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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. are low resolution rendering them visually unclear (see fig. 16 for example). In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(a)(1), black and white drawings are normally required; India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined, and the weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(l). Moreover, the clarity of the drawings must be sufficient for clear reproduction to two-thirds size. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(k). This loss of quality can be seen by inspecting the drawings in the file wrapper (IFW) dated 02/28/2023. It is Examiner’s understanding that should this application issue as a patent, the drawings published on the issued patent will look exactly like those in the file wrapper, U.S. Patent Application Publication, unless Applicant resubmits the drawings in a different format.
For examples of acceptable drawing clarity and quality, see US 20220362902 A1, US 20220212385 A1, US 20230076152 A1, US 20240416372 A1, and US 20230286103 A1. Examiner suggests outputting and resubmitting the drawings as vector graphics instead of raster images (bitmap).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 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” in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). No new matter should be entered. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: suspension means, pivot mount in claim 1; securing member in claim 4; and friction reducing member in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-9 13 and 16 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites in the last line “joining the suspension means to a base”. The examiner suggests amending to --joining the suspension means to the base--. The base was previously recited in line 3 of claim 1.
Claims 4, 6, 8 and 9 recite “throughaperture” and “throughapertures”. The examiner suggests amending to --through aperture—and --through apertures--
Claim 7 recites “centre of gravity”. The examiner suggests amending to --center of gravity--. Claim 7 also recite “the axis”. The examiner suggests amending to --an axis--.
Claim 13 recites “the end section thereof”. The examiner suggests amending claim 13 to be dependent from claim 2 as the “end section” is only recited in claim 2. Claim 13 could also be rejected under 35 USC 112 but it is clear to the examiner applicant’s intent to make this claim dependent upon claim 2 as it was amended to remove multiple dependency issues.
Claim 16 recites “manoeuvring” The examiner suggests amending to --maneuvering the frame--.
Claim 16 recites “a part” and “a vehicle”. The examiner suggests amending the claim to recite --the part-- and --the vehicle-- in the body of the claim while leaving --a part-- and --a vehicle-- in the preamble of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 3, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "the shape of the connection bar describes a semi-circle" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear to the examiner what applicant intends to claim if the shape is only being described. The examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “wherein the shape of the connection bar is a semi-circle.” For the purposes of advancing prosecution, the examiner has construed the claim as a connection bar having a semi-circle shape.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear to the examiner what applicant is intending to claim and how the recited function results in a specific structure. The examiner construed the claim as best understood. The examiner suggests further clarification to the claim by reciting additional structural limitations instead of functional limitations.
Claim 9 recites “wherein at least one through aperture is elongate”. It is unclear to the examiner which through aperture applicant is referring to? There is a through aperture in the rod and a through aperture in the eyelet. The examiner suggests amending the claim. The examiner has construed the claim to read wherein at least one through aperture of the eyelet is elongate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hopper US 7607546.
Hopper discloses a frame (see Fig. 1a below) capable of assisting in removing parts from a vehicle, the frame comprising: a pivot mount (20), adapted to be pivotally mounted to a base (18); a suspension means (36) operably connected to a first end of a connection bar (12, 30, 32), the connection bar linked at a second end (12) to the pivot mount (20) and linking the suspension means and the pivot mount in fixed spatial arrangement; the connection bar having a generally convex shape (Fig. 2) enabling an object to be freely suspended from the suspension means such that an object (not shown) can rotate about an imaginary line joining the suspension means to the base.
PNG
media_image1.png
597
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 2, Hopper discloses wherein the connection bar includes an end section (not labeled, section where 36 is mounted), horizontally deployed at right angles to the pivot mount.
As for claim 3, Hopper discloses wherein the shape of the connection bar describes a semi-circle (U-shaped and or C-shaped) to provide maximum clearance from a supported object.
As for claim 4, Hopper discloses wherein the suspension means comprises a rod (eye bolt, 36, adjusted length 120,122), seated in a through aperture (depicted an annotated Figs. 7a below) in the connection bar and secured in position by a securing member (nut member screwed onto eyebolt).
PNG
media_image2.png
336
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for claim 5, Hopper discloses wherein the securing member is in screw-threaded connection with a first end of the rod (clearly depicted in Figs. 7a-7b as a threaded eyebolt and nut).
As for claim 6, Hopper discloses wherein the securing member is separated from the connection bar by one or more friction reducing members (washers depicted in Fig. 7a-7b for positioning a spring while reducing friction between the eyebolt and the hoist arm 32) to enable the rod to pivot about an axis parallel to the through aperture.
As for claim 7, Hopper discloses wherein the axis of the rod is directed towards the connection between the pivot mount and the base to ensure that a supported object hangs substantially over the center of gravity of the frame (see Figs. 1a-1b). The rod (36) is directed towards the connection between 20 and 12.
As for claim 16, Hopper discloses an apparatus capable of performing the method of removing a part such as a gearbox from a vehicle, the method including the steps of: selecting a base (18) and pivotally securing a frame thereto; the frame comprising: a pivot mount (20), adapted to be pivotally mounted to the base (18); a suspension means (36) and a connection bar (12, 30, 32) linking the suspension means and the base in fixed spatial arrangement; operably attaching flexible straps (not shown, col. 5, lines 51-52) to the suspension means; the connection bar having a generally convex shape enabling an object to be freely supported from the suspension means such that an object can rotate about an imaginary line joining the suspension means to the base; maneuvering the frame beneath a vehicle (22, 130), raising the frame (via 14, 16) and pivoting the frame such that a part is within the convex shape of the connection bar (col. 4, lines 22-30); securing straps about a part to enable the straps to support the part; decoupling the part from the vehicle and maneuvering the part and lowering the frame until the part is clear of the vehicle.
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) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopper US 7607546 in view of Pitre US 5743678.
PNG
media_image2.png
336
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
324
326
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As for claim 8, Hopper discloses an eyelet (eyebolt, 36) having through aperture secured to the second end of the rod, but does not specify through apertures (at least two). However, Pitre teaches in Figs. 13 and 14 above an eyelet (100) having through apertures (100, 102) for attachment of straps (104). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the through aperture of Hopper to a plurality of through apertures as taught by Pitre in order to provide additional means of attachment of different types of traps to the eyelet.
As for claim 9, the modified Hopper teaches wherein at least one through aperture is elongate (Pitre, 102).
As for claim 10, the modified Hopper teaches wherein the suspension means comprises an eyelet (Hopper, 36 / Pitre, 100,102), comprising elongate apertures (Pitre, 102).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopper US 7607546 in view of Pitre US 5743678 as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Tsui et al. US 6022164.
PNG
media_image4.png
398
252
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As for claim 11, the modified Hopper teaches all the limitations as recited above but does not specify wherein the eyelet is rotatably secured to the connection bar. However, Tsui teaches an eyelet (14, 40, 50) having a rotatable mounting to a connection bar (12 threadedly connected to surface 64; col. 3, lines 5-40).
As for claim 12, Hopper discloses wherein the eyelet is secured to the end section of the connection bar (Hopper, Figs. 1a-1b).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopper US 7607546.
As for claim 13, Hopper discloses wherein the first end (32) of the connection bar or the end section thereof comprises a narrow portion of smaller diameter than the rest of the connection bar (30 or 12) or end section. In Figures 2, 3 and 5, Hopper depicts wherein the tubular section of (32) is narrow/smaller than the section (30) and the tube (12). Hopper depicts square tubes for (30 and 32), however, it would have been obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, through routine design/engineering to change the shape of the square tubes to a circular tube without effecting the overall performance of the apparatus absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed lift apparatus was significant (In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopper US 7607546 as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Gillette, Jr. et al. US 3154206.
PNG
media_image5.png
150
220
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As for claims 14 and 15, the modified Hopper teaches all the limitations as recited above but does not specify wherein the first end of the connection bar includes an end cap of greater diameter than the narrow portion and wherein the end cap is removably securable to the connection bar. However, Gillette teaches the use of an end cap (126) for capping off the end of a tubular pipe/connection bar (121) wherein the end cap is removably securable (col. 8, lines 60-61) to the tubular pipe/connection bar (121). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the apparatus of Hopper to include an end cap having a greater diameter than the narrow portion and being removably securable to the connection bar as taught by Gillette in order to prevent debris or other foreign material from getting into the connection bar.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYRONE V HALL JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5948. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 7:30am-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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/TYRONE V HALL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723