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 8 and 16 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.
In claims 8 and 16 there is no antecedent basis for the term “the slip-proof pad”. It appears that claims 8 and 16 should depend from claims 7 and 15 respectively.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3,5,9-11,13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao(CN219900552).
[claim 1] Zhao teaches a moment resisting device(fig 4) comprising: a base(114); a bracket(19); an elastic arm(110), connected to one side of the base and a bottom of the bracket, a predetermined angle being defined between the base and the bracket(fig 4); and a damper(112), connected between the base and the bracket.
[claim 2,10] wherein the damper is obliquely arranged relative to both the base and the bracket(fig 4).
[claim 3,11] wherein the damper comprises two ends(connected to hinge blocks 111,113) pivoted to the base and the bracket respectively.
[claim 5,13] wherein the elastic arm is assembled with a side edge of the base and a side edge of the bracket respectively(fig 4).
[claim 9] Zhao teaches an anti-moment machine(fig 1), comprising: a machine body(11); and at least one pair of moment resisting devices(fig 4, figure 1 shows two pairs of moment resisting devices), arranged opposite to each other on two sides of the machine body(fig 1), each of the moment resisting devices comprising a base(114), a bracket(19), an elastic arm(110), and a damper(112), wherein the elastic arm is applied with a preload force(from damper 112) and respectively connected to one side of the base and a bottom of the bracket, and the damper is connected between the base and the bracket(fig 4).
Claim(s) 1,4,9,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakakubo et al(US10167652).
[claim 1] Nakakubo teaches a moment resisting device(fig 1) comprising: a base(2); a bracket(3); an elastic arm(5), connected to one side of the base and a bottom of the bracket, a predetermined angle being defined between the base and the bracket(fig 1); and a damper(8), connected between the base and the bracket.
[claim 4,12] wherein the elastic arm is a bent metal plate(see C5 L14-16, elastic member 5 can be a leaf spring, i.e. a bent metal plate).
[claim 9] Nakakubo teaches an anti-moment machine(fig 7), comprising: a machine body(11); and at least one pair of moment resisting devices(fig 1, figure 7 shows two pairs of moment resisting devices), arranged opposite to each other on two sides of the machine body(fig 7), each of the moment resisting devices comprising a base(2), a bracket(3), an elastic arm(5), and a damper(8), wherein the elastic arm is applied with a preload force(from weight of bracket 3) and respectively connected to one side of the base and a bottom of the bracket, and the damper is connected between the base and the bracket(fig 1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6,7,14,15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Xu et al.(US9534656).
[claim 6,14] Zhao teaches a moment resisting device and anti-moment machine as detailed above with the damper(112) disposed over the base, however Zhao may not teach the use of a slip-proof pad arranged under the base. Xu teaches a similar resisting device, and further teaches the use of a slip-proof rubber pad(7) placed under the base. The rubber pad providing resistance to slipping and increased damping to the device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the slip-proof pad of Xu with the devices of Zhao, as this could provide an increased resistance to slipping and increased damping for the devices.
[claim 7,15] Zhao teaches a moment resisting device and anti-moment machine as detailed above with the bracket(19) disposed above the base, however Zhao may not teach the use of a slip-proof pad arranged under the base. Xu teaches a similar resisting device, and further teaches the use of a slip-proof rubber pad(7) placed under the base. The rubber pad providing resistance to slipping and increased damping to the device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the slip-proof pad of Xu with the devices of Zhao, as this could provide an increased resistance to slipping and increased damping for the devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8,16 and 17 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, as well as being amended to overcome the above 112 rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With regards to claims 8 and 16, as detailed above the prior art teaches a moment resisting device and anti-moment machine as recited in claims 1 and 9. However the prior art does not teach the use of a slip-proof pad comprising a convex curved surface, and the base comprising a concave curved surface coupled with the convex curved surface as recited in claims 8 and 16.
With regards to claim 17, the prior art does not teach an anti-moment machine as recited in claim 9 with a contact screw provided on the machine body corresponding to each moment resisting device, and the contact screw configured to abut a top of the bracket of the corresponding moment resisting device along the longitudinal direction of the contact screw as recited in claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20250180094, US12215752, US12203524, US11976702, US20230095802, US10718399, US10539204, US20190145482, US7182506, US5374012, US5178357, US4596373.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY H DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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 5712724979. 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.
/BRADLEY DUCKWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632