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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshinaga in view of KR 101528707, as cited by applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Yoshinaga teaches a vehicle, V, with a cargo receiving portion, 32, for transportation of cargo, W, and for transfer of the cargo onto a cargo take-up station, 80, wherein the cargo receiving portion is disposed on a chassis with running gear, wherein the running gear is coupled with a drive unit, 2D, and a vehicle control unit is provided, the cargo receiving portion is linked tiltably around the tilting axle, A1 or A2, on the chassis and is designed to be open or openable at one delivery rim, 82, at least, wherein the tilting axle and the delivery rim are disposed relative to one another in such a way that, in tilted position, the cargo can be transferred via the delivery rim onto the cargo take-up station, see figure 2, wherein, for transfer of the cargo onto the cargo take-up station, the cargo receiving portion is tilted around the tilting axle, see figure 2.
Yoshinaga teaches drives means, 33D AND 34D, but does not teach that the drive means are spring loaders. KR ‘707, as cited by applicant, teaches a vehicle with a cargo receiving portion that is tiltably linked to the chassis and tilted by a spring, 600.
Since both Yoshinaga and KR ‘707 teach a drive means to drive a platform on a vehicle to tilt about a tilt axis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the drive means of Yoshinaga with the gas spring of KR ‘707 in order to achieve the predictable result of reliably driving the platform about the tilt access to unload cargo from the platform.
KR ‘707 further teaches the cargo receiving portion has an interlocking element, 120 and 210, by means of which the cargo receiving portion can be interlocked with the chassis in untilted position and can be unlocked prior to the load delivery.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the interlocking mechanism of KR ‘707 with the titling platform and vehicle of Yoshinaga in order to prevent the platform from inadvertently tilting.
KR ‘707 teaches the interlocking element can be unlocked by the vehicle control unit, 410, through activation by an operator.
Regarding claim 6, KR ‘707 teaches at least one spring element, 600, is disposed between the cargo receiving portion and the chassis.
Regarding claim 7, KR ‘707 teaches the at least one spring element is designed as a compression spring, 600.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshinaga in view of KR ‘707 as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Hall Jr.
Regarding claim 4, neither Yoshinaga nor the KR ‘707 patent teaches the interlocking mechanism is an electromagnet. Hall Jr. teaches a vehicle with a tiltable cargo platform that can be held in the retract position by a magnet, see paragraph 0055. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the interlocking mechanism of KR ‘707 with the magnet taught by Hall, Jr. to achieve the predictable result of securing the tiltable platform in the retracted position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 Jul2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicanthas amended claim 1 in include the limitations of claims 2, 3, and 5. While claim 5 was previously indicated as allowable subject matter, the limitations of claim 3 were rejected. The amendment to the application includes the limitation of claims 3 and 5 in the alternative. Claim 1 now claims that the interlocking element can be unlocked by the vehicle control unit or the interlocking element is coupled with an unlocking element activated by a trigger element. Applicant contends that the Song reference does not teach that the vehicle control influences the load release and it is instead triggered by manual action. The manual action of the operator uses the vehicle mechanisms and control to trigger that interlocking element to release. The claim does not require that the mechanism is automatically released by the vehicle control unit and therefore operation of the vehicle mechanism and therefore the vehicle control unit by the operator to release the interlocking mechanism reads on the claimed invention.
Conclusion
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 KAITLIN S JOERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 (CST).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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.
/KAITLIN S JOERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
17 September 2025