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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 8-15 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 16 and 23 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-7 and 16-24 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Ross, US (2471901); or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ross, US (2471901) in view of Joos, US (2006/0151252).
In regards to claim 1 Ross discloses:
A scissors lift vehicle (fig. 1) comprising:
a chassis (11) comprising a first channel (top channel in fig. 3 also pointed to with numeral 11; see annotated drawings below) and a second channel (bottom channel also pointed to with numeral 11; see annotated drawings below), the first channel extending substantially parallel to the second channel (as shown in fig. 3), each said channel comprising a forward end (right hand side of both channels) and an aft end (left hand side of both channels), said forward ends coupled together via a forward plate (see annotated drawings below) extending orthogonally between said forward ends (as shown in fig. 3), said aft ends coupled together via an aft plate (see annotated drawings below) extending orthogonally between said aft ends such that said aft plate is substantially parallel to said forward plate (as shown in fig. 3);
a first pair of wheels (wheels 13) coupled at one end of said chassis (left hand side end) and a second pair of steering wheels (wheels 12) coupled at an opposite end of said chassis (right hand side end), said pairs of wheels configured to roll along a travel surface (ground surface figs. 1, 2), each said wheel comprising a circular profile (figs. 1, 2) defined by a radius R (see annotated drawings below), each of said wheels within said pair of wheels spaced apart laterally with respect to the other said wheel within said pair of wheels (as shown in fig. 3), said first pair of wheels spaced longitudinally from the second pair of steering wheels (as shown in fig. 3);
a track (136; as shown in figs. 1 and 3) comprising an upper surface (upper surface of 136), an opposite lower surface (lower surface of 136) and a thickness (distance between upper and lower surfaces of 136; fig. 1) extending therebetween, said track upper surface extending aftward at a height less than R above the travel surface from said forward plate (upper surface of 136 is below center point of wheel i.e., distance R; see annotated drawings below);
a pivot connection (122; as shown in fig. 1) coupled to said aft plate at a height less than R above the travel surface (22 below center point of wheel i.e., less than distance R; see annotated drawings below); and
a scissors stack assembly (16 including 17, 18, 19; fig. 1; upon more individual links as shown in fig. 1) comprising a plurality of pairs of scissors linkages (17/119, 118/127 and 19/24, 18/27) each extendable from a retracted position (configuration shown in fig. 2) to an extended position (configuration shown in fig. 1), at least a first pair of scissors linkages (19; pair being on both sides of the chassis i.e., top and bottom of what is shown in fig. 3) of the plurality of paired scissors linkages pivotally coupled to said pivot connection (at 122 as shown in figs. 1, 2) entirely at the height less than R above the travel surface (as shown in figs. 1 and 2 and annotated drawings below), each scissors linkage of a second pair of scissors linkages (118; pair being on both sides of the chassis i.e., top and bottom of the left hand side of what is shown in figs. 1, 3) comprising a truck (135) coupled to a distal end (bottom end) of each scissors linkage of said second pair of scissors linkages (fig. 1), said truck configured to engage said upper surface of said track (136) at the height less than R above the travel surface (135/136 below center point of wheel i.e., less than distance R; see annotated drawings below)
wherein said scissors stack assembly occupies substantially an entire distance between said aft plate and said forward plate of said chassis when in the retracted position (see annotated drawings of fig. 2 i.e., in the retracted position below; and note that all of elements 17, 127, 118, 119, 144, 16, 24, 19, 18, 44 in aggregate are considered the “scissors stack assembly”; hence in combination do indeed occupy “substantially an entire distance between said aft plate and said forward plate” as illustrated in annotated drawings below and at least according to the definition of “substantial as obtained from Substantially - definition of substantially by The Free Dictionary), and wherein the truck coupled to the distal end of each scissors linkage of said second pair of scissors linkages {bottom end of each of the aft scissors linkages (left hand side; fig. 1)} is positioned adjacent said forward plate in the retracted position (according to the definition of the term “adjacent” as obtained from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/adjacent ; see definition below; truck 135 facing/adjacent forward plate when in configuration of fig. 2) and is configured to slide along said track (136) in a direction away from said forward plate and toward said aft plate when transitioning said scissors stack assembly from the retracted position to the extended position (where 135 slides along 136 toward the left hand side i.e. aft end, when transitioning from retracted configuration of fig. 2 to the extended configuration of fig. 1; see position of 135 of fig. 2 vs fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
141
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
307
841
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
148
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Alternative interpretation: It is examiner’s position that the truck of Ross is adjacent the forward end (especially in light of the definition above and lack of other reference points for adjacent or distal); however, in case it was found that truck 135 is not adjacent the forward plate, it is alternatively submitted that: it would have been obvious reverse the scissors linkage assembly 16/18/19 and assembly 17 between the forward and aft ends; since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the arts. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to reverse the linkage assemblies between the forward and aft ends for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success which would place at least one lift cylinder (144) right next to supply tank 48 which would minimize power needed / losses resulting from the fluid traveling within hydraulic lines.
PNG
media_image4.png
596
1031
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
392
895
media_image5.png
Greyscale
If it was found that 135 of reference Ross above does not fulfil/read on the term “truck” (note component 346 of current invention being referred to as truck), examiner submits the rejection above in further view of Joos which teaches a truck (46; fig. 1) coupled to a distal end (bottom end) of each scissor’s linkage (32/34) of said second pair of scissors linkages (32/34). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the sliding truck taught by Joos in place of the roller 135 of Ross for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for a more stable/consistent sliding motion caused by having multiple contact points at the sliding location as compared to a single contact point of a roller.
In regards to claim 2 Ross discloses each said truck comprises: an inner support plate (one of the plates defining track 136), an outer support plate (the other one of the plates defining track 136), and a roller assembly (135) extending therebetween; a linkage connection (pin connection between 118 and 135) configured to couple to said distal end of a respective scissors linkage of said second pair of scissors linkages (bottom end of 118); and a track keeper (top and bottom of 136) comprising a body extending from at least one of said inner support plate and said outer support plate in face to face proximity to said lower surface (sides between which track 136 is bound as shown between fig. 1, 2 and 3).
In regards to claim 3 Ross discloses said track upper surface extends aft at the height entirely less than R such that no portion of said track upper surface extends aft at a height greater than R (135/136 below center point of wheel i.e., less than distance R; see annotated drawings above), and wherein said pivot connection is coupled to said aft plate at the height entirely less than R such that no portion of said pivot connection is coupled to said aft plate at the height greater than R (122 below center point of wheel i.e., less than distance R; see annotated drawings above).
In regards to claim 4 Ross discloses at least a portion of the first pair of scissors linkages (bottom portion of 19 attached at 22) is positioned at the height less than R above the travel surface (as shown in fig. 1).
In regards to claim 5 Ross discloses said first pair of wheels (13s) comprise follower wheels (13 following drive wheels 12).
In regards to claim 6 Ross discloses at least one of said second pair of steering wheels (12s) are drive wheels (12s described as being manually steerable by pulling candle 14) configured to propel said scissors lift vehicle using a propulsion motor {the structure and design of wheels 12 have them configured to be propelled by propulsion motor; attached to their axles for instance}.
In regards to claim 7 Ross discloses said propulsion motor comprises at least one of an electric motor or a hydraulic motor (claim 7 depending from claim 6 which only requires the drive wheels be configured to propel … using a propulsion motor; hence a propulsion motor is not positively recited or required by the claim, hence claim 7 further specifying the propulsion motor is further limiting an intended use limitation; therefore it is submitted that if said propulsion motor comprised an electric motor or a hydraulic motor; the drive wheels would still be configured to be propel by them). If it was found that claim 7 brings the propulsion motor into being positively recited; examiner takes Official Notice that electric and/or hydraulic motors are old and well-known in the art, and also known to drive scissors assemblies. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to utilize an electric or hydraulic motor to drive wheels 12 of Ross for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for automated/effortless propulsion of the scissors assembly rather than the manual manner of pulling candle 14.
Claims 16-17 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Ross, US (2471901); or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ross, US (2471901) in view of Joos, US (2006/0151252).
In regards to claim 16 Ross discloses:
A scissors lift vehicle (fig. 1) comprising:
a chassis (11); including a forward plate (see annotated drawings below) and an aft plate (see annotated drawings below) positioned opposite and substantially parallel to said forward plate (as shown in fig. 3);
a first pair of wheels (wheels 13) disposed at one end of said chassis (left hand side end) and a second pair of steering wheels (wheels 12) disposed at an opposite end of said chassis (right hand side end), the wheels configured to roll along a travel surface (ground surface figs. 1, 2) and each comprising a circular profile having a radius R (see annotated drawings below);
a track (136; as shown in figs. 1 and 3) comprising an upper surface (upper surface of 136), a lower surface (lower surface of 136) and a thickness (distance between upper and lower surfaces of 136; fig. 1) extending therebetween, said track extending longitudinally from one end of said chassis within an opening (between the two channels) of said chassis at a height less than R above the travel surface (136 is below center point of wheel i.e., distance R; see annotated drawings below);
a pivot connection (122; as shown in fig. 1) coupled to the opposite end of said chassis at the height less than R above the travel surface (22 below center point of wheel i.e., less than distance R; see annotated drawings below); and
a scissors stack assembly (16 including 17, 18, 19; fig. 1; upon more individual links as shown in fig. 1) positioned within the opening (between the two channels as shown in fig. 3) and comprising a plurality of paired scissors linkages (17/119, 118/127 and 19/24, 18/27), at least one scissors linkage (19; pair being on both sides of the chassis i.e., top and bottom of what is shown in fig. 3) of a first pair of scissors linkages of the plurality of paired scissors linkages pivotally coupled to said pivot connection (at 122 as shown in figs. 1, 2) entirely at the height less than R above the travel surface (as shown in figs. 1 and 2 and annotated drawings below), each scissors linkage of a second pair of scissors linkages (118; pair being on both sides of the chassis i.e., top and bottom of what is shown in fig. 3) of the plurality of paired scissors linkages comprising a truck (135) coupled to a distal end (bottom end) of each scissors linkage of said second pair of scissors linkages (as shown in fig. 1), said truck configured to engage said upper surface of said track (136) at the height less than R (135/136 below center point of wheel i.e., less than distance R; see annotated drawings below)
wherein said scissors stack assembly occupies substantially an entire distance between said aft plate and said forward plate of said chassis when in the retracted position (see annotated drawings of fig. 2 i.e., in the retracted position below; and note that all of elements 17, 127, 118, 119, 144, 16, 24, 19, 18, 44 in aggregate are considered the “scissors stack assembly”; hence in combination do indeed occupy “substantially an entire distance between said aft plate and said forward plate” as illustrated in annotated drawings below and at least according to the definition of “substantial as obtained from Substantially - definition of substantially by The Free Dictionary), and wherein the truck coupled to the distal end of each scissors linkage of said second pair of scissors linkages {bottom end of each of the aft scissors linkages (left hand side; fig. 1)} is positioned adjacent said forward plate in a retracted position (according to the definition of the term “adjacent” as obtained from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/adjacent ; see definition below; truck 135 facing/adjacent forward plate when in configuration of fig. 2) and is configured to slide along said track (136) away from said forward plate and toward said aft plate when transitioning said scissors stack assembly from the retracted position to an extended position (where 135 slides along 136 toward the left hand side i.e. aft end, when transitioning from retracted configuration of fig. 2 to the extended configuration of fig. 1; see position of 135 of fig. 2 vs fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
307
841
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
148
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
141
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternative interpretation: It is examiner’s position that the truck of Ross is adjacent the forward end (especially in light of the definition above and lack of other reference points for adjacent or distal); however, in case it was found that truck 135 is not adjacent the forward plate, it is alternatively submitted that: it would have been obvious reverse the scissors linkage assembly 16/18/19 and assembly 17 between the forward and aft ends; since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the arts. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to reverse the linkage assemblies between the forward and aft ends for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success which would place at least one lift cylinder (144) right next to supply tank 48 which would minimize power needed / losses resulting from the fluid traveling within hydraulic lines.
PNG
media_image4.png
596
1031
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
392
895
media_image5.png
Greyscale
If it was found that 135 of reference Ross above does not fulfil/read on the term “truck” (note component 346 of current invention being referred to as truck), examiner submits the rejection above in further view of Joos which teaches a truck (46; fig. 1) coupled to a distal end (bottom end) of each scissor’s linkage (32/34) of said second pair of scissors linkages (32/34). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the sliding truck taught by Joos in place of the roller 135 of Ross for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for a more stable/consistent sliding motion caused by having multiple contact points at the sliding location as compared to a single contact point of a roller.
In regards to claim 17 Ross discloses said first pair of wheels (13s) comprises independent follower wheels (13 following drive wheels 12).
In regards to claim 22 Ross discloses at least a portion of the first pair of scissors linkages is positioned at the height less than R above the travel surface (portion at the bottom of linkages as shown in fig. 1).
In regards to claim 23 Ross discloses wherein the pivot connection is coupled to said aft plate at a height less than R above the travel surface (122; as shown in fig. 1).
In regards to claim 24 Ross discloses said track upper surface extends aft at the height entirely less than R (as shown in fig. 1) such that no portion of said track upper surface extends aft at a height greater than R (entire track 136 is located at height less than R; fig. 1), and wherein said pivot connection is coupled to said aft plate at the height entirely less than R (as shown in fig. 1) such that no portion of said pivot connection is coupled to said aft plate at the height greater than R (entire 122 at less than R; fig. 1).
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross or in the alternative Ross in view of Joos as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Puszkiewicz, US (2003/0029673).
In regards to claim 18 Ross or Ross and Joos do not teach said follower wheels are supported by separate axles.
Puszkiewicz teaches said follower wheels are supported by separate axles (fig. 5).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have separate axles for each of wheels 13 of Ross as taught by Puszkiewicz for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to allow for each wheel to roll at different speed to accommodate for when the vehicle for instance is at a sharp turn.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross or in the alternative Ross in view of Joos as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Beech, US (9840277).
In regards to claims 19 and 20 Ross or Ross and Joos do not teach does not disclose said second pair of steering wheels are rotated around a kingpin for steerage using a leadscrew steering linkage and said leadscrew steering linkage is powered by at least one of hydraulic actuator and an electric actuator.
Beech teaches said second pair of steering wheels (16) are rotated around a kingpin for steerage (Col 1; LL57-66; excerpt below) using a leadscrew steering linkage (82; Col 8; LL55-64; excerpt below) (Claim 19).
PNG
media_image6.png
214
495
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
225
529
media_image7.png
Greyscale
said leadscrew steering linkage is powered by at least one of hydraulic actuator and an electric actuator (Col 8; LL62-64; excerpt above) (Claim 20).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the kingpin and leadscrew protocol taught by Beech on wheels 12 of Ross for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for the advantage of kingpins which is to allow tightening for varying levels of swivel resistance and reduces tire scrub and the need to drag the tires sideways across their tread when turning.
Note that the limitations of claims 19 and 20 do not carry the priority date of 01/27/2014, since the subject matter recited in those claims are not disclosed by the application 14/164,570. Therefore, these limitations have the priority date of the filing date of this current application which is 11/06/2018 while the Beech reference has a date of at least 04/14/2015.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross or in the alternative Ross in view of Joos as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Atkins, US (3556252).
In regards to claim 21 Ross or Ross and Joos do not teach does not disclose each said truck comprises: an inner support plate, an outer support plate, and a roller assembly extending therebetween; a linkage connection configured to couple to said distal end of a respective scissors linkage of said second pair of scissors linkages; and a track keeper comprising a body extending from at least one of said inner support plate and said outer support plate in face to face proximity to said lower surface.
Atkins teaches each said truck (truck assembly shown in fig. 4) comprises: an inner support plate (65), an outer support plate (74), and a roller assembly (68/69) extending therebetween (as shown in fig. 4, 6); a linkage connection (75) configured to couple to said distal end of a respective scissors linkage of said second pair of scissors linkages (intended use); and a track keeper (70, 76) comprising a body extending from at least one of said inner support plate and said outer support plate in face to face proximity to said lower surface (as shown in cross-section view of fig. 6).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the truck taught by Atkins in place of the truck of Ross for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for a larger contact area and a sturdier connection of the truck with the track, where the truck of Atkins provides contact along both sides of the track as well as two contact points i.e., at each end of the truck. Note that a truck following a track is basically a trolley, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would look at similar devices following a guided path.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because:
Applicant argues “In Ross, ... Each of the two pantograph mechanisms are shown in Fig. 2 of Ross in the retracted position to occupy about ½ of the distance between the front and rear of the frame of the lift, whereas claim 1 recites wherein said scissors stack assembly occupies substantially an entire distance between said aft plate and said forward plate of said chassis when in the retracted position "; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that the exact claim language is: “said scissors stack assembly occupies substantially an entire distance between said aft plate and said forward plate of said chassis when in the retracted position”; hence it is presented and re-asserted that reference Ross discloses: said scissors stack assembly occupies substantially an entire distance between said aft plate and said forward plate of said chassis when in the retracted position (see annotated drawings of fig. 2 i.e., in the retracted position below; and note that all of elements 17, 127, 118, 119, 144, 16, 24, 19, 18, 44 in aggregate are considered the “scissors stack assembly”; hence in combination do indeed occupy “substantially an entire distance between said aft plate and said forward plate” as illustrated in annotated drawings below and at least according to the definition of “substantial as obtained from Substantially - definition of substantially by The Free Dictionary).
PNG
media_image2.png
307
841
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
148
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues “Ross, element 135 is a roller provided in the pantograph mechanism positioned adjacent the rear portion of the frame, but not the pantograph mechanism provided in the front of the frame. (Id., col. 2, lns 22-33 (the material difference between the forward and back structures is that the link 118 in the back structure is full length and is supplied with a roller 135). As such, and by design, the front pantograph mechanism of Ross does not include a roller 135 designed to move in the way that the rear pantograph mechanism does. In this light, only the rear pantograph mechanism may be considered as the scissors stack assembly recited in claim 1 because it is the only pantograph mechanism to include the roller 135 ... Ross therefore fails to anticipate the recited feature of claim 1 wherein "the truck coupled to the distal end of each scissors linkage of said second pair of scissors linkages is positioned adjacent said forward plate in the retracted position and is configured to slide along said track in a direction away from said forward plate and toward said aft plate when transitioning said scissors stack assembly from the retracted position to the extended position"; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that (A) Ross reference indeed discloses the truck coupled to the distal end of each scissors linkage of said second pair of scissors linkages {bottom end of each of the aft scissors linkages (left hand side; fig. 1)} is positioned adjacent said forward plate in the retracted position (according to the definition of the term “adjacent” as obtained from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/adjacent ; see definition above; truck 135 facing/adjacent forward plate when in configuration of fig. 2) and is configured to slide along said track (136) in a direction away from said forward plate and toward said aft plate when transitioning said scissors stack assembly from the retracted position to the extended position (where 135 slides along 136 toward the left hand side i.e. aft end, when transitioning from retracted configuration of fig. 2 to the extended configuration of fig. 1; see position of 135 of fig. 2 vs fig. 1) emphasis added to the underlined clarification by examiner in parenthesis. And (B) examiner disagrees with applicant characterization that “only the rear pantograph mechanism may be considered as the scissors stack assembly”; where there is nothing in the claim that precludes the rest of the elements/linkages of the scissors assembly disclosed by Ross to be part of the scissors stack assembly. Examiner clarifies and re-asserts that all of elements 17, 127, 118, 119, 144, 16, 24, 19, 18, 44 in aggregate are considered the “scissors stack assembly”.
Applicant argues “the movement of the roller 135 in the rear pantograph mechanism of Ross is restrained by guide 136. (Id. See also col. 3, ins. 58 - 63). As shown in FIGS. 1-3, the roller 135 attached to the rear pantograph mechanism in Ross is only configured or capable of extending as far as the receiving guide 136. (Id.). As shown in Figs. 1 and 2 of Ross, the guide 136 receiving the roller 135 extends from approximately the mid-point of the frame to a position between the mid-point and the rear end of the apparatus. (Id.). The guide 136 is always spaced at a distance from, and does not extend adjacent to, either of the aft plate and the rearward plate of the chassis of the lift"; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that the claim’s exact language as quote from claim 1 is: “the truck coupled to the distal end of each scissors linkage of said second pair of scissors linkages is positioned adjacent said forward plate in the retracted position and is configured to slide along said track in a direction away from said forward plate and toward said aft plate when transitioning said scissors stack assembly from the retracted position to the extended position”, hence examiner again directs applicant attention to that 135 slides along 136 toward the left hand side i.e. aft end, when transitioning from retracted configuration of fig. 2 to the extended configuration of fig. 1; see position of 135 of fig. 2 vs fig. 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to PTO-892 form for list of cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIREF M MEKHAEIL whose telephone number is (571)270-5334. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7 Mon-Fri.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/S.M.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights