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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/01/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, all objections and rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of the current claims and previously cited art, a new ground(s) of rejection is made and presented in detail below.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/01/2025. These drawings are accepted.
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: “vertical lift mechanism” in claims 1-6.
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 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.
Claims 7-20 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.
Claim 7. The limitation “a bottom plate having a tongue that extends away from the frame” is indefinite given that Applicant’s originally filed Specification and Drawings discloses a tongue (122) that extends away from lifting bracket (120) (Par. 0031 and Fig. 18). Thus, it is unclear to the Examiner if the claimed “tongue” should extend from the bottom plate as claimed, or extend from the lifting bracket as disclosed. To maintain compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret Claim 7 and written.
Claim 15. The claim contains first and second limitations to “a left support plate bracket” and “a right support plate bracket.” To maintain compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret second references to “a left support plate bracket” and “a right support plate bracket” as “the left support plate bracket” and “the right support plate bracket.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lamb et al. (US 2011/0276181).
Lamb discloses;
Claim 1. A lift truck (100), comprising:
a rigid frame (right and left 134 and plurality of cross bars connecting them) having a top (end of 100 proximal to 132) and a bottom (end of 100 proximal to 112) having a bottom plate (122) that extends away from the rigid frame; a support plate (116 as shown in Fig. 7) located above the bottom plate;
a lifting bracket (vertical component of 816) attached to the support plate; a tongue (horizontal component of 816) extending at ninety degrees from the lifting bracket; and a vertical lift mechanism (150) configured to raise and lower the support plate along the frame (Par. 0019-0046 and Fig. 3, 5, and 7).
Claim 2. The lift truck of claim 1, wherein the vertical lift mechanism comprises a jackscrew assembly (254) (Par. 0028 and Fig. 2).
Claim 3. The lift truck of claim 1, further comprising a support handle (132) at the top of the frame, the support handle curving downwards along a rear side of the frame (Par. 0020 and Fig. 3).
Claim 4. The lift truck of claim 1, further comprising an upper plate (annotated Fig. 5) attached to the frame proximate the top of the frame.
Claim 5. The lift truck of claim 4, wherein the vertical lift mechanism is secured to the upper plate with a bracket (annotated Fig. 5).
Claim 6. The lift truck of claim 4, further comprising a union (140) with fasteners (715) configured to receive the support plate, thereby engaging the support plate to the vertical lift mechanism (Par. 0045 and Fig. 7).
Claims 7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 6,530,740).
Kim discloses;
Claim 7. A lift truck (Fig. 1), comprising: a frame comprising: a left vertical rail (left-hand 10a), a right vertical rail (right-hand 10a), an upper rail (upper 10b), and a bottom plate (10b) having a tongue (12) that extends away from the frame; a vertical lift system (30-35) positioned within the frame between the left vertical rail and the right vertical rail, the vertical lift system having a coupling bracket (32) attached to a left support plate bracket (annotated Fig. 2) and a right support plate bracket (annotated Fig. 2); a support plate (annotated Fig. 1) located above the bottom plate and liftably engaged to the left support plate bracket and right support plate bracket; and a lifting bracket (20) attached to the support plate and configured to support a load (Col. 2-4 and Fig. 1-2).
The Examiner notes that the limitation “tongue” has a wide range of definitions, including “a long, narrow projection on a machine” (collinsdictionary.com).
Claim 8. The lift truck of claim 7, wherein the support plate is engaged to the left support plate bracket and the right support plate bracket through a union (annotated Fig. 2) having fasteners (annotated Fig. 1).
Claim 9. The lift truck of claim 7, further comprising a support handle (13) at the top of the frame, the support handle curving downwards along a rear side of the frame (Col. 3 and Fig. 3).
Claim 10. The lift truck of claim 7, wherein the vertical lift system comprises a jackscrew assembly (30-31) (Col. 4 and Fig. 2).
Claim 11. The lift truck of claim 10, further comprising: a left bearing track (left-hand 14) adjacent the left vertical rail; a right bearing track (right-hand 14) adjacent the right vertical rail; a plurality of left roller bearings (left-hand 22 and 22a), each attached to the left support plate bracket and having wheels (22) engaged to the left bearing track; and a plurality of right roller bearings (right-hand 22 and 22a), each attached to the right support plate bracket and having wheels (22) engaged to the right bearing track (Col. 3 and Fig. 5).
Claim 12. The lift truck of claim 11, wherein the vertical lift system further comprises a drive motor (33) and gear assembly (34-35) configured to engage a jackscrew (31) of the jackscrew assembly, thereby raising and lowering the coupling bracket, left support plate bracket, right support plate bracket, support plate, and lifting bracket (Col. 4 and Fig. 2).
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Kim does not recite;
Claim 13. The lift truck of claim 12, wherein the vertical lift system is operable by remote control. However, in the Office Action dated 07/01/2025, the Examiner took Official Notice that remote control systems are well known within the art, Applicant’s lack of traversal of the examiner’s assertion of Official Notice is taken to be admittance that remote control systems are common knowledge or well-known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim’s disclosure to include a remote control with a reasonable expectation of success so that an operator could be at a safe distance from the lift truck while lifting heavy objects.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Rhodes (US 3,907,138).
Kim does not recite;
Claim 14. The lift truck of claim 12, further comprising an upper plate attached to the frame proximate the top of the frame, wherein the vertical lift system is secured to the upper plate with a bracket.
However, Rhodes discloses a lift truck (Fig. 1 and 2), comprising: a rigid frame (12, 14, and 68) having right and left vertical rails (12) and an upper rail (68), a support plate (26), a lifting bracket (vertical member between 30 and 36) attached to the support plate, a tongue (35) extending at ninety degrees from the lifting bracket, and a vertical lift mechanism (54, 56, 60, 62, and 66) having a drive mechanism (66), and further teaches;
Claim 14. An upper plate (63) attached to the frame proximate the top of the frame, wherein the vertical lift system is secured to the upper plate with a bracket (64) (Col. 3, Ln. 29-33, and Fig. 1).
Therefore, in view of Rhode’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim’s disclosure to include an upper plate and a bracket with a reasonable expectation of success to provide additional rigidity to the frame and allow for easy detachment of the vertical lift mechanism from the frame.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lamb in view of Kim.
Lamb discloses;
Claim 15. A lift truck (100), comprising: a frame (right and left 134 and plurality of cross bars connecting them) comprising: a left vertical rail (surface of left 132 that the support plate rides along), a right vertical rail (surface of right 132 that the support plate rides along), a bottom plate (122) extending laterally away from the frame, an upper plate (510) attached to the left vertical rail, the right vertical rail, and the upper rail (attached indirectly), a handle (132) positioned at the upper plate, an axle (118) attached to the left vertical rail and the right vertical rail with brackets (annotated Fig. 5), a left wheel (left hand 112) attached to a left end of the axle, and a right wheel (right hand 112) attached to a right end of the axle; a support plate (116 as shown in Fig. 7) located above the bottom plate and liftably engaged to a left support plate bracket (left hand 114) and a right support plate bracket (right hand 114); a lifting bracket (vertical component of 816) attached to the support plate having a tongue (horizontal component of 816) coplanar with ground and configured to support a load which could include a renewable energy storage system (Par. 0003-0004); and a vertical lift system (250) positioned within the frame between the left vertical rail and the right vertical rail, the vertical lift mechanism having a coupling bracket (140) attached to a (interpreted as “the”) left support plate bracket and a (interpreted as “the”) right support plate bracket, and comprising a drive motor (363) configured to raise and lower the coupling bracket, left support plate bracket, right support plate bracket, support plate, and lifting bracket (Par. 0019-0046 and Fig. 3, 5, and 7).
Claim 16. The lift truck of claim 15, wherein the vertical lift system comprises a jackscrew assembly (254) (Par. 0028 and Fig. 2).
Claim 17. The lift truck of claim 15, further comprising: a left bearing track (component of left hand 134 that left hand guide block 141 slides in) adjacent the left vertical rail; a right bearing track (component of right hand 134 that right hand guide block 141 slides in) adjacent the right vertical rail (Par. 0043-0044 and Fig. 6-7).
Claim 20. The lift truck of claim 15, further comprising an upper plate (annotated Fig. 5) attached to the frame proximate the top of the frame, wherein the vertical lift system is secured to the upper plate with a bracket (annotated Fig. 5).
Lamb is silent to;
Claim 15. An upper rail and gear assembly.
Claim 17. A plurality of left roller bearings, each attached to the left support plate bracket and having wheels engaged to the left bearing track; and a plurality of right roller bearings, each attached to the right support plate bracket and having wheels engaged to the right bearing track.
Claim 18. The lift truck of claim 15, wherein the vertical lift system further comprises a removable rechargeable battery pack configured to power the drive motor.
Claim 19. The lift truck of claim 15, further comprising a remote control operable to cause the vertical lift system to raise and lower the lifting bracket.
However, Kim discloses a lift truck (Fig. 1) having right and left vertical rails (left and right 10a), left and right bearing tracks (left hand 14 and right hand 14) and a vertical lift system (30-35) driven by a motor (33), and further teaches;
Claim 15. The frame includes an upper rail (upper 10b) and the vertical lift system includes a gear assembly (34-35).
Claim 17. A plurality of left roller bearings (left-hand 22 and 22a) having wheels (22) engaged to the left bearing track; and a plurality of right roller bearings (right-hand 22 and 22a) having wheels (22) engaged to the right bearing track (Col. 3 and Fig. 5).
Therefore, in view of Kim’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lamb’s disclosure to include an upper rail and gear assembly with a reasonable expectation of success to provide additional rigidity to the frame and include a gear assembly adjust motor speed and torque to desired speed and torque inputs for the jack screw assembly. It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lamb’s guide blocks to include roller bearings with wheels with a reasonable expectation of success to minimize friction and wear during lifting.
Claims 18 and 19. In the Office Action dated 07/01/2025, the Examiner took Official Notice that removable rechargeable battery packs remote control systems are well known within the art. Applicant’s lack of traversal of the examiner’s assertion of Official Notice is taken to be admittance that remote control systems are common knowledge or well-known in the art (see MPEP 2144.03(C)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim’s disclosure to include a removable rechargeable battery pack and a remote control with a reasonable expectation of success so new batteries would not be required when the existing batteries lost their charge, and so that an operator could be at a safe distance from the lift truck while lifting heavy objects.
With respect to the limitations that have been cited as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the structures cited in the art of record as disclosing or teaching these limitations are either structurally similar to the respective structure in Applicant’s originally filed disclosure or perform the same claimed function.
PNG
media_image1.png
1384
964
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1052
810
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1072
750
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 RONALD P JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-8311. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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.
/RONALD P JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652