… at least one platform…” which is unclear in that the drawings and specification support one platform. However, the use of the phrase, “at least” implies that there could be more than one platform. Thus the scope of the claim is unclear. Further noting that applicant does not appear to have proper drawing or specification support to properly claim “at least one platform.”
Claim 1 recites, lines 8-9, “… a plurality of beams or a beam group provided with equal distances between their centeral axes of the plurality of beams …” which is unclear. As written, it is unclear if the equal distances are also between the central axes of the beam group. Also note the spelling error of the word central.
Claim 1, lines 14-16, recite “… more adjacent together…” which as written is vague and thus indefinite. The scope of the claim is unclear. Also note, are the “beam groups” compressed partially under force or just the plurality of beams? As written, the scope of the claim is unclear.
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) 1 and 3 is/are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9,234,561 to Laurens.
Regarding claim 1, Laurens ‘561 discloses an isolation system configured to isolate a translational vibration in directions of an X-axis and a Y-axis and a torsional vibration around a Z-axis by being positioned between a ground and a load (col. 4, lines 63-67), wherein in order to provide a vibration isolation even if a weight of the carried load changes, the isolation system comprises; a base platform 10 allowed to be associated with the ground, at least one load bearing platform 11 allowed to be associated with the load, a plurality of beams 12 or a beam group provided with equal distances between central axes of the plurality of beams and equal angles with respect to a center of the isolation system, between the base platform and the load bearing platform (fig. 1), a plurality of tensioning wires 16 positioned adjacent to each of the plurality of beams 12 or the beam group, providing that there is at least one for that the plurality of beams or the beam group, in order to bring the base platform 10 and the load bearing platform 11 more adjacent together (col. 5, lines 24-34), to provide that the plurality of beams 12 are compressed at least partially under force and accordingly, the translational and torsional natural frequencies of the isolation system are changed (col. 2, lines 1-25 col. 7, lines 35-41).
Regarding claim 3, Laurens ‘561 discloses, wherein the-cross-sectional areas of the plurality of beams 12 have a rotational symmetry (fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4-18 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. Also note the prior art rejection of the base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure to be used in subsequent office action rejections, as applicable. The list of supports is as follows: US-20240352988-A1 OR US-20050109912-A1 OR US-20080150204-A1 OR US-20110017561-A1 OR US-10539204-B2 OR US-9255399-B2 OR US-3450379-A OR US-10591012-B2 OR US-10962075-B2 OR US-10337577-B2 OR US-3972390-A OR US-11624420-B1 OR US-11753819-B2 OR US-8991574-B2 OR US-7950633-B2 OR US-9234561-B2 OR US-2594665-A OR WO-2009143828-A4 OR WO-2008040491-A1.
Any inquiry 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