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 03/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 16 and 18-20 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 7, 10-14 and 17 have been amended. Applicant added new claims 21-23. Therefore, claims 1-15, 17 and 21-23 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “track system” claim 2, “plurality of clamps” claim 5, “tilt sensor” claim 6, “badge access system” claim 7 and “rotating base” claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15, 17 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “dimensions of the visible controlled access zone increasing based on the platform sliding and extending horizontally relative to the mounting base”; this recitation constitutes new matter, because the original disclosure does not provide support for this language. To clarify, while the specification states “the dimensions of the visible CAZ zone formed by lights 280 are adjustable based on the height of platform 230 relative to chassis 210, based on the swiveling of rotating scissor linkage base 211, and based on the horizontal sliding of platform 230 relative to mounting base 220” in paragraph [0039], and “the dimensions the adjustable CAZ zone defined by lights 280 changes based on the horizontal sliding of platform 230 relative to mounting base 220” in paragraph [0047], as well as similar language in previously presented claims; however, attention is drawn to that all of the above statement only supports “changes” or “adjustment” to the dimension. While there is no support for the “increasing” of the dimension; a distinction that is pertinent in this case, since how would the area covered by the lights increase when the light moves horizontally while maintaining the same elevation. Consulting for instance fig. 2 of the current invention, how will the zone being lite by light mounted on platform 230 increase when 230 moves laterally / horizontally while maintaining the same relative height to the ground. The above limitation in specific will be examined as best understood, in accordance with and in the same manner disclosed in the current invention.
Note that, on the other hand, said zone area increasing based on the height of platform 230 relative to chassis 210 is indeed understood not only based on the disclosure but also the illustration of the invention in the drawings.
Dependent claims are rejected at least for depending from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 12-15, 17 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell, US (3509965) in view of Haulotte, WO (2016/097139) (provided in IDS).
In regards to claim 1 Mitchell discloses:
A lift (lift in fig. 1), comprising:
a chassis (10);
a mounting base (28/36; fig. 7) that is arranged to swivel relative to the chassis (swivels on turntable 12 via motor 74; figs. 1, 2, 3, 6);
a platform (16) that is movably affixed to the mounting base, wherein the platform is arranged to slide horizontally relative to the mounting base (via rollers 124 and as described in Col 3; LL40-48; see highlighted excerpt below);
a motor (hydraulic pumps and actuating motors) that is arranged to raise and lower the mounting base relative to the chassis (Col 4; LL 1-5);
a plurality of guardrails coupled to the platform (railings 34; fig. 1, 2);
a counterweight (42) that is coupled to the chassis (as shown in figs. 1 & 2) such that the lift remains upright while the platform is extended relative to the mounting base (as described in Col 3; LL 57-61; see highlighted excerpt below).
PNG
media_image1.png
410
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
561
591
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
262
620
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
148
732
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
228
744
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 1 Mitchell does not disclose a plurality of lights arranged on the platform and the mounting base.
Haulotte teaches a plurality of lights (21, 22, 23; fig. 6) arranged on the platform (23 on platform 5; equivalent to platform of Mitchell) and the mounting base (21, 22 onto body 3; Haulotte, equated to mounting base of Mitchell), and providing a visible controlled access zone around the lift (M21, M22, M23), wherein at least one first light (23) of the plurality of lights are coupled to the platform (5; as shown in fig. 2; Haulotte) and at least one second light (21, 22) of the plurality of lights are coupled to the mounting base (3; as shown in fig. 2; Haulotte).
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 plurality of lights taught by Haulotte onto the onto the platform and mounting base of Mitchell in the manner shown for platform 5 and body 3 of Haulotte for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide better visibility for users and worker of the device as well as the surrounding work area, for enhanced safety as well as for working in worksites not well lite or during late hours of the day. The modification above subsequently teaches (as best understood) dimensions of the visible controlled access zone increasing based on the platform sliding and extending horizontally relative to the mounting base {once lights 21 and 22 are taught onto the mounting base of Mitchell, and in the same manner disclosed in the current invention (see new matter rejection above, as best understood / interpreted; as the platform of Mitchell shifts horizontally, the lite zone previously blocked by the body of the base of the assembly would be exposed changing the area/dimensions of the zone)}.
In regards to claim 2 Mitchell discloses a track system (wheels 18, 20) coupled to a bottom of the chassis (as shown in figs. 1, 2, 8), wherein the track system is capable of causing the chassis to rotate in place (in the manner shown in patent 3095945 referenced in Col 2 LL 81- Col 3 LL 2; where patent ‘945 discloses wheels 11 turning in place about common point 182; fig. 7 ‘945; wheels 18, 20 of Mitchell are described to operate in the same manner).
In regards to claim 8 Mitchell discloses a rotating base (see annotated drawings) that is coupled to the top of the chassis (as shown in fig. 8, reproduced below), wherein the rotating base is arranged to enable the mounting base to swivel relative to the chassis (as a result of rotation of the mast).
PNG
media_image6.png
400
618
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 12 Mitchell as modified by Haulotte above teaches wherein each light of the plurality of lights are coupled to at least one of the platform or the mounting base (5, 3 equivalents to the platform and mounting base) such that the plurality of lights raise and lower along with the raising and lowering of the mounting base (between solid and phantom lines positions of fig. 2; Mitchell; once lights 21, 22 are taught onto mounting base of Mitchell; note that while the body 3 of Haulotte does not elevate, it can be appreciated by a person of ordinary skill in the art, that teaching the same lights i.e., 21, 22 onto the mounting base of Mitchell in the same manner they are utilized on body 3 of Haulotte will have them elevate and descend with the mounting base).
In regards to claim 13 Mitchell as modified by Haulotte teaches each light of the plurality of lights are at least one of a laser light or a light-emitting-diode (LED) light (as described in machine English translation provided for Haulotte).
PNG
media_image7.png
132
598
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 14 Mitchell as modified by Haulotte teaches the plurality of lights is arranged such that the dimensions of the visible controlled access zone change based on at least one of the raising and lowering of the mounting base (once 21, 22 are taught onto mounting base of Mitchell), or the mounting base swiveling (M21 changes area they illuminate as turret 3 of Haulotte swivels, and as a result of teaching the lights onto the mounting base of Mitchell they will change the area they illuminate as platform 16 slides).
In regards to claim 15 Mitchell as modified by Haulotte teaches the plurality of lights is arranged such that the visible controlled access zone increases in size when the mounting base is raised relative to the chassis (as mast 4 of Haulotte is raised, see area of M23 in fig. 2).
In regards to claim 17 Mitchell as modified by Haulotte teaches the plurality of lights are arranged such that dimensions of the visible controlled access zone change based on the mounting base swiveling (M21 changes area they illuminate as turret 3 of Haulotte swivels).
In regards to claim 21 Mitchell as modified by Haulotte teaches the at least one second light (21, 22) is coupled to the mounting base (once taught onto the mounting base of Mitchell) on a first side (left hand side as shown in fig. 2; Haulotte) that is opposite in direction to a second side (right hand side facing 4 and 5; fig. 2; Haulotte) in which the platform is capable of horizontally sliding (in the same manner taught in Haulotte).
In regards to claim 22 Mitchell and Haulotte do not teach the at least one first light includes a plurality of lights that are coupled on each side of the platform other than the second side. However, it has been held that the duplication of part, as well as rearrangement of parts are generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have duplicated the lights taught by Haulotte onto different locations of the platform of Mitchell, where such a duplication would only serve to best convenience the designer/user/worker and where it would not alter the performance of the device. One of ordinary skill int eh art would find predictable advantage with reasonable expectation of success in teaching the lights onto the sides of the platform facing away from the mounting base, since (a) the mounting base would block the emitted light, and (b) it would only enhance the brightness of areas surrounding the platform where work is being performed. Finally, note that one of ordinary skill in the art can also find motivation in the teaching of the lights on the body 3 of Haulotte, where they are utilized on sides other than that facing the platform, and apply the same arrangement to the sides of the platform other than that facing the mounting base.
In regards to claim 23 Mitchell as modified by Haulotte teaches the at least one second light includes a single light (where either both 21 and 22 can be considered a “single light” with multiple outlets, or where the claim is interpreted such that while there is a single second light on the mounting base, there is nothing in the claim that precludes the presence of other single third, fourth or fifth lights for instance).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell and Haulotte as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bassett, US (2002/0029930).
In regards to claim 3 Mitchell and Haulotte do not teach a scissors linkage.
Bassett teaches a scissor linkage (18) that is coupled to the chassis (14) and is coupled to the mounting base (base of 16), wherein the motor (drive motor 22) is arranged to cause the mounting base to raise relative to the chassis by elongation of the scissor linkage (via threaded ball screw shaft 24; fig. 2).
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 scissor linkage assembly taught by Bassett in place of the sectional stages mast of Mitchell for the predictable advantages of scissors assembly i.e., where scissors assemblies is known for offering higher load capacity, larger platform size for multiple workers, and superior stability, ideal for heavy tasks.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell and Haulotte as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miller, US (2014/0005858).
In regards to claim 4 Mitchell and Haulotte do not teach the platform is a pressure-sensitive platform, and wherein the lift is arranged to cease operation of the lift responsive to the pressure- sensitive platform detecting that weight of an operator is no longer on the pressure- sensitive platform.
Miller teaches the platform (30; fig. 2) is a pressure-sensitive platform (pressure sensitive mat 50; fig. 3), and wherein the lift is arranged to cease operation of the lift responsive to the pressure- sensitive platform detecting that weight of an operator is no longer on the pressure- sensitive platform (paragraph [0004]; see excerpt below).
PNG
media_image8.png
368
580
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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 pressure-sensitive platform protocol taught by Miller onto the platform of Mitchell for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for a safety measure that prevents operation of the platform unless both legs are detected inside the platform area, to enhance safety and reinforce training as motived by Miller (abstract; Miller).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell and Haulotte as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moorman, US (4027747).
In regards to claim 5 Mitchell and Haulotte do not teach a plurality of clamps that are coupled to the platform, wherein the clamps of the plurality of clamps are arranged to lock a wheelchair in place onto the platform.
Moorman teaches a plurality of clamps (26, 34) that are coupled to the platform (30), wherein the clamps of the plurality of clamps are arranged to lock a wheelchair in place onto the platform (claim 1; Moorman).
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 plurality of clamps taught by Moorman onto the lift of Mitchell for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for means to transport a disabled person to higher elevations safe and secure.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell and Haulotte as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Puszkiewicz, US (2004/0045768).
In regards to claim 6 Mitchell and Haulotte do not teach a tilt sensor that is arranged to detect whether the lift is at risk of toppling over.
Puszkiewicz teaches a tilt sensor (37) that is arranged to detect whether the lift is at risk of toppling over (paragraph [0011]; see excerpt below).
PNG
media_image9.png
160
576
media_image9.png
Greyscale
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 tilt sensor taught by Puszkiewicz onto the lift of Mitchell for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to prevent tipping of the lift when it is under overload unevenly distributed onto the platform and alert the user or automatically disable operation of the lift.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell and Haulotte as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baillargeon, US (2015/0027808).
In regards to claim 6 Mitchell and Haulotte do not teach a badge access system, wherein the badge access system does not now allow the lift to be operated unless the badge access system is accessed with a proper badge.
Baillargeon teaches a badge access system (113/115), wherein the badge access system does not now allow the lift to be operated unless the badge access system is accessed with a proper badge (per operation of the interlock in communication with the autoidentification device 113 as described in paragraph [0048]; see excerpt below [0048]).
PNG
media_image10.png
420
570
media_image10.png
Greyscale
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 badge access system taught by Baillargeon onto the lift of Mitchell for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to prevent an unauthorized person from operating the lift for safety, liability and tracking work operations.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell and Haulotte as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Donaldson, US (11999602).
In regards to claim 9 Mitchell and Haulotte do not teach the counterweight is further configured to extend outwards based on the platform extending relative to the mounting base.
Donaldson teaches the counterweight (36) is further configured to extend outwards based on the platform extending relative to the mounting base (as described in the abstract of the invention).
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 a movable counterweight as taught by Donaldson onto the lift of Mitchell for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for a more accurate positioning of the counterweight which would enhance safety by preventing tipping of the lift as it corresponds to the platform extending and retracting.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell and Haulotte as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bowden, US (2010/0200332).
In regards to claims 10 and 11 Mitchell and Haulotte do not teach a plurality of proximity sensors, wherein the plurality of proximity sensors is arranged to detect at least one of physical obstructions above the lift or physical obstructions around the lift.
Bowden teaches a plurality of proximity sensors (paragraph [0073]), wherein the plurality of proximity sensors is arranged to detect at least one of physical obstructions above the lift or physical obstructions around the lift (as described in paragraph [0073]; excerpt below) (claim 10).
PNG
media_image11.png
128
464
media_image11.png
Greyscale
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 proximity sensors taught by Bowden onto the lift of Mitchell for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to prevent accidents due to unintentional crashing into objects/obstructions, as well as provide a warning to the operator.
In regards to claim 11, examiner takes Official Notice that audible and visual warnings resulting from sensor reading are old and well-known in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to utilize one of audible or visual warnings for their obvious safety advantage of alerting the user and nearby workers of a possible incoming collision. Note that examiner’s Official Notice having not been challenged, is hereby made final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because:
Applicant’s argument against the drawing’s objections that “Applicant respectfully submits that an express illustration of objected to features is not necessary for understanding by one of ordinary skill in the art of the subject matter to be patented”; was not found persuasive, since mechanical components positively recited and required by the claims, and as they pertain to specific equipment such as the device / apparatus disclosed in the current invention are indeed necessary for the for the understanding of the subject matter to be patented.
Applicant argues “Mitchell does not disclose an arrangement of lights as claimed which enables a visible controlled access zone to increase based on a platform extending horizontally relative to a mounting base. Haulotte discloses at FIGS. 3 to 6, devices 21, 22 and 23 generate light beams F21, F22 and F23 projecting markings M21, M22 and M23 on the ground ... Haulotte does not disclose that the plurality of lights is arranged such that dimensions of the visible controlled access zone increase based on a platform (movably affixed to the mounting base and having a light coupled thereto) extending horizontally relative to a mounting base”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that Firstly, with regards to the limitation “increase based on a platform extending horizontally relative to a mounting base”, examiner points out the new matter associated with this recitation and that the argued limitation is examined as best understood, in accordance with and in the same manner disclosed in the current invention, as best understood / interpreted, as the platform of Mitchell shifts horizontally, the lite zone previously blocked by the body of the base of the assembly would be exposed changing the area/dimensions of the zone. Secondly, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The rest of applicant’s argument toward the dependent claims are directed toward the same remarks regarding claim 1, and addressed above, and finally it is assumed in every instance the name “Gilbert” is mentioned in the arguments that applicant meant primary reference “Mitchell”.
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
Prosecution Insights