DETAILED ACTION
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 1-5, 10-14 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: Claim 1 recites “the first support” in line 7 and “the pivot mount” in line 12, however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 1 recites “a first support portion” in line 7. For examination purposes, “the first support” and “the pivot mount” are interpreted as --the first support portion-- and --[[the]]a pivot mount-- respectively.
Claim 5: Claim 5 recites “a pivot mount” in line 3 and “a first portion of the component” in line 4. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. Claim 1 (which upon claim 5 depends) recites “a pivot mount” (as interpreted as above) in line 12 and “a first portion of the component” in line 8 respectively. It is not clear whether “a pivot mount” and “a first portion of the component” of claim 5 refer ones in claim 1 or if they are distinct and separate from each other. For examination purposes, “a pivot mount” and “a first portion of the component” are interpreted as --[[a]]the pivot mount-- and --[[a]]the first portion of the component-- respectively.
Claim 14: Claim 14 recites further limitations of the component. The scope of the claim is indefinite. Claim 1 (which claim 14 depends upon) recites the component as a functional limitation/intended use which the support apparatus is configured to support. The component is not a positively recited structural limitation of the support apparatus. Therefore, for examination purposes, if the prior art is capable of supporting the component of claim 14, then it will be interpreted to read on claim 14.
Claims 2-4, 10-13 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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) 1-4, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mainville et al (US 8,220,769 B2).
Regarding claim 1¸ Mainville et al discloses a support apparatus (fig2, abstract, col.1 lines43-52) adapted to support a component (col.1 line42) in an installation location for assembly to a body, wherein the support apparatus is configured to passively assist movement of a supported component (col.5 lines7-8) in a direction of a vertical axis Z (along an element 26, figs5-6, col.5 lines7-8) to reduce an external force necessary to reposition the component from an approximate alignment position into a desired final alignment position (figs4-6, the supported component can be moved/rotated/pivoted along/about different axes including Rx, Ry, X, Y, Z), the support apparatus comprising:
a first support portion 36 (col.3 line53) supporting a weight of the component, the first support portion 36 engaging a first portion of the component (col.3 lines49-50,52-53, a portion engaging a top surface of the first support portion 36); and
a second support portion 38 (col.3 line53) adapted to engage with a second portion of the component (col.3 lines49-50,52-53, fig2) at a location of the component distal the first portion of the component, so as to support the component in an upright orientation while permitting tilting (“pivotal movement in multiple directions”) of the component about a pivot mount 26 (col.7 line49) in response to an externally applied force.
Regarding claim 2, Mainville et al discloses the support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the support apparatus comprises a resilient arrangement 30 (col.5 lines18-20, “provides resilience”) to resiliently assist movement of the supported component in the direction of the vertical axis Z (col.5 lines15-19).
Regarding claim 3¸ Mainville et al discloses the support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the support apparatus has a further degree of freedom of movement (figs4-6, the supported component can be moved/rotated/pivoted along/about different axes including Rx, Ry, X, Y, Z) about an upwardly extending axis of the component.
Regarding claim 4¸ Mainville et al discloses the support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the supported component has four further degrees of freedom of movement (figs4-6, the supported component can be moved/rotated/pivoted along/about different axes including Rx, Ry, X, Y, Z) along and about lateral axes X,Y that extend in respective mutually perpendicular directions lateral to the vertical axis Z (fig6).
Regarding claim 14, Mainville et al discloses the support apparatus according to claim 1. As aforementioned, claim 14 does not recite any elements of the support apparatus which performs the functional limitations recited in claim 14. Therefore, it is only required for the support apparatus of the Mainville et al to be capable of performing the functional limitations. In this case, fig 2 of Mainville et al shows the support apparatus which is capable of supporting a heavy component such as a gas turbine engine (col.1 lines39-40) and engaging an orifice of a workpiece such as a pintle orifice via an element 26. Therefore, the support apparatus of Mainville et al is capable of supporting the component wherein the component is an aircraft landing gear assembly, the support apparatus being configured to passively assist movement of a supported landing gear assembly in a direction of the vertical axis to reposition a pintle orifice of the supported landing gear assembly from an approximate alignment position relative to a pintle mounting orifice of an aircraft body into final relative alignment, while permitting guided movement of the pintle orifice about a longitudinal axis of the supported landing gear assembly, or along, or about mutually perpendicular laterally extending axes, or any combination thereof.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
Claims 10-13 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.
Claims 7-9 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The subject matter of the claim(s) could either not be found or was not suggested in the prior art of record. The subject matter of claim 7 not found was a use of a first support portion comprising a pivot mount adapted to pivotably engage with a first portion of the component and a second support portion engaging a second portion of the component at a location of the component distal the first portion of the component; in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 7 of the instant invention.
Claims 8-9 depend on claim 7.
The subject matter of the claim(s) could either not be found or was not suggested in the prior art of record. The subject matter of claim 5 not found was that the first support portion comprises the pivot mount adapted to pivotably engage with the first portion of the component; in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 5 and its intervening claims of the instant invention.
Claims 10-13 depend on claim 5.
None of the prior arts of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, teaches or renders obvious the allowable subject matter of the instant invention.
The closest prior art, Mainville et al teaches a similar support apparatus, however, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the support apparatus to use a first support portion comprising a pivot mount adapted to pivotably engage with a first portion of the component and a second support portion engaging a second portion of the component at a location of the component distal the first portion of the component; in combination with the limitations set forth in claims 7 and 5 (and any intervening claims of claim 5) of the instant invention respectively. Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, none of the prior arts of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, teaches or renders obvious the allowable subject matter of the instant invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/1/2026 regarding claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claim 1 incorporates limitations from claim 5 and all the limitations of claim 7, therefore, claim 1 is allowable. However, the Office respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not include all of the limitations of claims 5 and 7; claim 5 does not recite that the first support portion comprises a pivot mount adapted to pivotably engage with the first portion of the component. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Therefore, Applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 is not persuasive.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm ET.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights