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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, Claims 4 and 5 have not been further treated on the merits.
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 1-9 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 recites the limitation "the pneumatic system" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant should amend the claim to properly introduce this element.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the vacuum generation system" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant should amend this limitation to be consistent with the limitation of Claim 1, namely the pneumatic system.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the shaft" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant should amend the claim to properly introduce this element.
Claim 7 depends from itself and therefore is indefinite. Claim 7 should be amended to depend from Claim 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the foot" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant should amend the claim to properly introduce this element.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the consent to the freedom of movement” is a phrase that does not have any antecedent basis. Applicant must amend the claims to properly introduce all of this function.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the equipment" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant should amend this limitation to be consistent with the limitation of Claim 1, namely the pneumatic system.
The remaining dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependencies.
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.
(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, 3, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by G.K. Techniques (GKT).
PNG
media_image1.png
903
337
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: GKT discloses a platform (See Annotated Fig. A) for fixing musical instruments, wherein said platform comprises a pivoting plate (See Annotated Fig. A) provided with a plurality of suction cups (See Annotated Fig. A) for supporting and gripping a musical instrument, characterized in that each of said suction cups (See Annotated Fig. A) has an adjustable position (the cups are shown in different positions in the figures) on the surface of said plate, and wherein each of said suction cups is connectable by means of a respective air connection tube to a compressed air vacuum generation system (See “pompe” in page 1, second paragraph) for fixing said musical instrument and where said platform includes a consensus lever that activates the pneumatic system to generate the vacuum and where said platform includes a vacuum discharge lever that allows the suction cups to be unlocked by letting air in from the outside (See “2 vannes ¼ de tour aspirer/relacher”, which translates to 2 1/4 turn valves suction/release).
Regarding Claim 3: GKT discloses a platform as in preceding claims, wherein the suction cups (See Annotated Fig. A) connected to the vacuum generation system are made of soft anti-trace rubber with the function of supporting the body of the instruments and holding it with the force of the vacuum.
Regarding Claim 8: Note that this claim does not recite any additional claimed structural limitations. Rather the claim simply recites that the platform “can be associated with a safety system.” Such a phrase does not further limit the invention and as such GKT also discloses a platform that can be associated with a safety system.
Regarding Claim 9: GKT discloses a platform as in claim 1, wherein the equipment for generating the vacuum is an electric vacuum pump (See “pompe” in page 1, second paragraph) connectable to the suction cups (See Annotated Fig. A).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GKT.
Regarding Claim 3: GKT discloses a platform as in preceding claims, wherein the suction cups (See Annotated Fig. A) connected to the vacuum generation system are made of a soft rubber (See “caoutchouc” on page 1 of GTK) with the function of supporting the body of the instruments and holding it with the force of the vacuum. However, GTK does not explicitly disclose the rubber being anti-trace. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and a time before the effective date of invention to make the rubber anti-trace. Courts have held that it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.1 Here, the intended use of the suction cup is to removeably attach to smooth surfaces, see for example attaching to glass in the figure on page 2 of GKT. Anti-trace rubber, or rubber that does not leave a trace, is well known and would prevent marks or scuffs being left on the object. It is well-within the level of skill in the art to utilize the known and commercially available materials to produce a part suited for the intended use thereof. The use of anti-trace rubber would not produce any new unexpected results. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person to choose anti-trace rubber for the suction cups of GKT.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6 and 7 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.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
None of the cited prior art, considered alone or in combination, discloses or teaches:
wherein each of said suction cups is slidable along a respective through-hole formed on the plate and is fixable in position by means of a respective fixing ring nut; or
wherein said plate is connectable to the shaft of a pneumatic positioner by means of a ball joint and said shaft can be inclined and oriented in any direction and locked pneumatically in the desired position and with it said platform; or
wherein the consent to the freedom of movement of the pneumatic positioner to which the platform is connectable can be given by means of a foot valve and the locking of the pneumatic positioner can be done by removing the foot from the foot valve.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the references used in this rejection and those cited in the PTO-892, the following references are very relevant to the claimed invention: US 11583965.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERET C MCNICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 - 5:00 (Eastern).
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
ERET C. MCNICHOLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/ERET C MCNICHOLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
1 See MPEP 2144.07.