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 .
The amendment filled 06/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 8-15 have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 16 have been amended. Applicant added new claims 21-24. Therefore, claims 1-7 and 16-24 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 16 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 24 and claim 16 line 18, appear to be missing a semi-colon “;” at the end of each of said lines.
Claim 23 recites “a pivot connection” is it the same or different than “a pivot connection” established in claim 16 from which claim 23 depends?
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 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 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), opposite said aft plate, and is configured to slide along said track (136), 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
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_image2.png
596
1031
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
392
895
media_image3.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.
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 a pivot connection 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).
Claims 16-17 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 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 of said scissors stack assembly (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), opposite said aft plate, and is configured to slide along said track (136), toward said aft plate, when transitioning said scissors stack assembly from the retracted position to an extended position of said scissors stack assembly (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
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_image2.png
596
1031
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
392
895
media_image3.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).
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_image4.png
214
495
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
225
529
media_image5.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 06/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because:
Applicant argues “the roller described in Ross is not capable of extending between and/or being positioned adjacent the front portion of the frame. For example, and as shown in FIGS. 1-3, the roller attached to the rear panograph mechanism in Ross is only configured or capable of extending as far as the receiving guide. (Id.). As shown in Ross, the guide receiving the roller only extends from approximately the mid-point of the frame to a positioned between the mid-point and the rear end of the apparatus. (Id.). As such, Applicant respectfully submits that Ross fails to disclose, or even suggest, "...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, opposite said aft plate, and is configured to slide along said track, toward said aft plate, when transitioning said scissors stack assembly from the retracted position to the extended position"; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that first: Ross 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 below; truck 135 facing/adjacent forward plate when in configuration of fig. 2), opposite said aft plate, and is configured to slide along said track (136), 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
And, second and under an alternative interpretation: 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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