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 Interpretation
Please see the corresponding section in the Action mailed 29 December 2025.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 2012/0151735) in view of McCaffrey et al. (US 7,779,540).
Claims 1-6 and 9-16 remain unamended. The text of the rejection remains unchanged. To see the text of the rejection, please refer to the Action mailed 29 December 2025.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 2012/0151735) in view of McCaffrey et al. (US 7,779,540) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Long et al. (CN 109648288 B).
Claims 7-8 remain unamended. The text of the rejection remains unchanged. To see the text of the rejection, please refer to the Action mailed 29 December 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 March 2026 are not convincing.
Applicant argues (1) “the required motivation [to show a prima facie case of obviousness] is not actually present,” and (2) “the stop is important to Thomas and removing it would be an impermissible change.”
Regarding argument (1), on page 8 Applicant states Examiner’s rationale is “not legally sufficient because there is no connection between it and the specific modifications required to arrive at the claimed invention in particular.”
Applicant argues at page 9 “the motivation relied upon comes from McCaffrey 2:50-52, which is directed to its carriages as a whole, and has no particular connection to any relevant cross member.” Applicant concludes “there is not a sufficient link between the rationale stated and the particular modification being made to amount to a prima facie case of obviousness.”
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that there is not a sufficient link between the rationale stated and the particular modification being made to amount to a
PNG
media_image1.png
328
270
media_image1.png
Greyscale
prima facie case of obviousness. In particular, Applicant is mistaken that McCaffrey’s teachings to a “carriage” having “multiple degrees of freedom” at Col 2 lines 50-52 has no particular connection to any relevant cross member. As described in the rejection, McCaffrey’s carriage (24) includes a crossbar (80), main strut (88), and cross member (unlabeled, see the component below identifier 92). As further described in the rejection, McCaffrey Col 4 lines 58-64 teaches the mounts have “three hundred sixty degree motion of adjustable arm 88.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that McCaffrey’s discussion regarding “multiple degrees of freedom” at Col 2 lines 50-52 is directed at least partially to a cross member useful for changing the orientation of the part 84. See Col 2 lines 54-59: “The product may be assembled while disposed in a horizontal position. The work zone surrounding the suspended parts is ergonomically optimized by the vertically, axially and rotationally orienting the parts alone, and in combination, throughout the process.”
Thus contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the rejection provides adequate nexus between the rationale and the particular modification.
Applicant continues, “Moreover, the Office’s rationale is missing the required reason why” [emphasis in original]. Applicant believes adding a new functionality purely for the reason to include that functionality amounts to circular reasoning.
Examiner further disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that the rationale is missing a “why.” The rejection identifies a motivation at Paragraph 15: “Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve the benefits of McCaffrey to ‘maintain, manipulate and orient the part’ by permitting greater rotation of the cross member.”
When comparing Thomas and McCaffrey, it had already been acknowledged that Thomas’ cross member was constrained in its rotation. McCaffrey teaches members having 360° freedom useful for “ergonomically optimizing” the part during assembly. Examiner explained at Paragraph 15 that McCaffrey permitted “greater rotation of the cross member,” which is a direct improvement over Thomas and which meets KSR’s “good reason” referenced in Virtek Vision. See also MPEP § 2143.01.
Beginning on page 9, Applicant makes argument (2): “Applicant respectfully submits that removal of the stop would be a substantial change to Thomas, and would undue1 a particular functionality of Thomas.”
On Pages 10 and 11, Applicant argues that Thomas’s stop is useful for creating “two defined pivot positioned spaced 90° apart so that the removed engine can be set up vertically.” Applicant argues that removing the stop would make Thomas’s device more difficult to operate and would moreover change Thomas’ principle of operation.
Examiner disagrees. See MPEP § 2143.01 V: “The proposed modification cannot render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.” We must look to Thomas to determine its intended purpose. For ease of understanding, Examiner has circled the stop in the annotated Figure below:
PNG
media_image2.png
727
776
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As noted in the rejection, the feature referred to as the “stop” is not discussed in Thomas whatsoever. Thus, all of Applicant’s discussion regarding the operation and purpose of the “stop” is based on what a person having ordinary skill in the art might reasonably infer from Thomas’ disclosure and drawings. According to Applicant’s own analysis, Thomas’ intended purpose is to provide for an engine to be set up vertically and horizontally (90° apart). Examiner asserts this intended purpose is not rendered unsatisfactory by the removal of the “stop.” That is, the removal of the “stop” does not prevent Thomas from rotating an engine to the horizontal and vertical. Also, Thomas’ “stop” does not provide for the handling or rotation of the engine. Rather, these functions are provided by the support members 52, 54 and pivot 50. While Examiner acknowledges the “stop” would be useful for preventing rotation, the prevention of rotation is not strictly the intended purpose of Thomas. Insofar as the prevention of rotation is necessary for arriving at the the vertical and horizontal set ups 90° apart, Thomas’s pin 56 is useful for providing this function.
Moreover, the removal of Thomas’ “stop” is not in a vacuum. Rather, the modification is based on the teachings of McCaffrey. As noted above, McCaffrey Col 2 lines 54-59 2 also teaches the benefits of orienting the engine vertically and horizontally. This is further evidence that such vertical and horizontal orientations do not rely on a physical “stop.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 30 April 2026
1 [sic, understood as “undo”]
2 McCaffrey Col 2 lines 54-59: “The product may be assembled while disposed in a horizontal position. The work zone surrounding the suspended parts is ergonomically optimized by the vertically, axially and rotationally orienting the parts alone, and in combination, throughout the process.”
Prosecution Insights