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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, the recitation “each” should be “each said”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the recitation “one” should be “one said”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the recitation “each” should be “each said”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the recitation “each” should be “each said”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the recitation “each” should be “each said”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the recitation “each” should be “each said”.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the recitation “each” should be “each said”.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the recitation “each” should be “each said”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the recitation “each” should be “each said”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the recitation “each” should be “each said”.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the recitation “each” should be “each said”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the recitation “each” should be “each said”.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the recitation “each” should be “each said”.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the recitation “each” should be “each said”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 17: The recitation “the plurality of axes” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 17 depends from claim 14, while claim 15 recites “a plurality of axes”.
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, 10-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,726,161 A (Yaghoubian).
With respect to claim 1: Yaghoubian discloses a cabinet (structure 10), comprising: a body (Figs. 1-2 and 5); a plurality of legs (stem 20, bearing 21, spring 22, etc.) extending downwardly from the body; a plurality of balls (spherical balls 18), each ball being secured to one of the legs (Figs. 1-2 and 4-5); and a plurality of support cups (bowls 16) configured to be secured to a support surface (floor 12) supporting the cabinet (col. 2, lines 55-57: “The bowl element is shown in the form of a circular pad the flat underside of which is suitably attached to the floor 12 in Fig. 1.”); wherein each of the balls is configured to rest in one of the support cups (Figs. 1-1a and 4-5).
The claim recites “for housing electronic equipment” and “for housing the electronic equipment”, both of which are intended use limitations.
From MPEP 707.07(f):
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Yaghoubian col. 1, lines 23-33 disclose the invention used with “cabinets and shelvings containing valuable objects, computers, electrical panels, and mechanical equipment”. Yaghoubian col. 2, lines 35-45 disclose structure 10 “my for example comprise a computer”.
Yaghoubian’s structure 10 is capable of housing electronic equipment therein. Ergo, Yaghoubian meets “for housing electronic equipment” and “for housing the electronic equipment” as recited in claim 1.
With respect to claim 5: Yaghoubian discloses wherein each support cup includes a concave upper surface (surface 16a) configured to receive one of the balls.
With respect to claim 6: Yaghoubian discloses wherein each concave upper surface is symmetrically curved in two dimensions (Figs. 1-1a and 4-5).
With respect to claim 10: Yaghoubian discloses wherein each leg is rigid (at least stem 20 and/or bearing 21 is/are rigid).
With respect to claim 11: Yaghoubian discloses wherein each leg is flexible (due to coil spring 22).
With respect to claim 12: Yaghoubian discloses wherein each leg is biased (by spring 22) towards a rest position wherein a longitudinal axis of the leg is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the cabinet (as in Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 13: Yaghoubian discloses wherein each leg is rigid (at least stem 20 and/or bearing 21 is/are rigid) and is flexibly mounted to the cabinet (due to coil spring 22).
With respect to claim 14: Yaghoubian discloses wherein each leg is flexibly mounted to the cabinet through one of a plurality of rotating joints (at pivotal connections 42a, 42b in Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 15: Yaghoubian discloses wherein each rotating joint is configured to rotate about one of a plurality of axes (at least four axes defined by pivotal connections 42a, 42b in Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 16: Yaghoubian discloses wherein the plurality of axes are parallel to one another (all are in and out of the page in Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 18: Yaghoubian discloses wherein each leg extends downwardly from the cabinet (Fig. 5) and is biased towards a rest position by one or more springs (spring 22).
With respect to claim 19: Yaghoubian discloses wherein one or more of the plurality of balls comprises a curved surface configured to contact a corresponding one of the plurality of support cups (Figs. 1-1a and 4-5).
With respect to claim 20: Yaghoubian discloses wherein the curved surface is at least partially semispherical (col. 2, lines 65-66 disclose ball 18 is spherical).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,726,161 A (Yaghoubian) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of US 5,310,156 A (Matsumura).
With respect to claims 2-4: Yaghoubian does not disclose four support cups (bowls 16) as required by claim 2, four legs (stem 20, bearing 21, spring 22, etc.) at bottom corners of the body (structure 10) as required by claim 3, and/or four balls (balls 18) as required by claim 4.
Yaghoubian’s figures show two bowls 16, two legs, and two balls 18 attached to the structure 10. Yaghoubian col. 3, lines 50-52 state, “Preferably, two or more of such bowl and ball assemblies are employed, for each object or structure 10, to assure orientation, azimuthally.” This is open to having more than the two bowl and ball assemblies shown in Yaghoubian Fig. 2.
Matsumura discloses legs 10 that engage seats 20/liner 30 for the same reason as Yaghoubian’s bowl and ball assemblies – adapting to forces during an earthquake. Matsumura col. 4, lines 9-13 state: “The outer case 1 is placed on a floor (4, FIG. 1) by four leg support structures 10 at the corners of a bottom wall (1a, FIG. 1) of the outer case 1. The four leg support structures 10 have the same arrangement.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yaghoubian’s structure 10 to have four of the bowl and ball assemblies – one at each corner thereof – because Yaghoubian prefers to have two or more assemblies and Matsumura shows it is known in the art to have one such assembly at each of four corners of the cabinet.
With respect to claim 7: Yaghoubian does not disclose “wherein each support cup includes one or more stops configured to retain the ball within a boundary of the concave upper surface of the support cup” as claimed.
Matsumura shows it is known in the art for a support cup (seat 20/liner 30) to have one or more stops (flange 24, optional elastic element 36). Matsumura col. 5 describes leg 12 abutting the flange 24 during a large earthquake.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify each of Yaghoubian’s bowls 16 to include Matsumura’s flange 24 (and optionally the elastic element 36), in order to prevent unwanted separation of each ball 18 from the corresponding bowl 16/surface 16a thereof. The optional elastic element 36 desirably provides a buffering effect.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,726,161 A (Yaghoubian) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 5,599,106 (Kemeny).
With respect to claim 8: Yaghoubian does not disclose “wherein each support cup includes a resilient boot that seals the concave upper surface to the cabinet” as claimed.
Kemeny Fig. 9 show an accordion shape rubber ring 27 that is glued to load plates 21, in order to keep birds’ nest, water, and dust out (col. 4, lines 4-7). The load plates 21 in Fig. 9 are equivalent to load plates 11 in Fig. 1, which have ball 12 therebetween. This is functionally equivalent and/or analogous to Yaghoubian’s bowl and ball assembly.
See Yaghoubian Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yaghoubian’s invention to have one of Kemeny’s rubber rings 27 attached between each of the bowls 16 and the structure 10, in order to keep debris, water, and/or dust out – which may impede the functionality of the bowl and ball assembly. Each rubber ring 27 added to Yaghoubian’s invention meets “a resilient boot” as claimed.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,726,161 A (Yaghoubian) in view of US 5,599,106 (Kemeny) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US 5,310,156 A (Matsumura).
With respect to claim 9: Yaghoubian does not disclose “a lubricant within the boot to provide lubrication between the ball and the concave upper surface” as claimed.
Matsumura col. 4, lines 40-43 disclose a lubricant such as oil or molybdenum disulfide applied to upper surface 22 of seat 20, to facilitate sliding of the leg 12 on surface 22.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yaghoubian’s surface 16a to include Matsumura’s lubricant, in order to facilitate sliding of the ball 18 thereon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW ROERSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-3185. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/ANDREW ROERSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637