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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-6, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen TW M421183 U in view of Wang et al. CN 113231835 A (herein Wang).
All text references to Chen or Wang will be cited from the provided English translations.
PNG
media_image1.png
698
449
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen Figure 2
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a beam mechanism (3), comprising: a beam member (5), and having a first side wall (top surface of 5 as viewed in figure 2) and a second side wall (underside of 5 as depicted in figure 2); a U-shaped member (6), disposed on a periphery of the beam member (5), wherein the U-shaped member (6) extends to the second side wall (underside of 5 as depicted in figure 2) of the beam member (5); a sliding member (31), located on the first side wall (top surface of 5 as viewed in figure 2) of the beam member (5) and connected to the U-shaped member (6); and a moving module (combination of 22, and 50), having a slide rail (50) and a lead screw (22), wherein the slide rail (50) is disposed on the first side wall (top surface of 5 as viewed in figure 2) of the beam member (5), and the lead screw (22) is disposed on the second side wall (underside of 5 as depicted in figure 2) of the beam member (5) and connected to the U-shaped member (6).
Chen does not teach the beam being made of a carbon fiber material.
PNG
media_image2.png
243
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wang Figure 3
However, in a related device, Wang teaches a beam (1) made of a carbon fiber material (abstract) with a metal assembly (2) designed to attach slide rails (abstract). Wang further teaches that this beam advantageously reduces weight while maintaining rigidity, toughness, and stability (abstract). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to apply the beam construction of Wang to the mechanism of Chen to advantageously reduce weight while maintaining rigidity, toughness, and stability (abstract). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Chen and Wang teaches the moving module (combination of 22 and 50 of Chen) further includes a driving motor (23 of Chen) and a nut (60 of Chen), the driving motor (23) is affixed to the second side wall (underside of 5 as depicted in figure 2 of Chen) of the beam member (1 of Wang) and is located on a first end (left side of 5 as depicted in figure 2 of Chen)of the beam member (1 of Wang), and the nut (60 of Chen) is sleeved on the lead screw (22 of Chen) and is connected to the U-shaped member (6 of Chen).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chen and Wang teaches the moving module (combination of 22 and 50 of Chen) further includes a fixed portion (section of 5 which supports 23 of Chen) which is fixedly disposed on the second side wall (underside of 5 as depicted in figure 2 of Chen) of the beam member (1 of Wang) and is located on a second end (left side of 5 as depicted in figure 2 of Chen) of the beam member (1 of Wang), and the beam mechanism (3 of Chen) further includes a counterweight (23 of Chen) which is detachably connected (while Chen is silent on the coupling method of 23, as a distinct part, 23 would be detachable with some method even if said method was destructive) to the fixed portion (section of 5 which supports 23 of Chen).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chen and Wang teaches the sliding member (31 of Chen) is configured to be connected to an external object (4 of Chen), the beam mechanism further includes a counterweight (310 of Chen) which is detachably disposed (while Chen is silent on the coupling method of 310, as a distinct part, 310 would be detachable with some method even if said method was destructive) on the U-shaped member (6 of Chen, note that 310 of Chen is indirectly disposed on 6 via 31), and a weight of the counterweight (310 of Chen) corresponds to a weight of the external object (4 of Chen) (pg. 4, ln 3-4).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chen and Wang teaches the beam mechanism (3 of Chen) further includes a metal assembly (2 of Wang) which is affixed to the first side wall (top side of 5 as depicted in figure 2 of Chen) of the beam member (1 of Wang), and the metal assembly (2 of Wang) is located between the sliding member (31 of Chen) and the beam member (1 of Wang).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Chen and Wang teaches the beam mechanism (3 of Chen) further includes a plurality of first locking elements (the fasteners for interfacing with 23 of Wang), and the metal assembly (2 of Wang) has a transverse member (center portion of 2 of Wang) which extends along a first axis (parallel to the major axis of 1 of Wang), wherein the first locking elements (the fasteners for interfacing with 23 of Wang) are configured to lock the slide rail (50 of Chen) to the transverse member (center portion of 2 of Wang).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Chen and Wang teaches the beam mechanism (3 of Chen) further includes a plurality of first fixed elements (the fasteners for interfacing with 23 of Wang), and the metal assembly (2 of Chen) has a transverse portion (center portion of 2 of Chen) which extends along a first axis (parallel to the major axis of 1 of Wang), wherein the first fixed elements (the fasteners for interfacing with 23 of Wang) are configured to fix the slide rail (50 of Chen) to the transverse portion (center portion of 2 of Wang).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen TW M421183 U in view of Wang et al. CN 113231835 A (herein Wang) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kim et al. KR 101752185 B1 (herein Kim).
All text references to Kim will be cited from the provided English translation.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Chen and Wang teaches a second locking element (3 of Wang) configured to lock the transverse member (2 of Wang) to the beam member (1 of Wang).
The combination of Chen and Wang does not teach a plurality of second locking elements to lock the transverse member to the beam member.
PNG
media_image3.png
262
194
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kim Figure 6
However, in a related device, Kim teaches a plurality of locking elements (140) configured to lock a metal assembly (120) to a carbon fiber beam member (110) in combination with an adhesive (pg. 8, ln 5-8). Kim further teaches that this advantageously bonds the beam and the metal assembly together more firmly (pg. 8, ln 5-8). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to apply plurality of locking elements and adhesive of Kim to the adhesive construction of the combination of Chen and Wang to advantageously bond the beam and the metal assembly together more firmly (pg. 8, ln 5-8). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen TW M421183 U in view of Wang et al. CN 113231835 A (herein Wang) and Kim et al. KR 101752185 B1 (herein Kim) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Wei et al. CN 116944896 A (herein Wei).
All text references to Wei will be cited from the provided English translation.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Chen, Wang, and Kim teaches the metal assembly (2 of Wang) further includes a side member (outer portion of 2 of Wang).
The combination of Chen, Wang, and Kim is silent on how the beam is supported.
PNG
media_image4.png
434
451
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Wei Figure 6
However, in a related beam mechanism, Wei teaches a beam mechanism (abstract) with a beam member (5) which includes a supporting base (51) and a plurality of locking elements (51 is depicted with screw holes for locking elements in figure 6), and the locking elements are configured to lock the supporting base to the beam member (5), so that the supporting base (51) supports the beam member (5). Wei further teaches that this mechanism is used for attaching the horizontal beam member (5) to the vertical frame (41) (pg. 10, ln 31-33). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to substitute the attachment method of the beam member of the combination of Chen, Wang, and Kim for the supporting base of Wei, such that the supporting base is attached to the side member in the same manner as the slide rail is attached to the transverse member. Furthermore, this substitution would have had predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chen, Wang, Kim, and Wei teaches the beam mechanism (3 of Chen) further includes a plurality of fourth locking elements (a subset of the screws that would fill the holes of 51 of Wei) configured to lock the supporting base (51 of Wei) to the side member (outer portion of 2 of Wang) and the beam member (1 of Wang) so that the supporting base (51 of Wei) supports the beam member (1 of Wang) (note that these screws would attach the supporting base to the side member, and, through the side member’s attachment to the beam member, the beam member).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen TW M421183 U in view of Wang et al. CN 113231835 A (herein Wang), Kim et al. KR 101752185 B1 (herein Kim), and Wei et al. CN 116944896 A (herein Wei) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Walther et al. DE 10245870 A1 (herein Walther).
All text references to Walther will be cited from the provided English translation.
PNG
media_image5.png
442
569
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Wei Figure 6, annotated
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Chen, Wang, Kim and Wei teaches the supporting base (51 of Wei) has a base portion (see annotated figure 6 of Wei), a supporting portion (see annotated figure 6 of Wei) and a first rib portion (see annotated figure 6 of Wei), the supporting portion (see annotated figure 6 of Wei) extends along a second axis (along the major axis of the supporting portion) and is connected to the base portion (see annotated figure 6 of Wei) through the first rib portion (see annotated figure 6 of Wei)
The combination of Chen, Wang, Kim and Wei does not teach an adjustment element that passes through the supporting portion.
PNG
media_image6.png
298
412
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Walther Figure 4
However, in a related device, Walther teaches an adjustment element (31) configured to pass through a surface (13a) and contact a lower layer (11), thereby adjusting an included angle between the surface (13a) and the lower layer (11). Walther further teaches that this advantageously allows a user to set the device with high precision (pg. 4, ln 5-9). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to apply the adjustment mechanism of Walther between the supporting portion and side member of the combination of Chen, Wang, Kim, and Wei to advantageously allow a user to set the device with high precision (pg. 4, ln 5-9). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen TW M421183 U in view of Wang et al. CN 113231835 A (herein Wang), Kim et al. KR 101752185 B1 (herein Kim), Wei et al. CN 116944896 A (herein Wei), and Walther et al. DE 10245870 A1 (herein Walther) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Nonaka US 4944492 A.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Chen, Wang, Kim, Wei, and Walther teaches the limitations of claim 10 as claimed.
The combination of Chen, Wang, Kim, Wei, and Walther does not teach a second adjusting element or the two lifting elements.
PNG
media_image7.png
499
310
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Nonaka Figure 3
However, in a related device, Nonaka teaches an adjusting mechanism (37), and includes a first lifting element (22), a second lifting element (25) and the first lifting element (22) and the second lifting element (25) are disposed between a lifted structure (1) and a base portion (2). Nonaka further teaches that this device advantageously allows a user to lift the lifted structure from the base portion while under stress (abstract). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to apply the adjustment mechanism of Nonaka between the base portion and beam member of the combination of Chen, Wang, Kim, Wei, and Walther to advantageously allow a user to lift the beam member from the base portion while under stress, such as when the sliding member is carrying a load (abstract). In such a configuration the adjusting member could extend from the first or second rib. Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Chen, Wang, Kim, Wei, Walther, and Nonaka teaches the second adjustment element (37 of Nonaka) is configured to pass through the first rib portion (see annotated figure 6 of Wei) to contact the second lifting element (25 of Nonaka), so that the second lifting element (25 of Nonaka) moves relative to the first lifting element (22 of Nonaka) to adjust an included angle between the beam member (1 of Wang) and the base portion (see annotated figure 6 of Wei).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Chen, Wang, Kim, Wei, Walther, and Nonaka teaches the supporting base (51 of Wei) further has a second rib portion (see annotated figure 6 of Wei) which is connected between the base portion (see annotated figure 6 of Wei) and the supporting portion (see annotated figure 6 of Wei), and when viewed along the second axis (along the major axis of the supporting portion), the first rib portion (see annotated figure 6 of Wei) and the second rib portion (see annotated figure 6 of Wei) are staggered from each other, wherein the second axis (along the major axis of the supporting portion) is perpendicular to the first axis (along the major axis of the beam member).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Chen, Wang, Kim, Wei, Walther, and Nonaka teaches when viewed along a third axis (parallel to the minor axis of the first rib), the first adjustment element (31 of Walther) is disposed between the third locking elements (140 of Kim disposed in the side portion of 2 of Wang) and the fourth locking elements (fasteners for attaching through 23 of Wang on the side portion of 2 of Wang), and the third axis (parallel to the minor axis of the first rib), the first axis (along the major axis of the beam member) and the second axis (along the major axis of the supporting portion) are perpendicular to each other.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen TW M421183 U in view of Wang et al. CN 113231835 A (herein Wang) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Wei et al. CN 116944896 A (herein Wei).
All text references to Wei will be cited from the provided English translation.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Chen and Wang teaches the metal assembly (2 of Wang) further has a side portion (outer portion of 2 of Wang) which is connected to the transverse portion (center portion of 2 of Wang), and the beam mechanism (3 of Chen) further a plurality of second fixed elements (the fasteners for interfacing with 23 of Wang, that are within the side portion), wherein the second fixed elements (the fasteners for interfacing with 23 of Wang, that are within the side portion) are configured to fix an external assembly to the side portion (outer portion of 2 of Wang) and the beam member (1 of Wang).
The combination of Chen and Wang is silent on how the beam member is supported by the vertical portions of Chen.
However, in a related beam mechanism, Wei teaches a beam mechanism (abstract) with a beam member (5) which includes a supporting base (51), so that the supporting base (51) supports the beam member (5). Wei further teaches that this mechanism is used for attaching the horizontal beam member (5) to the vertical frame (41) (pg. 10, ln 31-33). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to substitute the attachment method of the beam member of the combination of Chen and Wang for the supporting base of Wei, such that the supporting base is attached to the side member in the same manner as the slide rail is attached to the transverse member. Furthermore, this substitution would have had predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Chen, Wang, and Wei teaches the supporting base (51 of Wei) has a base portion (see annotated figure 6 of Wei), a supporting portion (see annotated figure 6 of Wei) and a rib portion (see annotated figure 6 of Wei), and the supporting portion (see annotated figure 6 of Wei) extends along a second axis (parallel to the minor axis of the rib portion) and is connected to the base portion (see annotated figure 6 of Wei) through the rib portion (see annotated figure 6 of Wei).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen TW M421183 U in view of Wang et al. CN 113231835 A (herein Wang) and Wei et al. CN 116944896 A (herein Wei) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Walther et al. DE 10245870 A1 (herein Walther).
All text references to Walther will be cited from the provided English translation.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Chen, Wang, and Wei teaches the limitations of claim 17 as claimed.
The combination of Chen, Wang, and Wei does not teach the beam mechanism including an adjustment element engaged with the supporting portion.
However, in a related device, Walther teaches an adjustment element (31) configured to pass through a surface (13a) and contact a lower layer (11), thereby adjusting an included angle between the surface (13a) and the lower layer (11). Walther further teaches that this advantageously allows a user to set the device with high precision (pg. 4, ln 5-9). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to apply the adjustment mechanism of Walther between the supporting portion and side member of the combination of Chen, Wang, and Wei to advantageously allow a user to set the device with high precision (pg. 4, ln 5-9). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Chen, Wang, Wei, and Walther teaches the transverse portion (center portion of 2 of Wang), and the side portion (outer portion of 2 of Wang) are integrally formed as one piece, and the transverse portion (center portion of 2 of Wang) is formed with a plurality of openwork structures (23 of Wang).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Chen, Wang, Wei, and Walther teaches when viewed along a third axis (parallel to the major axis of the supporting portion), the slide rail (50 of Chen) does not overlap the openwork structures (23 of Wang), and the third axis (parallel to the major axis of the supporting portion) is perpendicular to the first axis (parallel to the major axis of the beam member) and the second axis (parallel to the minor axis of the rib portion).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kahr et al. EP 4357070 A1 as it relates to supporting members.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRANT D HAY whose telephone number is (571)272-9510. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-3:30pm EST.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/G.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights