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 . 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 16-19, 22-24, 26, 27, 30-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golding US 4,826,388 in view of Robinette US 5,211,526.
Golding teaches manhole lifting device (10) comprising:
A frame (96) configured to position;
A pair of detachable lifting devices (42) including a bar (64A, 64b) over a manhole
cover. See Figs. 11-12.
At least two wheels (28, 30) mounted to the frame (96) and configured to roll in a
desired direction.
A pair of lifting mechanisms (80), such as crank or hydraulic jacks (98) mounted to said
wheels (30) and configured to raise and lower the frame. Fig. 12.
A detachable handle (14).
What Golding does not disclose is attaching the manhole lifter to a vehicle.
However, Robinette teaches a mobile crane (10) comprising:
A frame (52, 36) configured to straddle a road plate or manhole cover. See Fig. 1.
A 1st detachable lifting device (24) configured to be positioned via the frame over
a road plate or manhole cover. Col. 3, lns. 35-52. Fig. 2.
A detachable attachment mechanism (50, 54) connecting the mobile crane to a vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the manhole lifter of Golding with a vehicle hitch, as taught by Robinette in order to facilitate moving the device from one manhole cover to the next.
With respect to claims 17-19 Golding discloses a 1st road plate attachment mechanism (42) and a 2nd road plate attachment mechanism (42) mounted on arms (64A, 64B). Such that the attachment mechanisms (42) What Golding does not disclose is attaching
the manhole lifter to a vehicle. However, Robinette teaches a mobile crane (10) comprising:
A detachable attachment mechanism (50, 54) connecting the mobile crane to a vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the manhole lifter of Golding with a vehicle hitch, as taught by Robinette in order to facilitate moving the device from one manhole cover to the next.
Claim(s) 20, 21, 25, 28, 29, 34, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golding US 4,826,388 in view of Robinette US 5,211,526 as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Bigham US 2021/0206613. Golding in view of Robinette disclose a manhole lifter having a pair of manhole attachment devices (42) and a detachable vehicle attachment device. What Golding in view of Robinette do not disclose is the use of a magnet. However, Bigham teaches it is known to use a magnet to lift and move manhole covers, street or sidewalk grates or any metal structure positioned over an opening in a ground surface. [0008, 24, 0037]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the manhole lifter of Golding in view of Robinette with a magnet as taught by Bigham in order to facilitate attachment & lifting of a variety of metallic road structures.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 7/14/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Golding in view of Robinette and Bigham with respect to claims 16-35.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-35 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is directed to new claims.
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.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND W ADDIE whose telephone number is (571)272-6986. The examiner can normally be reached on m-f 7:30-12:30, then 6-9pm.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached on 571-272-0547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAYMOND W ADDIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 2/10/2026