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 9-11, 16, 18 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 9 and 16 and 18 recite the limitation "the rotating nut". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 is written to depend from claim 11 and therefore it is not clear which claim it is intended to depend from. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5-6, 12-13, 15, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Pettinari (EP 2,120,673 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Pettinari (hereafter “D1”) discloses a leveling foot assembly ([0001] height-adjustable feet for washing machines disclosed) comprising: a foot (4 – embodiment of figure 5 referred to herein); a rod (stem 30) secured to the foot, the rod including a first threaded portion (31), a second threaded portion (32), and a third threadless portion (33) positioned between the first threaded portion and the second threaded portion ([0051]); and a leveling nut (insert A1) configured to engage the first threaded portion of the rod ([0057]; figure 7) when the foot is in a raised position and configured to engage the second threaded portion of the nut when the foot is in a lowered position ([0059]; figure 9).
Regarding claim 5, D1 discloses wherein the leveling nut (A1) is fixedly secured and the rod rotates with respect to the leveling nut ([0057]).
Regarding claim 6, D1 discloses wherein the leveling nut (A1) is fixedly secured to a frame of a rack equipment rack (secured to household appliance base 1 – [0002, 0053]).
Regarding claim 12, D1 discloses wherein the leveling nut (A1), when moving the rod from the raised position to the lowered position, travels over the third threadless portion without interference ([0062]).
Regarding claims 13, 15, 19-20, in addition to the discussion of claims 1, 5-6, and 12 above, D1 describes the moving between a raised position to a lowered position ([0060-0062]) requiring the steps of claim 13 and moving from the lowered position to the raised position ([0057-0058]).
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) 2-3, 10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettinari (EP 2,120,673 B1) in view of Weisz et al. (US 5,332,182).
D1 does not teach further comprising a spring configured to move the rod to the lowered position.
Weisz et al. (hereafter “D2”) discloses a leveling foot device (adjustable leveling assembly 10) having a threaded rod (30) and nut (leveling wheel 16) arrangement for setting the foot height and a spring (36) positioned about the rod between the foot and the housing (12) (figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to add a spring about the rod of D1 between the nut and foot, as taught by D2, for adding stabilizing pressure to the foot.
Claim(s) 7, 9, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettinari (EP 2,120,673 B1) in view of Dominic et al. (US 7,350, 269).
D1 does not disclose further comprising a rotating nut fixedly secured to the rod, the rotating nut being located between the foot and the first threaded portion of the rod.
Dominic et al. (hereafter “D3”) teaches a caster with a leveling assembly (at adjustment assembly 28) utilizing a rod and nut arrangement and having a rotating nut (46) at the rod base below a threaded portion (26) for providing a secure grip for a user to make height adjustments (col. 4, lines 36-44; figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to add a rotating nut secured at the bottom of the rod of D1, as taught by D3, for providing a user a secure grip point for rotating the rod.
Claim(s) 8, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis, II et al. (US 7,293,666) in view of Pettinari (EP 2,120,673 B1).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Lewis, II et al. (hereafter “D4”) discloses an electronics equipment enclosure (10) having a caster wheel system (40) and separate leveling foot assemblies (30), the leveling foot assembly capable of being raised and lower by screw of stud/rod (34) into or out of its support block (36 – meeting the limitation of a nut) on the equipment rack so that the weight of the rack may rest of the foot assemblies or on the casters.
D1, as discussed above, discloses the particulars of the device of claim 1 and foot assemblies having a rod with first and second threaded portions and a non-threaded portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device and in particular the foot assemblies of D4 to replace the threaded rod portions with a rod design as taught by D1 having first and second threaded portions and a non-threaded portion between for reducing the work required by a user to raise (or lower) the foot when desiring to use the casters or disengage the casters from the ground.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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. Claim 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: D1 in view of D2 does not disclose any obvious arrangement in which the spring (from D2) would engage the shoulder of the second threaded portion and such modification of D1 would also not be reasonable in view of any of the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See notice of references cited form PTO-892. References not applied but cited are relevant as disclosing or suggesting at least one feature in the claims or disclosure of the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK D HAWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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.
/PATRICK D HAWN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631