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 . Claims 1-4 are pending and examined below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Figure 1 includes reference number (74), which is not found in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification does not include reference number (74) as seen in figure 1. 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.
Claims 1-4 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 1, the phrase "a wireless remote" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the “wireless remote” is a component of the vertically adjustable construction slit assembly, since the term “wireless”, is interpreted as not being connected to the assembly. In addition, an assembly, is the formation of putting together parts or materials, so it is unclear how the “wireless remote” is assembled with the other structural components. The dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "a wireless remote in communication" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the “wireless remote” is in “communication” with the vertically adjustable construction stilt without a component on the device to receive “communication”. The dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "a scissor lift" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how a stilt can include a scissor lift. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting “a scissor lift” to mean a scissor lift type mechanism, such as having multiple four-bar linkages. The dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al (US 2010/0048361 A1), in view of Hill et al (US 2020/0407203 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Smith et al discloses a vertically adjustable construction stilt assembly (Fig. 1: stilt (10), paragraphs 0024 and 0028), comprising: a first stilt portion (Fig. 1: base assembly (16), paragraph 0028); a foot portion mounted to the first stilt portion (Fig. 4: base plate (40), paragraph 0032); a second stilt portion movable with respect to the first stilt portion (Fig. 1: mounting assembly (14), paragraph 0028); a leg attachment mounted to the second stilt portion to retain a leg of a user to the second stilt portion (Figs. 1 and 4: leg support grip (30), paragraph 0030; also see MPEP 2114(II)); an adjustment system mounted to the first stilt portion and the second stilt portion (Fig. 1: lift unit (18), paragraph 0034); however doesn’t specifically disclose a wireless remote.
Hill et al discloses a foot support assembly (Fig. 1: assembly (10), paragraph 0017) having a frame (Fig. 1: (12), paragraph 0017), a scissor lift (Fig. 1: (28), paragraph 0018) that is connected with a hydraulic pump actuator (Fig. 4: (46), paragraph 0021), and a top surface (Fig. 1: (50), paragraph 0050) where a foot is able to be placed onto the assembly. Hill et al further discloses a wireless remote in communication with the adjustment system to selectively move the second stilt portion with respect to the first stilt portion to control a vertical height of the stilt assembly (Fig. 5: remote control (94) is in wireless communication with the scissor lift (66) which is capable of adjusting the height of the top surface, paragraphs 0028-0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the stilt taught by Smith et al to include an electronic wireless mechanism for controlling the movement of lift as taught by Hill et al because courts have found prima facie obviousness where the modification requires combing prior art elements according to know methods to yield predicable results (see MPEP 2143). Here, the predictable results are that adding an electronic wireless mechanism to the stilt would allow a user a safer way of adjusting the height, since the user will be able to keep both feet on the ground while adjust the height of the device, rather than having to balance on one leg at a time in order to adjust the height of the device as described by Smith et al.
Regarding claim 2, Smith et al discloses the assembly as recited in claim 1, wherein the adjustment system comprises a pneumatic actuator (Fig. 2: height adjuster (56), paragraph 0034), however doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the adjustment system comprises a scissor lift with one of a hydraulic, pneumatic, and electrical actuator.
Hill et al discloses wherein the adjustment system comprises a scissor lift with one of a hydraulic, pneumatic, and electrical actuator (Figs: 1 and 4: a scissor lift (28) that is connected with a hydraulic pump actuator (46), paragraphs 0018 and 0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the stilt taught by Smith et al to include a scissor lift as taught by Hill et al because courts have found prima facie obviousness where the modification requires combing prior art elements according to know methods to yield predicable results (see MPEP 2143). Here, the predictable results are that the scissor lift mechanism would increase the stability of the assembly, due to the wider base of the scissor lift.
Regarding claim 3, Smith et al discloses the assembly as recited in claim 2, wherein the first stilt portion and the second stilt portion are manufactured of a composite material (paragraph 0032).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al (US 2010/0048361 A1) in view of Hill et al (US 2020/0407203 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of McAllister (US 2006/0191745A1).
Regarding claim 4, Smith et al in view of Hill et al discloses the assembly as recited in claim 3, however doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the adjustment system extends and retracts the second stilt portion with respect to the first stilt portion in height from 12 - 66 inches.
McAllister discloses a leg extension device (Fig. 1: (10), paragraph 0036) that is able to elevate a user, where the device includes a floor pad (Fig. 1: (12), paragraph 0036), a foot support platform Fig. 1: (15), paragraph 0036. McAllister further discloses wherein the adjustment system extends and retracts the second stilt portion with respect to the first stilt portion in height from 12 - 66 inches (paragraph 0009; in addition longer material can be used to make the stilt assembly to reach a desired height, see MPEP 2114(II) and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the stilt assembly taught by Smith et al in view of Hill et al to adjust to the height of the lift as taught by McAllister because courts have found prima facie obviousness where the modification requires combing prior art elements according to know methods to yield predicable results (see MPEP 2143). Here, the predictable results are that the stilt assembly would be capable of adjusting to any height depending on the length of material used and a user’s need to reach a specific height.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE H TREVINO III whose telephone number is (703)756-4678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9-6 EST.
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, Jerrah Edwards can be reached at (408) 918-7557. 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.
/J.H.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/JERRAH EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
