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, at line 1, “Rotating” should be --A rotating--.
Claim 1 is objected to because, at line 1, “for integration in a substrate” should be –configured to be integrated into a substrate-- because the device purpose is not to be in a substrate.
Claim 1 is objected to because, at line 2, “having” should be –the rotating device comprising--.
Claims 2-26 are objected to because, at line 1, “Rotating” should be –The rotating--.
Claims 2-26 are objected to because “characterized in that” should be –comprising--.
Claim 13 is objected to because “the at least” should be --at least--.
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.
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 1-25 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "preferably" and “more particularly” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the" circumference. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no circumference is previously recited.
Claim 1 recites that the supports "can be" arranged individually…, which is confusing. Are the supports positively recited as being so arranged or are they recited as merely capable of such arrangement?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the" rotation axis X. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no X rotation axis previously recited.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the" control unit. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed the claim recites --a-- control unit.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the" housing. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the" roller bearing. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the" adjusting. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the" adjusting. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase "preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase "preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 22, the phrase "preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 23, the phrase "in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the" element. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed the claim depends from claim 23.
Regarding claim 25, the phrase "preferably” and “more particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 26, the phrase "preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 9, 11-12, 14, 19-21 and 25 – are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mondro (10,407,032).
Mondro teaches a rotating device (turntable) capable of integration into a, as best understood, a substrate, col. 1, lines 1-21, the rotating device comprising:
at least three support units (106) capable of being arranged individually in a substrate circumference within a circular area (the rollers are on the outside of the device and can therefore be at the substrate circumference) about an axis (central) of rotation,
a rotating plate (the 18 pie shaped segments) which is configured to extend at least over the circular area and has a room (top) side and a bearing (bottom) side opposite the room side,
a rotary bearing unit (central hub 104 is a bearing unit as broadly recited), and
at least one drive apparatus (motor 106),
wherein the rotating plate is rotatably mounted in the axis of rotation and the at least three support units support the rotating plate in a rotationally movable manner in the orientation of an axis of rotation (the wheel axle axis) in a vertical axis on the bearing side (the wheels are under the plate), and
wherein the drive apparatus is configured to set the rotating plate in rotation about the axis of rotation.
2. Mondro teaches the rotating device according to claim 1, Mondro further teaching the drive apparatus arranged on the rotating plate, fig. 3.
3. Mondro teaches the rotating device according to claim 1, Mondro further teaching the drive apparatus comprises a friction wheel 118.
9. Mondro teaches the rotating device according to claim 1, Mondro, fig. 19, further teaching, as best understood, a remotely controllable control unit is provided for controlling the drive apparatus.
11. Mondro teaches the rotating device according to claim 1, Mondro, fig. 3, further teaching the drive apparatus comprises an electric drive for generating the rotation of the rotating plate about the axis of rotation.
12. Mondro teaches the rotating device according to claim 1, Mondro, figs. 6B and 6C, further teaching the at least one of the at least three support units comprises a housing, 120 and 116, and a roller bearing element 122 supported on the housing.
14. Mondro teaches the rotating device according to claim 1, Mondro further teaching, as best understood, a supporting surface 141 projecting from a housing 143 is provided.
19. Mondro teaches the rotating device according to claim 1, Mondro further teaching, as best understood, the rotating plate has at least one aperture 118 through which at least one of the at least three support units is accessible.
20. Mondro teaches the rotating device according to claim 1, Mondro further teaching, as best understood, the rotating plate is made up of a plurality of elements (pie-shaped).
21. Mondro teaches the rotating device according to claim 1, Mondro further teaching rotating plate is circular and has a diameter of more than 4 meters, col. 10, lines 20-40.
25. Mondro teaches a rotating plate arrangement with at least one rotating device according to claim 1 and the substrate, the support units and the rotary bearing unit arranged in a recess in the substrate, col. 1, lines 13-15.
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.
Claims 10, 22, and 26 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mondro.
10. Mondo does not teach, as best understood, a control unit on the rotating plate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a control unit on the rotating plate for better control.
22. Mondro does not teach, as best understood, the at least three support units have a length in the vertical axis of less than 50 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the at least three support units to have a length in the vertical axis of less than 50 mm for compactness.
26. Mondro does not teach, as best understood, a rotating plate arrangement according to claim 1, including a vehicle and the at least one rotating device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Mondro to have a rotating plate arrangement according to claim 1, including a vehicle and the at least one rotating device as a vehicle advertising display.
Claims 4-5 – are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mondro in view of Gao (CN 210910000).
4. The drive apparatus is not arranged substantially on the room side of the rotating plate. Initially, Examiner indicates that the drive apparatus can also be arranged substantially on the bearing side of the rotating plate, page 7. In any case, Gao teaches a drive apparatus (motor and wheel) is arranged substantially on the room side of a plate (the motor and wheel is above the bottom “chassis”, facing the room). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the drive apparatus to be arranged substantially on the room side of the rotating plate for space optimization.
5. The friction wheel does not pass through the rotating plate through a recess. Initially, Examiner indicates that the friction wheel need not pass through the rotating plate through a recess, page 7. In any case, Gao, fig. 1, teaches a friction wheel passed through a plate through a recess (should Applicant disagree that the wheel passes through a bottom plate, Examiner Officially notes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the wheel to pass through a bottom plate through a recess). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the wheel to pass through the rotating plate through a recess to optimize space.
Claims 6-7 – are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mondro in view of Summers (5,626,079).
6. Mondo does not expressly teach a slip ring unit and a brush unit interacting with the slip ring unit are provided, by means of which the rotating plate can be supplied with electric current. Summers teaches a slip ring unit 50a and a brush unit interacting with the slip ring unit by means of which a rotating plate can be supplied with electric current, col. 4, lines 6-15. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a slip ring unit and a brush unit interacting with the slip ring unit, by means of which the rotating plate can be supplied with electric current to energize the motors.
7. Mondo does not expressly teach the rotary bearing unit comprises the slip ring unit. Summers teaches a rotary unit comprises the slip ring unit 50a. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the rotary bearing unit to comprise a slip ring unit for energy transfer.
Claims 8, 15, and 18 – are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mondro in view of Blufordcraving (5,755,160).
8. Mondo does not teach the rotary bearing unit comprises a base part and a rotating plate part , wherein the rotating plate part is movable along the axis of rotation relative to the base part 145. Blufordcraving, fig. 6, teaches a rotary bearing unit 10 comprises a base part 133 and a rotating plate part, wherein the rotating plate part is movable along the axis of rotation relative to the base part. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the rotary bearing unit to comprise a base part and a rotating plate part , wherein the rotating plate part is movable along the axis of rotation relative to the base part to assist in supporting the Mondo support plateau without substantial displacement when loaded through the platform, col. 9, lines 58-64.
15. Mondo does not teach, as best understood, a roller bearing element is movable in the vertical axis by an adjusting means. Blufordcraving teaches a roller bearing element 146 movable in a vertical axis by an adjusting means 140. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a roller bearing element to be movable in the vertical axis by an adjusting means for shock resistance.
18. Mondo does not teach the rotating plate has at least one annular bearing surface (44) on the bearing side around the axis of rotation. Blufordcraving, fig. 6, teaches a rotating plate has at least one annular bearing surface 148 on a bearing side around an axis of rotation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the rotating plate to have at least one annular bearing surface on the bearing side around the axis of rotation for friction reduction.
Claim 13 – is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mondro in view of Fischer (3,251,432).
Mondo does not teach the at least one of the at least three support units comprises a housing and an air bearing means. Fischer, fig. 3, teaches a support unit comprises a housing and an air bearing means. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for at least one of the at least three support units to comprise a housing and an air bearing means for support.
Claims 16-17 – are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mondro in view of Meyer (11,371,277).
16. Mondo does not teach, as best understood, an adjusting means comprises a screw sleeve which can be screwed into the housing. Meyer, fig. 8, teaches an adjusting means comprises a screw sleeve 130 which is capable of being screwed into a housing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an adjusting means comprising a screw sleeve which can be screwed into the housing to raise the plate.
17. Mondo does not teach, as best understood, a fixing means is provided, which can fix an adjusting means relative to the housing. Meyer, fig. 8, teaches, as best understood, a fixing means 122 is provided, which can fix an adjusting means 128 relative to a housing 130. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide or a fixing means which can fix an adjusting means relative to a housing for adjustability.
Claim 23-24 – is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mondro in view of Beasley (6,148,568).
23. Mondro does not teach, as best understood, a room-dividing element on the room side of the rotating plate. Beasley, fig. 1, teaches a room-dividing element 16 on a room side of a rotating plate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a room-dividing element on the room side of the rotating plate to conceal a space.
24. Mondro in view of Beasley does not expressly teach the room-dividing element comprises an electrical outlet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the room-dividing element to comprise an electrical outlet for power.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J KENNY whose telephone number is (571)272-9951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/DANIEL J KENNY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights