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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species 4 in the reply filed on 18 June, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claims 19, 22, 24-25, 28, 30-31, and 35 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 19, 22, 28, and 30 recites “each post” that should be “the each post”;
Claims 24-25, and 31 recites “each arm” that should be “the each arm”;
Claim 35 recites “each post comprises each post comprises” that should be “east post comprises”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed 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, 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 19-20, 22-29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Masaitis (US 3,789,958) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tsujimura (4,267,901).
Regarding Claim 19, Masaitis teaches A vehicle support assembly (Fig. 1-2) configured to be used with a runway vehicle lift (Ref. A, Fig. 1-2, examiner notes the runway vehicle lift is a part of the intended use portion of the limitation and is not positively recited) having a frame with a vertical support (Ref. 15, Fig. 2), a rack (Ref. 14&26, Fig. 1) having a plurality of portions (Ref. 14&26, Fig. 1), a runway vehicle support (Ref. 10&12, Fig. 1-2) supported on the rack (Fig. 1-2), a lift actuator (Ref. 15, Fig. 1-2) coupled to the rack to move the rack and the runway vehicle support up and down ([Col. 3, Line 60-63]), the vehicle support assembly comprising:
a pair of arms (Ref. R&S, Fig. 1) wherein each arm is of length to extend transversely across the runway vehicle support ([Col. 5-6, Lines 41-5] teach the arms have a length to slide outward and are capable to transversely extend across the runway vehicle support (10&12));
a pair of spaced apart support elements (Ref. 170&172, Fig. 2) mounted to each arm (Fig. 2) and configured to engage lift points of a vehicle (Fig. 2); and
a plurality of post (Ref. F&G, Fig. 1-2) wherein each post supports an end of one of the arms (Fig. 2, outer ends closest to runways), each post being configured to be disposed alongside the runway vehicle support so that the arms extend transversely across the runway vehicle support (Fig. 2 shows the posts alongside the runways (10&12) and the arms can extend transversely across the runway vehicle support).
Given the runway vehicle lift is part of the intended use portion of the claim limitation the elements required by the runway vehicle lift are not positively recited, however, to advanced prosecution, examiner has applied Tsujimura to teach the limitations of the runway vehicle lift with a plurality of vertically oriented spaced apart supports to the limitations of Masaitis. Masaitis fails to explicitly teach a plurality of vertically oriented spaced apart supports, a rack having a plurality of portions, wherein each portion is movably coupled to a different vertically oriented support. Tsujimura teaches a vehicle support assembly with a runway vehicle lift and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Tsujimura further teaches a runway vehicle lift having a frame with a plurality of vertically oriented spaced apart supports (Ref. 2, fig. 1), a rack (Ref. 3&6, Fig. 1) having a plurality of portions (Ref. 8&5, Fig. 1), wherein each portion is movably coupled to a different vertically oriented support (Fig. 1), a runway vehicle support (Ref. 16, Fig. 1-2) supported on the rack (Fig. 1&3), a lift actuator (Ref. 10, Fig. 1) coupled to the rack to move the rack and the runway vehicle support up and down ([Col. 3, Line 15-20]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the runway vehicle support with a singular vertical support, as taught by Masaitis, with the runway vehicle lift having a plurality of vertically oriented spaced apart supports, as taught by Tsujimura, to achieve the predictable result of moving the rack and runway vehicle supports up and down.
Regarding Claim 20, Masaitis teaches the limitations of claim 19, as described above, and further teaches at least one pivotable, telescoping jack stand (Ref. B, Fig. 1-2, shows the support is pivotable and telescoping, [Col. 7, Lines 41-51]) coupled to the runway vehicle support (Fig. 2) and having an end engageable with the vehicle (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 22, Masaitis teaches the limitations of claim 19, as described above, and further teaches wherein each post comprises a U-shaped end (Ref. P&Q, Fig. 2, [Col. 5, Line 34]) to receive and support the corresponding end of the arm (Fig. 2 [Col. 5, Line 34-37]).
Regarding Claim 23, Masaitis teaches the limitations of claim 19, as described above, and further teaches wherein the end of each arm is releasably coupled to the corresponding posts (Ref. 180-182, Fig. 2, [Col. 6, line 6-15]).
Regarding Claim 24, Masaitis teaches the limitations of claim 23, as described above, and further teaches wherein each arm comprises an offset center section (Ref. 150&152, fig. 2) not aligned along a longitudinal axis (Fig. 2) extending between the associated ends of the arm (Fig. 2 shows the width of the off center section extends between the ends of each arm).
Regarding Claim 25, Masaitis teaches the limitations of claim 24, as described above, and further teaches wherein each arm is selectively coupled to the corresponding posts so as to selectively orient a position of the associated offset center section (Ref. 180&182 secure the arms to the post and orient the position of the offset center section in a vertical direction).
Regarding Claim 26, Masaitis teaches the limitations of claim 19, as described above, and further teaches a plurality of ramps (Ref. 18&20, Fig. 1) configured to be positioned adjacent the arms on the runway vehicle support (Fig. 1) so as to allow a vehicle to drive over the arms (Fig. 1&2).
Regarding Claim 27, Masaitis teaches the limitations of claim 19, as described above, and further teaches a plurality of mounts (Ref. 34&36, Fig. 2&4) securable to the rack (26, Fig. 2), each mount configured to support one of the posts such that the mounts and posts move up and down with the rack (Fig. 2 shows each mount supports one side and are capable of supporting at least one post if not both posts).
Regarding Claim 28, Masaitis teaches the limitations of claim 19, as described above, and further teaches wherein each post comprises multiple pairs of apertures (Ref. 94&96, Fig. 2) longitudinally spaced apart along a length of each post (Fig. 2), wherein apertures of each associated pair of apertures are transversely associated with each other ([Col. 4, lines 63-64 describe spaced apart holes therethrough).
Regarding Claim 29, Masaitis teaches the limitations of claim 28, as described above, and further teaches a plurality of pins (Ref. 264, Fig. 2) wherein one pin is selectively locatable in a pair of apertures of each post ([Col. 7, line 66-68]).
Regarding Claim 31, Masaitis teaches the limitations of claim 19, as described above, and further teaches wherein the runway vehicle support comprises spaced apart runways (Ref. 10& 12, fig. 1-2) and each arm is of length to extend transversely across the spaced apart runways ([Col. 5-6, Lines 41-5] teach the arms have a length to slide outward and are capable to transversely extend across the runway vehicle support (10&12)).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaitis as applied to claims 19 above, and further in view of Bedford (US 5,002,256).
Regarding Claim 21, Masaitis teaches the limitations of claim 19, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein each post comprises a portion adjustable in height in a telescoping manner. Bedford teaches a lifting and supporting device and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor. Bedford further teaches a pair of posts (17&21) wherein each post comprises a portion adjustable in height in a telescoping manner (Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 19-24] describes the posts (17&21) can move up and down from a supported to an unsupported position). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify each post, as taught by Masaitis, to be adjustable in height in a telescoping manner, as taught by Bedford, to allow the vehicle to be lowered and raised to the desired position and to allow for different types of vehicles to be lifted properly.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaitis as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Hernick (3,877,548).
Regarding Claim 30, Masaitis teaches the limitations of claim 28, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein each post comprises a longitudinal slot. Hernick teaches a lifting and supporting device and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor. Henrick further teaches wherein each post (Ref. P, Fig. 1) comprises a longitudinal slot (Fig. 1 shows the post is hollow forming longitudinal slot), the longitudinal slot extending between the apertures of each associated pair of apertures (Fig. 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the posts, as taught by Masaitis, to have a longitudinal slot extending between the apertures of each associated pair of apertures, as taught by Hernick, since the operation of the posts is not dependent upon the longitudinal slot and the post with a longitudinal slot between apertures to achieve the predictable result of supporting a vehicle using apertures and pins.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaitis as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Rose (8,616,337).
Regarding Claim 32, Masaitis teaches the limitations of claim 19, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein each support element is selectively positionable along a length of each associated arm. Rose teaches a lifting and supporting device and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor. Rose further teaches a vehicle support assembly (Fig. 3) with a vertical support post (Ref. 1, Fig. 3), an arm (Ref. 2, Fig. 3), and wherein each support element (Ref. 13, Fig. 3) is selectively positionable along a length of each associated arm (Ref. 2, Fig. 3, [Col. 4, Lines 39-45]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the support arm and support elements, as taught by Masaitis, to be selectively positionable along a length of each associated arm, as taught by Rose, to allow for more flexibility of supporting vehicles with different widths ([Col. 4, Lines 39-45]).
Claims 33-34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaitis (3,789,958) in view of Tsujimura (4,267,901).
Regarding claim 33, Masaitis teaches a method of supporting a vehicle using a vehicle support assembly (Ref. B, Fig. 1-2) comprising posts (Ref. F&G, Fig. 1-2) and a runway vehicle lift (Ref. A, Fig. 1-2) comprising a frame with a vertical support (Ref. 15, Fig. 2), a rack (Ref. 14&26, Fig. 1) having a plurality of portions (Ref. 14&26, Fig. 1), a runway vehicle support (Ref. 10&12, Fig. 1-2) supported on the rack (Fig. 1-2), a lift actuator (Ref. 15, Fig. 1-2) coupled to the rack to move the rack and the runway vehicle support up and down ([Col. 3, Line 60-63]), the method comprising:
locating two posts (Ref. F&G, Fig. 1-2) spaced apart from each other on each side of the runway vehicle support (Fig. 2), the posts arranged in pairs wherein each post is also located transversely across the runway vehicle support from another post (Fig. 2 shows the posts alongside the runways (10&12) and the arms can extend transversely across the runway vehicle support);
locating a pair of arms (Ref. R&S, Fig. 1) underneath a vehicle on the runway vehicle support (fig. 2), each arm having spaced apart support elements (Ref. 170&172, Fig. 2) mounted to each arm (Fig. 2) and configured to engage lift points of the vehicle (Fig. 2), each arm of length to extend transversely across the runway vehicle support between posts transversely associated with each other (Fig. 2, [Col. 5-6, Lines 41-5] teach the arms have a length to slide outward and are capable to transversely extend across the runway vehicle support (10&12) and transversely associated with each other);
operating the runway vehicle lift to lift the vehicle to a desired height ([Col. 3, Line 60-63]);
arranging the arms and the posts so that the spaced apart support elements will engage the vehicle and the arms are supported by the posts (Fig. 2, [Col. 5-6, Lines 41-5]); and
operating the runway vehicle lift to lower the vehicle on to the arms and off the runway vehicle support (Fig. 2, [Col. 7, Lines 39-60]).
Masaitis fails to explicitly teach a plurality of vertically oriented spaced apart supports, a rack having a plurality of portions, wherein each portion is movably coupled to a different vertically oriented support. Tsujimura teaches a vehicle support assembly with a runway vehicle lift and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Tsujimura further teaches a runway vehicle lift having a frame with a plurality of vertically oriented spaced apart supports (Ref. 2, fig. 1), a rack (Ref. 3&6, Fig. 1) having a plurality of portions (Ref. 8&5, Fig. 1), wherein each portion is movably coupled to a different vertically oriented support (Fig. 1), a runway vehicle support (Ref. 16, Fig. 1-2) supported on the rack (Fig. 1&3), a lift actuator (Ref. 10, Fig. 1) coupled to the rack to move the rack and the runway vehicle support up and down ([Col. 3, Line 15-20]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the runway vehicle support with a singular vertical support, as taught by Masaitis, with the runway vehicle lift having a plurality of vertically oriented spaced apart supports, as taught by Tsujimura, to achieve the predictable result of moving the rack and runway vehicle supports up and down.
Regarding Claim 34, Masaitis as modified teaches the limitations of claim 33, as described above, and Masaitis further teaches locating ramps (Ref. 18&20, Fig.1) on the runway vehicle support adjacent portions of each of the arms (Fig. 1); and moving the vehicle over the ramps and the portions of each of the arms (Fig. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 36, Masaitis as modified teaches the limitations of claim 33, as described above, and Masaitis further teaches wherein each post comprises multiple pairs of apertures (Ref. 94&96, Fig. 2) longitudinally spaced apart along a length of each post (fig. 2), wherein apertures of each associated pair of apertures are transversely associated with each other ([Col. 4, lines 63-64 describe spaced apart holes therethrough), and arranging the arms and the posts comprises inserting a pins (Ref. 264, Fig. 2)in a pair of apertures of each post ([Col. 7, line 66-68]).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaitis as modified as applied to claims 33 above, and further in view of Bedford (US 5,002,256).
Regarding Claim 35, Masaitis as modified teaches the limitations of claim 33, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach each post comprises each post comprises a portion adjustable in height in a telescoping manner and arranging the arms and the posts comprises adjusting a height of each post telescopically. Bedford teaches a lifting and supporting device and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor. Bedford further teaches a pair of posts (17&21) wherein each post comprises a portion adjustable in height in a telescoping manner (Fig. 1-2), and arranging the arms and the posts comprises adjusting a height of each post telescopically (Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 19-24] describes the posts (17&21) can move up and down from a supported to an unsupported position). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify each post, as taught by Masaitis as modified, to be adjustable in height in a telescoping manner, as taught by Bedford, to allow the vehicle to be lowered and raised to the desired position and to allow for different types of vehicles to be lifted properly.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaitis as modified as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Henrick (3,877,548).
Regarding Claim 37, Masaitis as modified teaches the limitations of claim 36, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein each post comprises a longitudinal slot. Henrick teaches a lifting and supporting device and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor. Henrick further teaches wherein each post (Ref. P, Fig. 1) comprises a longitudinal slot (Fig. 1 shows the post is hollow forming longitudinal slot), the longitudinal slot extending between the apertures of each associated pair of apertures (Fig. 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the posts, as taught by Masaitis as modified, to have a longitudinal slot extending between the apertures of each associated pair of apertures, as taught by Henrick, since the operation of the posts is not dependent upon the longitudinal slot and the post with a longitudinal slot between apertures to achieve the predictable result of supporting a vehicle using apertures and pins.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaitis as modified as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Rose (8,616,337).
Regarding Claim 38, Masaitis teaches the limitations of claim 33, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach adjusting a position of each support element along a length of each associated arm. Rose teaches a lifting and supporting device and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor. Rose further teaches a vehicle support assembly (Fig. 3) with a vertical support post (Ref. 1, Fig. 3), an arm (Ref. 2, Fig. 3), and adjusting a position of each support element (Ref. 13, Fig. 3) along a length of each associated arm (Ref. 2, Fig. 3, [Col. 4, Lines 39-45]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the support arm and support elements, as taught by Masaitis as modified, to adjust the support element along a length of each associated arm, as taught by Rose, to allow for more flexibility of supporting vehicles with different widths ([Col. 4, Lines 39-45]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Thomas (9,889,787), Taylor (2015/0232311), Johnson (2,552,974), Moore (2017/0066635) and Blocker (6,186,279) teach vehicle lifts and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. 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 https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723