DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendment and / or remarks filed on December 05, 2024. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22 & 23.
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, lines 9 – 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Duplicate language.
Delete Claim 1, lines 9 – 11 which recites: “a container having slots with facing apertures disposed on a bottom of the container sized to removably mate with a profile of the shelf upon insertion of the shelf into the apertures”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 21 & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Canadian Patent Number CA 2 575 128 A1) to Lepage in view of (AU 2021203269 A1) to Cartwright and (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2010 / 0133268 A1) to Miller.
Regarding claim 1, Lepage discloses the lift belt (See Figure 10) for supporting loads carried by the user, the lift belt (See Figure 10) comprising:
the tray (1) including:
the body (3) including an upper end (i.e. Vertical Portion of (1) in Figure 10) and the lower end (i.e. Lower Portion of (1) in Figure 1); and
the shelf (2) attached to the body (3) (See Figure 1), the shelf (2) having an upper surface (4) (See Figure 5);
the container (11) having the slot (13) disposed on the bottom of the container (11) (See Figure 12); and
the harness (10 & 7) connectable to the tray (1) in two locations (i.e. Left & Right Shoulder Straps of (10) at Top Portion of (1) in Figure 10) configured to vertically support loads disposed on the shelf (2) and two locations (i.e. Left & Right Waist Straps (7) at Sides of (1) in Figure 10) configured to horizontally secure the tray (1) to the user.
However, Lepage lacks and does not explicitly disclose attached to the body at the upper end of the body; and the gripping surface.
Cartwright teaches the shelf (101) attached to the body (106) at the upper end (105) of the body (106); and the shelf (101) having an upper surface (i.e. Top Load Bearing Surface of (101) in Figures 1 & 2) that includes the gripping surface (104) (i.e. Friction Enhancing Surface) (See Page 5, lines 26 & 27) (See Figures 1 & 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make attaching to the body at the upper end of the body; and the shelf having an upper surface that includes the gripping surface as taught by Cartwright with the lift belt of Lepage in order to prevent slippage and excess movement.
However, Lepage lacks and does not explicitly disclose slots with facing apertures disposed on the bottom of the container sized to removably mate with the profile of the shelf upon insertion of the shelf into the apertures the container having slots with facing apertures disposed on the bottom of the container sized to removably mate with the profile of the shelf upon insertion of the shelf into the apertures.
Miller teaches the container (200) having slots (i.e. Left & Right (212-1) in Figures 3 & 7) with facing apertures (217-1 & 218-1) disposed on the bottom (201) of the container (200) (See Figure 7) sized to removably mate with the profile (112-1) of the shelf (110) upon insertion of the shelf (110) into the apertures (217-1 & 218-1) the container (200) having slots (i.e. Left & Right (212-1) in Figures 3 & 7) with facing apertures (217-1 & 218-1) disposed on the bottom (201) of the container (200) sized to removably mate with the profile (112-1) of the shelf (110) upon insertion of the shelf (110) into the apertures (i.e. Left & Right (212-1) in Figures 3 & 7) (See Figures 1, 3 & 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make slots with facing apertures disposed on the bottom of the container sized to removably mate with the profile of the shelf upon insertion of the shelf into the apertures the container having slots with facing apertures disposed on the bottom of the container sized to removably mate with the profile of the shelf upon insertion of the shelf into the apertures as taught by Miller with the lift belt of Lepage in order to provide a more secure connection between the container and the shelf.
Regarding claim 2, Lepage discloses wherein the body (3) extends from the shelf (2) the length greater than the length that the shelf (2) extends from the body (See Figures 1, 3, 5 & 7).
Regarding claim 5, Lepage discloses wherein the body (3) and the shelf (2) meet to define an angle (i.e. Right Angle Approximately 90° in Figure 3) between 60 and 120 degrees (See Figures 1, 3 & 7).
Furthermore, Lepage as modified by Cartwright discloses wherein the body (106) and the shelf (101) meet to define an angle (i.e. Right Angle Approximately 90° in Figure 6) between 60 and 120 degrees (See Figures 1, 5 & 6).
Regarding claim 8, Lepage discloses wherein the shelf (2) has the tapered portion (i.e. Tapered Sides Portions of (2) in Figures 1 & 4).
Furthermore, Lepage as modified by Cartwright discloses the shelf (101) has the tapered portion (i.e. Tapered Angled / Slope Side Portion of (101) in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Lepage discloses wherein the profile of the shelf (2) includes the leading edge (i.e. Front Center Edge Portion of (2) in Figures 1, 4, 6 & 10), the first shoulder (i.e. Left Side Portion of (2) in Figures 1, 4, 6, & 10), and the second shoulder (i.e. Right Side Portion of (2) in Figures 1, 4, 6 & 10).
Furthermore, Lepage as modified by Cartwright discloses wherein the profile of the shelf (101) includes the leading edge (i.e. Front Center Edge Portion of (101) in Figure 2), the first shoulder (i.e. Left Angled / Slope Side Portion of (101) in Figures 2 & 5), and the second shoulder (i.e. Right Angled / Slope Side Portion of (101) in Figure 2 & 5).
Regarding claim 11, Lepage as modified by Miller discloses the slot (i.e. 217-1 & 218-1) in Figure 3) of the container (200) includes the leading edge (215 & 216) engagable with the leading edge (i.e. Front Edge of (110) in Figure 2B) of the profile (112-1) of the tray (110), the first groove (i.e. Left (212-1) in Figure 3) configured to receive the first shoulder (i.e. Left (112-1) in Figure 2B), and the second groove (i.e. Right (212-1) in Figure 3) configured to receive the second shoulder (i.e. Right (112-1) in Figure 2B) (See Figures 1, 2 & 3).
Regarding claim 13, Lepage as modified by Cartwright discloses wherein the body (106) includes the brace (117) on the front thereof connecting the front of the body (106) to an underside of the shelf (101) (See Figures 4, 5 & 6).
Regarding claim 21, Lepage as modified by Cartwright discloses wherein the shelf (101) has an upper surface (i.e. Upper Load Bearing Surface of (101) in Figure 1) that includes the gripping surface (104) (i.e. Friction Enhancing Surface) (See Page 5, lines 26 & 27) (See Figures 1 & 2).
Regarding claim 22, Lepage as modified by Cartwright discloses wherein the gripping surface (104) is at least one of the textured surfaces, the non-skid surface (i.e. Friction Enhancing Surface) (See Page 5, lines 26 & 27) (See Figures 1 & 2).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Canadian Patent Number CA 2 575 128 A1) to Lepage, (AU 2021203269 A1) to Cartwright and (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2010 / 0133268 A1) to Miller as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of (U.S. Patent Number 4,319,704) to Rosen.
Regarding claim 6, Lepage, as modified above, discloses wherein the body and the shelf (2) meet to define an angle.
However, Lepage as modified by above lacks and does not explicitly disclose an angle greater than 90 degrees.
Rosen teaches wherein the body (23) and the shelf (20) meet to define an angle greater than 90 degrees (See Column 2, lines 26 – 28) (See Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as effectively filed to make an angle greater than 90 degrees as taught by Rosen with the lift belt of Lepage because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known, equivalent lift belt shelf configuration for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 7 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Canadian Patent Number CA 2 575 128 A1) to Lepage in view of (AU 2021203269 A1) to Cartwright and (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2010 / 0133268 A1) to Miller as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2009 / 0179055 A1) to Estrellado.
Regarding claim 7, Lepage as modified by Cartwright discloses wherein the body (106) has an inner surface (i.e. Inner Surface of (106) in Figure 1) on an opposing side of the body (106) as an outer surface (i.e. Outer Surface of (106) in Figure 5) of the body (106).
However, Lepage as modified by above does not explicitly disclose the inner surface is concave.
Estrellado teaches wherein the body (110) has an inner surface (i.e. Inner Surface of (110) in Figures 1 & 2) on an opposing side of the body (110) as an outer surface of the body (110), and the inner surface (i.e. Inner Surface of (110) in Figures 1 & 2) is concave (See Figures 1 & 2) for the purpose of matching the curve shape of the hip area of the user (See Paragraph 0034).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the inner surface concave as taught by Estrellado with the lift belt of Lepage in order to match the shape of the hip area of the user (See Paragraph 0034).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Canadian Patent Number CA 2 575 128 A1) to Lepage, (AU 2021203269 A1) to Cartwright and (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2010 / 0133268 A1) to Miller as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of (U.S. Patent Number 5,395,019) to Christensen.
Regarding claim 12, Lepage as modified above lacks and does not explicitly disclose the lock configured to releasably secure the container to the tray.
Christensen teaches the lock (41) configured to releasably secure the container (21) to the tray (23) (See Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the lock configured to releasably secure the container to the tray as taught by Christensen with the lift belt of Lepage in order to temporary secure and hold the container box in place thereon.
Claim(s) 14, 15, 16 & 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Canadian Patent Number CA 2 575 128 A1) to Lepage in view of (AU 2021203269 A1) to Cartwright, and (U.S. Patent Number 6,293,445) to Miller.
Regarding claim 14, Lepage discloses the lift belt (See Figure 10) for supporting loads carried by the user, the lift belt (See Figure 10) comprising:
the tray (1) having vertical and horizontal attachment points (i.e. Left & Right (10)) & (i.e. Left & Right (7) in Figure 10) for securing the tray (1) to the user, the tray (1) comprising:
the body (3) including an upper end and the lower end (See Figures 1, 3, 5 & 10); and
the shelf (2) attached to the body (3), wherein the body (3) and the shelf (2) meet to define an angle between 60 and 120 degrees (See Figures 1, 3, 5 & 10):
the removable container (11) having opposing features (i.e. Left & Right Recess Vertical Sides Walls of (13) in Figure 12) configured to matingly engage the complimentary mating feature of the tray (1) upon insertion of the tray (1) into the opposing features (i.e. Left & Right Recess Vertical Sides of (13) in Figure 12) (See Figure 12).
However, Lepage lacks and does not explicitly disclose attached to the body at the upper end of the body; and the gripping surface.
Cartwright teaches the shelf (101) attached to the body (106) at the upper end (105) of the body (106); and the shelf (101) having an upper surface (104) that includes the gripping surface (i.e. Friction Enhancing Surface) (See Page 5, lines 26 & 27) (See Figures 1 & 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make attaching to the body at the upper end of the body; and the shelf having an upper surface that includes the gripping surface as taught by Cartwright with the lift belt of Lepage in order to prevent slippage and excess movement.
However, Lepage lacks and does not explicitly disclose the lock configured to selectively secure the removable container to the top surface of the shelf.
Miller ‘445 teaches the lock (72) configured to selectively secure the removable container (18) to the top surface of the shelf (16 / 78) (See Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the lock configured to selectively secure the removable container to the top surface of the shelf as taught by Miller ‘445 with the lift belt of Lepage in order to temporary secure and hold the container box in place thereon.
Regarding claim 15, Lepage discloses the harness (10 & 7) connectable to the tray (1) in two locations (i.e. Left & Right Strap Locations of (10) at Top Portion of (1) in Figure 10) configured to vertically support loads disposed on the shelf (2) and two locations (i.e. Left & Right Side Strap Locations of (7) at Sides of (1) in Figure 10) configured to horizontally secure the tray (1) to the user (See Figure 10).
Furthermore, Lepage as modified by Cartwright discloses the harness (202, 203 & 205) connectable to the tray (100) in two locations (i.e. Left & Right (112) in Figure 2) configured to vertically support loads disposed on the shelf (101) and two locations (i.e. Left & Right (108 & 109) in Figure 7) configured to horizontally secure the tray (100) to the user (See Figure 7).
Regarding claim 16, Lepage discloses the body (3) extends from the shelf (2) the length greater than the length that the shelf (2) extends from the body (3).
Regarding claim 23, Lepage as modified by Cartwright discloses wherein the shelf (101) has an upper surface (i.e. Upper Load Bearing Surface of (101) in Figures 1 & 2) that includes the gripping surface (104) (i.e. Friction Enhancing Surface) (See Page 5, lines 26 & 27) (See Figures 1 & 2).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Canadian Patent Number CA 2 575 128 A1) to Lepage, (AU 2021203269 A1) to Cartwright and (U.S. Patent Number 6,293,445) to Miller as applied to Claim 14 above, and further in view of (U.S. Patent Number 4,319,704) to Rosen.
Regarding claim 19, Lepage discloses wherein the body and the shelf (2) meet to define an angle.
However, Lepage as modified by above lacks and does not explicitly disclose an angle greater than 90 degrees.
Rosen teaches wherein the body (23) and the shelf (20) meet to define an angle greater than 90 degrees (See Column 2, lines 26 – 28) (See Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as effectively filed to make an angle greater than 90 degrees as taught by Rosen with the lift belt of Lepage because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known, equivalent lift belt shelf configuration for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Canadian Patent Number CA 2 575 128 A1) to Lepage, (AU 2021203269 A1) to Cartwright and (U.S. Patent Number 6,293,445) to Miller as applied to Claim 14 above, and further in view of (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2009 / 0179055 A1) to Estrellado.
Regarding claim 20, Lepage as modified by Cartwright discloses wherein the body (106) has an inner surface (i.e. Inner Surface of (106) in Figure 1) on an opposing side of the body (106) as an outer surface (i.e. Outer Surface of (106) in Figure 5) of the body (106).
However, Lepage as modified by above does not explicitly disclose the inner surface is concave.
Estrellado teaches wherein the body (110) has an inner surface (i.e. Inner Surface of (110) in Figures 1 & 2) on an opposing side of the body (110) as an outer surface of the body (110), and the inner surface (i.e. Inner Surface of (110) in Figures 1 & 2) is concave (See Figures 1 & 2) for the purpose of matching the curve shape of the hip area of the user (See Paragraph 0034).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the inner surface concave as taught by Estrellado with the lift belt of Lepage in order to match the shape of the hip area of the user (See Paragraph 0034).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 05, 2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument (A) – Applicant argued, Lepage and Miller ‘268 references are not analogous.
Lepage and Miller ‘268 are not analogous because:
(1) the references are not from the same filed of endeavor (carrying heavy loads compared eating while seated), and
(2) Miller ‘268 is not reasonably pertinent to a problem at issue in Lepage (carrying heavy load held in someone’s hands while walking compared to not spilling food from a container while seated without holding the container (hand’s free)).
Examiner disagrees, in response to applicant's argument that Miller ‘268 is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In this case, Miller ‘268 teaches the limitation that is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned.
Miller ‘268 teaches the container (200) having slots (i.e. Left & Right (212-1) in Figures 3 & 7) with facing apertures (217-1 & 218-1) disposed on the bottom (201) of the container (200) (See Figure 7) sized to removably mate with the profile (112-1) of the shelf (110) upon insertion of the shelf (110) into the apertures (217-1 & 218-1) of the container (200) having slots (i.e. Left & Right (212-1) in Figures 3 & 7) with facing apertures (217-1 & 218-1) disposed on the bottom (201) of the container (200) sized to removably mate with the profile (112-1) of the shelf (110) upon insertion of the shelf (110) into the apertures (i.e. Left & Right (212-1) I Figures 3 & 7) (See Figures 1, 3 & 7).
Therefore, the 103 rejection is maintained.
Argument (B) – Applicant argued, the Examiner is utilizing impermissible hindsight reasoning. Miller ‘269 also does not teach mating with the outermost edges of a slot-less food container, as that is a physical impossibility for Miller 268 contrasting the size and shape of a person’s through to the food container resting tangentially on the thigh. Miller ‘268 is not intended to be used without the food container. Thus following Miller ‘268, adding a dovetail to upper surface of Lepage’s device would interfere with carrying parcels when the box is not in use.
Examiner disagrees, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Therefore, the 103 rejection is maintained.
Argument (C) – Applicant argued, the Examiner’s motivation to modify Lepage with mating with the dovetail of Miller’ 268 to provide a more secure connection between the container and the shelf cannot be used to support the reasonableness of the combination.
Specifically, Lepage ‘128 does NOT recognize the need to make the connection between the box (11) and the belt device more secure because the cut-outs (13) located in the bottom of the box (11) “make impossible any displacement lateral of the box during transport”. (i.e. via Lepage English translation), page 6, recites:
“For loads of very irregular shapes and difficult to transport, a box (11) made of ultra-strong polymer and designed specifically for this purpose can be used with the belt device, see Figures 11 & 12. The box is equipped with four cut-outs (13) of a form opposite to the belt device. These cutouts (13), located below the box (11) in the center of its four sides, make impossible any displacement lateral of said box (11) during transport. Three of the sides of the box (the three full sides) are equipped with lifting handles (12) to facilitate the lifting of the box. The fourth side of the box (11) is open to facilitate the installation of the load of irregular shape.”.
Thus, prior art Lepage would never look to Miller ‘268 for the purposes of providing a more secure connection when the Lepage design already has a connection that makes lateral movements impossible.
Examiner disagrees, in response to applicant's argument, the dovetail provides more than just preventing lateral movement. The dovetail would also prevent vertical movement or separation from the shelf and container as well.
Therefore, the 103 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LESTER L VANTERPOOL whose telephone number is (571)272-8028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00.
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, Nathan J. Newhouse can be reached on 571-272-4544. 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.
/L.L.V/Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights