DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action reissue examination of U.S. Patent No. 11,767,048 B1 addressing the filing 04 November 2024. This is a broadening reissue examination.
The following is the status of the claim under current review:
Claims 1-40 are pending. Of those:
Claims 1, 9, 16, 17 are amended
Claims 2-8, 10-15 and 18-23 are original
Claims 24-40 are new
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Original Disclosure - Definition
The present application is a reissue of US Patent No. 11,767,048, which issued from App. No. 18/301364 having a filing date of 17 April 2023. Any subject matter added during either the examination of the present reissue application or the earlier concluded examination of the ‘364 application does not constitute part of the “original disclosure”.
Maintenance Fees
Review of the record indicates no maintenance fees are due at this time. The next fee, being the window for the 3.5-year fee has a window that opens 26 September 2025, the window with the surcharge opens 27 March 2027 and the last day to pay the fee is 27 September 2027.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement dated 04 November 2024, is entered.
Form of the Specification
The form of the specification, including the claims and drawings, is objected to as it does not appear to be “of the patent”. See MPEP 1411 citing 37 CFR 1.173. The provided specification does not have the printed patent number, date of issue and other identifying information in the top margin. Further, upon cursory review, the drawings do not appear to be the same because provided Fig. 3a does not have the “prior art” label of patented Fig. 3a.
Amendments
The amendment to the claims filed on 04 November 2024, is objected to as not complying with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2) and (d)(1)&(2) because each change relative to the ‘048 patent has not been properly marked. 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2) and (d)(1)&(2) state:
(b) Making amendments in a reissue application. An amendment in a reissue application is made either by physically incorporating the changes into the specification when the application is filed, or by a separate amendment paper. If amendment is made by incorporation, markings pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section must be used. If amendment is made by an amendment paper, the paper must direct that specified changes be made, as follows:
(2) Claims. An amendment paper must include the entire text of each claim being changed by such amendment paper and of each claim being added by such amendment paper. For any claim changed by the amendment paper, a parenthetical expression “amended,” “twice amended,” etc., should follow the claim number. Each changed patent claim and each added claim must include markings pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, except that a patent claim or added claim should be canceled by a statement canceling the claim without presentation of the text of the claim.
(d) Changes shown by markings. Any changes relative to the patent being reissued which are made to the specification, including the claims, upon filing, or by an amendment paper in the reissue application, must include the following markings:
(1) The matter to be omitted by reissue must be enclosed in brackets; and
(2) The matter to be added by reissue must be underlined, except for amendments submitted on compact discs (§§ 1.96 and 1.821(c)). Matter added by reissue on compact discs must be preceded with “<U>” and end with “</U>” to properly identify the material being added.
The claims presented in the amendment filed 04 November 2024, do not include markings with respect to the original claims of the ‘048 patent. For example, applicant indicates deletions with
These corrections should be submitted with the next correspondence.
35 USC 251 - Recapture
35 USC §251
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §251:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.— The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.— The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS.—No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
Claim Rejection – 35 USC 251 Recapture:
Claims 1, 9 and 17 and claims 2-8, 10-16 and 12-40 by dependency are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). A broadening aspect is present in the reissue which was not present in the application for patent. The record of the application for the patent shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
MPEP 1412.02 establishes a three-step test for recapture. The three-step process is as follows:
(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.
Step 1:
Reissue examination claims 1-40 are broader than patented claims 1-23. Independent claims 1, 9 and 17 as patented, and thereby claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-40 by dependency, require the following:
Claim 1: with at least one wall from among said first and second walls further comprising a cavity facing said first gap, a magnet affixed to said first wall….at least one wall from among said first and second walls further comprising a cavity facing said first gap….and said magnet resides within said cavity recessed from said friction reducing face by a second [gap].
Claim 9: a magnet affixed to said first wall…and further comprising a shaft having at least one snap ring groove, and further comprising a snap ring installed within any snap ring groove from among said at least one snap ring [object].
Claim 17: at least one shaft at least partially embedded within said block…[said second] surface exposing a portion of said shaft, a magnet affixed to said first wall, a second friction reducing component deposited within said first gap, and with said shaft further comprising at least one snap ring groove exposed by said cavity, and further comprising a snap ring received within said cavity and installed in any snap ring groove from among said at least one snap ring groove.
The claims under reissue examination do not require these features
Therefore step 1 of the three-step test is met for claims 1-40.
Step 2:
The step of determining whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution includes two sub-steps. The first sub-step is to determine whether the applicant surrendered any subject matter in the prosecution of the original application. MPEP 1412.02 defines surrendered subject matter as a claim limitation that was originally relied upon by applicant in the original prosecution to make the claims allowable over the art.
MPEP 1412.02(I)(B)(1)(A) states “[w]ith respect to whether applicant surrendered any subject matter, it is to be noted that a patent owner (reissue applicant) is bound by the argument that applicant relied upon to overcome an art rejection in the original application for the patent to be reissued, regardless of whether the Office adopted the argument in allowing the claims. Greenliant Systems, Inc. v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 1271, 103 USPQ2d 1951, 1958 (Fed. Cir. 2012). As pointed out by the court, ‘[i]t does not matter whether the examiner or the Board adopted a certain argument for allowance; the sole question is whether the argument was made.’ Id.”
During the prosecution of the ‘048 patent, the Examiner rejected Independent claims 1 and 111 with Wilkins (U.S Publication 2014/0116841 A1) in view of Iguchi (U.S. Publication 2012/006237)2. The Applicant responded with arguments and amendments. The Applicant amended the claims in the response dated 17 July 2023 to include the language now being deleted by applicant.3 Applicant further added new claim 204.
The Patent Owner amended claim 1 to add the limitations from dependent claims 4 and 5 and amended claim 11 add the limitations of claim 19 and argued that the prior art did not include the limitation of the respective claims. Therefore, the newly presented claims must include the limitations of claims 1 and 11. New claim 20 includes language of original claim 1 with portions of claims 7, 8 and 9 (as numbered in the underlying prosecution). Independent Claims 1, 9 and 17, as renumbered upon allowance and examined under this reissue, fail to disclose any of the limitations added to the claims to make them allowable.
Therefore, the limitations of Claims 1, 9 and 17 are limitations which are considered surrendered subject matter.
The second sub-step is to determine whether any of the broadening of the reissue claims is in the area of the surrendered subject matter. The examiner must analyze all of the broadening aspects of the reissue claims to determine if any of the omitted/broadened limitation(s) are directed to limitations relied upon by applicant in the original application to make the claims allowable over the art.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are being broadened to omit the surrendered subject matter. Claims 1, 9 and 17 do not include any of the details of the surrendered subject matter and eliminate some of the details of the surrendered subject matter.
Therefore step 2 of the three-part test is met.
Step 3:
MPEP 1412.02(I)(B)(1)(B) states “[w]ith respect to the “second step” in the recapture analysis, it is to be noted that if the reissue claim(s), are broadened with respect to the previously surrendered subject matter, then recapture will be present regardless of other unrelated narrowing limitations. In the decision of In re Mostafazadeh, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit stated:
[T]he recapture rule is violated when a limitation added during prosecution is eliminated entirely, even if other narrowing limitations are added to the claim. If the added limitation is modified but not eliminated, the claims must be materially narrowed relative to the surrendered subject matter such that the surrendered subject matter is not entirely or substantially recaptured. Id. at 1361.”
Therefore, the third step of the analysis does not need to be performed for claims 1, 9 and 11, as newly added narrowing limitations are not being provided.
Therefore, independent claims 1, 9 and 17 and claims 2-8, 10-16 and 12-40 by dependency, improperly recapture surrendered subject matter.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “spring biased” with respect to a friction reducing face and second wall (see Claims 31-33 and 37) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 USC 112(b) - Indefiniteness:
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 9, 15, 19, 21 and 24 are 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 9: “said supporting object” is indefinite as written as it is unclear if this references “a supported object” previously referenced or is a different limitation”.
Claim 15: “said magnet” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 19: “said second friction reducing component” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 21: “said magnet” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 24: the claim is objected to as being redundant of claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 102 citing Yang:
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16-18, 20, 22, 24, 34 and 38-40 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Yang (U.S. Patent 6,179,024 B1). Below is a substantial reproduction of the claims addressing all limitations with the examiner’s comments in bold italics.
Claim 1: Yang discloses A support strut assembly comprising:
a block (33) with
a first surface (see Annotated Portion of Fig. 1 from Yang, below) comprising a first friction reducing component (37) and a second surface (not labeled but clearly present) opposite said first surface,
a first wall (see below) extending from a first edge of said second surface and
a second wall (see below) parallel to said first wall and spaced apart by a first gap (containing 34) extending from a second edge,
and
a second friction reducing component (34) deposited within said first gap,
and wherein said first wall further comprises at least one friction reducing face (the examiner takes the position that the face, by nature is friction reducing in that “friction reducing” is relative, and no comparative language is provided in the claim to determine with respect to what the friction is reduced) facing said first gap (as shown).
[AltContent: textbox (First wall)][AltContent: textbox (First surface (second surface per claim 17))][AltContent: textbox (Second wall)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
222
306
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Portion of Fig. 1 from Yang
Claim 2: Yang provides The support strut assembly of Claim 1, wherein said first friction reducing component comprises a multi-axially rotatable sphere (see Co.. 2, lines 45-48).
Claim 3: Yang discloses The support strut assembly of Claim 1, wherein said second friction reducing component comprises a component selected from the set of components consisting of: a rotatable sphere, a fixed shaft, a rotatable shaft, a wheel, a bearing, a roller, and a glide strip (as shown it is a roller).
Claim 4: Yang discloses The support strut assembly of Claim 1, wherein said second wall further comprises at least one friction reducing face (the examiner takes the position that the face, by nature is friction reducing in that “friction reducing” is relative, and no comparative language is provided in the claim to determine with respect to what the friction is reduced) facing said first gap (as shown).
Claim 9: Yang discloses A force transfer structure comprising
a first support structure (35) comprising a first friction reducing component (37) for reducing friction for motion of a supported object transverse to a support force in a first direction (as per its purpose),
a second support (33) structure registerable with said supporting object by further comprising
a first wall (see annotated Fig. 1, above) extending from a first edge of said second support structure (as shown) and
a second wall (see annotated Fig. 1, above) parallel to said first wall and spaced apart by a first gap (receiving 34) extending from a second edge, and
a second friction reducing component (34) deposited within said first gap for reducing friction for motion of said force transfer structure transverse to said support force received in said first direction from said supporting object (as per its function).
Claim 10: Yang discloses The force transfer structure of Claim 9, wherein said first friction reducing component comprises a multi-axially rotatable sphere (Col. 2, lines 45-48).
Claim 11: Yang discloses The force transfer structure of Claim 9, wherein said second friction reducing component comprises a component selected from the set of components consisting of a rotatable sphere, a fixed shaft, a rotatable shaft, a wheel, a bearing, a roller, and a glide strip (it is a roller as shown and disclosed).
Claim 14: Yang discloses The force transfer structure of Claim 9, wherein at least one wall from among said first and second walls further comprises a cavity (opening containing the axle of the roller) facing said first gap (as shown).
Claim 16: Yang discloses The support strut assembly of Claim 14, wherein said second wall further comprises at least one friction reducing face (the examiner takes the position that the face, by nature is friction reducing in that “friction reducing” is relative, and no comparative language is provided in the claim to determine with respect to what the friction is reduced) facing said first gap (as shown).
Claim 17: Yang discloses A support strut assembly comprising:
a block (35) with
a first surface (any surface meets this limitation) comprising a first friction reducing component (37) and a second surface (see annotated Fig. 1 above) opposite said first surface,
a first wall (see above) extending from a first edge of said second surface (as shown) and
a second wall (see above) parallel to said first wall and spaced apart by a first gap (receiving 34) extending from a second edge (as shown),
and
a cavity in said second surface (receiving fasteners connecting 35 to the second surface as shown in Fig. 1).
Claim 18: Yang discloses The support strut assembly of Claim 17, wherein said first friction reducing component comprises a multi-axially rotatable sphere (Col. 2, lines 45-48).
Claim 20: Yang discloses The support strut assembly of Claim 17, wherein at least one wall from among said first and second walls further comprises a cavity (opening receiving the axle 35 of the roller) facing said first gap (as shown).
Claim 22: Yang discloses The support strut assembly of Claim 17, wherein said second wall further comprises at least one friction reducing face (the examiner takes the position that the face, by nature is friction reducing in that “friction reducing” is relative, and no comparative language is provided in the claim to determine with respect to what the friction is reduced facing said first gap (as shown).
Claim 24: Yang discloses The support strut assembly of Claim 1, wherein at least one wall from among said first and second walls further comprises a cavity (opening receiving the axle 35 of the roller) facing said first gap (as shown).
Claim 34: Yang discloses The support strut assembly of Claim 17, further comprising a second friction reducing component (34) deposited within said first gap (as shown).
Claim 38: Yang discloses The support strut assembly of Claim 1, wherein at least one wall from among said first and second walls further comprises a component selected from the set of components consisting of a rotatable sphere, a fixed shaft, a rotatable shaft, a wheel, a bearing, a roller, a ball transfer, a hardened pin, a glide strip, and a detente pin (axle 35 is either a fixed or rotatable shaft).
Claim 39: Yang discloses The support strut assembly of Claim 9, wherein at least one wall from among said first and second walls further comprises a component selected from the set of components consisting of a rotatable sphere, a fixed shaft, a rotatable shaft, a wheel, a bearing, a roller, a ball transfer, a hardened pin, a glide strip, and a detente pin (axle 35 is either a fixed or rotatable shaft).
Claim 40: Yang discloses The support strut assembly of Claim 17, wherein at least one wall from among said first and second walls further comprises a component selected from the set of components consisting of a rotatable sphere, a fixed shaft, a rotatable shaft, a wheel, a bearing, a roller, a ball transfer, a hardened pin, a glide strip, and a detente pin (axle 35 is either a fixed or rotatable shaft).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 102 citing Wilkins:
Claim(s) 1, 36, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 22-24, 34 and 38-40 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Wilkins (U.S. Publication 2014/0116841 A1). Below is a substantial reproduction of the claims addressing all limitations with the examiner’s comments in bold italics.
Claim 1: Wilkins discloses a support strut assembly (Fig. 6: 94) comprising:
a block (Fig. 1: 2)
a first surface (top surface of transmission 2 adjacent the raised boss 12 comprising a first friction reducing component (Fig. 2: 40) and a second surface (Figs. 2 and 3: bottom of transmission 2 including bevel 34) opposite said first surface (as shown), a first wall (Fig. 3: left side wall of housing 4) extending from a first edge (left side of the bevel 34) of said second surface and
a second wall (right side of housing 4) parallel to said first wall and spaced apart by a first gap (gap is the distance between the left and right side of the housing 4) extending from a second edge (right side of the of the bevel 34), and
a second friction reducing component (30) deposited within said first gap,
and wherein said first wall further comprising at least one friction reduction face (the examiner takes the position that the face, by nature is friction reducing in that “friction reducing” is relative, and no comparative language is provided in the claim to determine with respect to what the friction is reduced) facing the first gap (as shown).
Claim 3: Wilkins disclose wherein said second friction reducing component comprises a component selected from the set of components consisting of: a rotatable sphere, a fixed shaft, a rotatable shaft, a wheel, a bearing, a roller, and a glide strip (drive 30 is a roller but can also be spherical; see Fig. 2, paragraph [0005]).
Claim 4: Wilkins discloses wherein said second wall further comprises at least one friction reducing face (the examiner takes the position that the face, by nature is friction reducing in that “friction reducing” is relative, and no comparative language is provided in the claim to determine with respect to what the friction is reduced) facing said first gap (as shown).
Claim 5: Wilkins discloses further comprising at least one shaft (44) at least partially embedded within said block (as shown).
Claim 6: Wilkins discloses with said block further comprising a cavity (opening receiving the shaft) in said second surface exposing a portion of said shaft (ends of the shaft and exposed portion between the openings).
Claim 8: Wilkins discloses wherein said second surface is interrupted by a groove (bevel 34 has groove to receive the nut 92; see Fig. 2, paragraph [0038]).
Claim 9: Wilkins discloses a force transfer structure (Fig. 6) comprising
a first support structure (Figs. 1 and 2: 2) comprising a first friction reducing component (40) for reducing friction for motion of a supported object transverse to a support force in a first direction,
a second support structure (bottom part of transmission 2) registerable with a supporting object by further comprising
a first wall (Fig. 3: left side wall of housing 4) extending from a first edge of said second support structure (Fig. 3: left side of the bevel 34) and
a second wall (right side of housing 4) parallel to said first wall and spaced apart by a first gap (distance between the left and right side of the housing) extending from a second edge (right side of the of the bevel 34), and
a second friction reducing component (Fig. 1: 30) deposited within said first gap for reducing friction for motion of said force transfer structure transverse to a support force received in said first direction from a supporting object.
Claim 11: Wilkins discloses wherein said second friction reducing component comprises a component selected from the set of components consisting of: a rotatable sphere, a fixed shaft, a rotatable shaft, a wheel, a bearing, a roller, and a glide strip (drive 30 is a roller but can also be spherical; see Fig. 2: paragraph [0005]).
Claim 13: Wilkins discloses wherein said second friction reducing component comprises a rotatable shaft (42) and a roller (30) affixed to said rotatable shaft.
Claim 14: Wilkins discloses wherein at least one wall from among said first and second walls further comprises a cavity (bores 50 and 52) facing said first gap.
Claim 16: Wilkins discloses wherein said second wall further comprises at least one friction reducing face (the examiner takes the position that the face, by nature is friction reducing in that “friction reducing” is relative, and no comparative language is provided in the claim to determine with respect to what the friction is reduced) facing said first gap (as shown)
Claim 17: Wilkins discloses A support strut (Fig. 6) assembly comprising:
a block (Fig. 1: 2) with
a first surface (top surface of transmission 2 adjacent raised boss 12) comprising a first friction reducing component (Fig. 2: 40) and a second surface (Figs. 2 and 3, bottom of transmission 2 including bevel 34)) opposite said first surface (as shown),
a first wall (Fig. 3: left side wall of housing 4) extending from a first edge (left side of bevel 34) of said second surface and
a second wall (right side of housing 4) parallel to said first wall and spaced apart by a first gap (gap is the distance between the left and right side of the housing 4) extending from a second edge (right side of the bevel 34),
and
a cavity (opening receiving the shaft) in said second surface (as shown).
Claim 19: Wilkins discloses wherein said second friction reducing component comprises a component selected from the set of components consisting of: a rotatable sphere, a fixed shaft, a rotatable shaft, a wheel, a bearing, a roller, and a glide strip (drive 30 is a roller but can also be spherical; see Fig. 2: paragraph [0005]).
Claim 20: Wilkins discloses wherein at least one wall from among said first and second walls further comprises a cavity (opening receiving the shaft) facing said first gap (as shown).
Claim 22: Wilkins discloses wherein said second wall further comprises at least one friction reducing face (the examiner takes the position that the face, by nature is friction reducing in that “friction reducing” is relative, and no comparative language is provided in the claim to determine with respect to what the friction is reduced) facing said first gap (as shown).
Claim 23: Wilkins discloses wherein said second surface is interrupted by a groove (bevel 34 has groove to receive the nut 92; see Fig. 2, paragraph [0038]).
Claim 24: Wilkins discloses wherein at least one wall from among said first and second walls further comprises a cavity (opening receiving the shaft) facing said first gap (as shown).
Claim 34: Wilkins discloses further comprising a second friction reducing component (second roller) deposited within said first gap (as shown).
Claim 38: Wilkins discloses wherein at least one wall from among said first and second walls further comprises a component selected from the set of components consisting of a rotatable sphere, a fixed shaft, a rotatable shaft, a wheel, a bearing, a roller, a ball transfer, a hardened pin, a glide strip, and a detente pin (as shown a shaft and bearing are present which).
Claim 39: Wilkins discloses wherein at least one wall from among said first and second walls further comprises a component selected from the set of components consisting of a rotatable sphere, a fixed shaft,
PNG
media_image2.png
8
13
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a rotatable shaft, a wheel, a bearing, a roller, a ball transfer, a hardened pin, a glide strip, and a detente pin (as shown a shaft and bearing are present which).
Claim 40: Wilkins discloses wherein at least one wall from among said first and second walls further comprises a component selected from the set of components consisting of a rotatable sphere, a fixed shaft, a rotatable shaft, a wheel, a bearing, a roller, a ball transfer, a hardened pin, a glide strip, and a detente pin (as shown a shaft and bearing are present which).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 rejection – 35 USC 103 citing Yang:
Claims 12 and 13 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yang. Below is a substantial reproduction of the claims addressing all limitations with the examiner’s comments in bold italics.
Claims 12 and 13: Yang discloses The force transfer structure of Claim 9, including a shaft (axle 35). Yang does not disclose wherein said second friction reducing component comprises a fixed shaft (or roller shaft per claim 13), but it does disclose and a roller coupled to said shaft. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the shaft as fixed or rolling based on the intended use of the system. A rolling shaft (with the roller fixed to the shaft) or a fixed shaft (with the roller rotatable about the shaft) would function in the same manner and are considered functional equivalents.
Continuing Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,767,048 B1 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For similar systems see the following:
Wilson et al (U.S. Publication 2005/0126879 A1)
Huber et al (U.S. Publication 2004/0216982 A1)
Coelln (U.S. Patent 5,464,086)
Stokvis et al. (U.S. Patent 2,744,758)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM V GILBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0800-0430 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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571.272.6928. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
[rest of page intentionally left blank]
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.
/WILLIAM V GILBERT/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
CONFEREES:
/MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/ SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 Claim 11 was renumbered to Claim 9 upon allowance
2 See Office Action of SN 18/301364 dated 27 June 2023, beginning at page 5.
3 See Claims from the ‘364 application dated 17 July 2023
4 Claim 20 was renumbered to Claim 17 upon allowance