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 § 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 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.
(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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Stevens (US 20130167706 A1).
Stevens discloses a drive assembly comprising a baseplate (see the plate in figure 8); a string post comprising a first end that extends through an aperture defined by the baseplate (see figure 8); a spur gear (804, 806) receiving the first end of the string post; and a first radial ball bearing (1318) residing between the string post and the baseplate (see figure 8).
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens.
Regarding claim Stevens discloses a drive assembly comprising a baseplate (see the plate in figure 8); a string post comprising a first end that extends through an aperture defined by the baseplate (see figure 8); a spur gear (804, 806) receiving the first end of the string post; and a first radial ball bearing (1318) residing between the string post and the baseplate (see figure 8).
Stevens does disclose a distal end that is received in a recess defined by the spur gear (see figure 10). Stevens does not disclose a specific shape.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify as discloses in Stevens to include a specific shape since it has been held that the shape of a device was a matter of choice which a person or ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device was significant, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Dalley, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 1-16 are allowed.
Claims 19 and 20 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY R LOCKETT whose telephone number is (571)272-2067. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 pm M-F.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at 571-270-7938. 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.
/KIMBERLY R LOCKETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
