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
Claim 20 has been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09/22/2025.
Traversal appears to be on the following grounds: Applicant requests reconsideration due to claim 20 as have being “amended to include the limitation of the elements associated with the cam locking assembly associated with the apparatus of Invention I.” The examiner disagrees as claim 20 introduces new matter via a “second fail component…configured to be disposed within the interior passage of the cam”. For one, the original disclosure doesn’t discuss a second fail component. Additionally, the apparatus claims require a support rod boy to be configured as disposed with the passage of the cam, not a fail component. Also, the apparatus requires recesses as part of the cam not required by the method. These are merely non-limiting examples. The applicants arguments are not found persuasive and the requirement is made final.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “one or motors” of claim 17 for example must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 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” 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because it appears “of cam,” in the third to last line should be --of the cam,--
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 4-6 and 13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, the phrase in claim 4 “wherein the cam is prohibited from rotating responsive to the one or more guide pins being disposed in the locked position recess” is not true since the cam is designed to rotate when disposed along portions of the locked position recess until the guide pin(s) reach the narrowest section of said locked position recess. This is explicitly shown in fig. between 804 and 806 in fig. 9 which is inserted below. Since the scope of the claim is absolute and doesn’t comport with the actuality/breadth of the disclosed locked position recess as explained/shown in the spec and drawings, the scope as currently claimed is unclear. It is further noted that this limitation does not properly recite functional or intended use language such as ‘configured to’ or the like and therefore appears to possibly be an improper hybrid claim of a method step in an apparatus claim since it appears to positively require the step of being “prohibited…responsive”. It is suggested that the applicant amend the language to include intended or functional use language such as ‘configured to’ in addition to amending it to comport with the disclosure: for example, -- wherein the cam is configured to be prohibited from rotating while the one or more guide pins is disposed in a narrowest portion of the locked position recess, wherein the locked position recess is tapered from a wider portion to the narrowest portion.--.
PNG
media_image1.png
577
327
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 13, the explanation of claim 4 provides an example of the same clarity issues found in claim 13. Both claims must be amended for clarity.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected for depending from rejected claim 4.
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 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 1-3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ho et al. (KR20080094319A).
Regarding Claim 1. (Original) Ho teaches:
A cam locking assembly (as depicted in fig.’s 3 and 4 for example) comprising: a support rod (at 30; see fig. 3) having a rod body that extends between a first end and a second end (right and left ends respectively when looking at fig. 4) along an axis (as seen in fig.’s 3 and 4); a first rail component (16; note that ‘a rail component’ is broader than ‘a rail’ such that a component that connects to a rail can be interpreted with the broadest reasonable interpretation as a rail component) having a first rail body that extends between a third end and a fourth end (right and left ends respectively when looking at fig. 4) along the axis (as seen in fig. 4), the third end of the first rail component configured to be [functional use] operably coupled with the second end of the support rod (as depicted in fig. 4), the fourth end of the first rail component configured to be [functional use] operably coupled with a third rail component (the component of 6a that couples to basket 6a as seen in fig.’s 10 and 11 or alternatively interpreted as part of boom 5 - further note that a first element can be ‘operatively coupled’ to a second element by way of more than one elements in between); a cam (20; fig.’s 3 and 4) having one or more interior surfaces (at 22) defining an interior passage extending along the axis (as depicted in fig.’s 3 and 4), wherein at least a portion of the support rod is configured to be [functional use] disposed within the interior passage of the cam (as depicted in fig. 4), the cam including an exterior surface having plural recesses (24; fig. 3) extending from the exterior surface toward the interior passage (as depicted in fig.’s 3 and 4); and one or more guide pins (14; fig. 4) configured to extend into the plural recesses of the cam, the one or more guide pins configured to [functional use] control movement of cam (they perform this function as claimed by controlling rotational movement), wherein movement of the cam is configured to [functional use] control movement of the third rail component between a loaded position (a use position of bucket when the system/boom is deployed) and an unloaded position (the unused stored position seen in fig. 9 - note too that the cam controls rotational movement between 5 and 6a).
PNG
media_image2.png
772
515
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
655
318
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2,
(Original) The cam locking assembly of claim 1, wherein the support rod, the first rail component, and the cam are concentric with each other about the axis (as seen in fig.’s 3 and 4).
Regarding Claim 3,
(Original) The cam locking assembly of claim 1, wherein the cam is configured to [functional use] move in a first linear direction to move the third rail component into the loaded position, and the cam is configured to move in a second linear direction to move the third rail component into the unloaded position (the linear movement can be seen via fig.’s 4 and 7 and this movement is to move 6a relative to 5 between the positions as claimed).
Regarding Claim 7,
(Original) The cam locking assembly of claim 1, further comprising a mounting bracket (at the cylinder that 10 points to in fig. 3 - it can also include 5b as shown in fig. 12 as well) including one or more surfaces defining a passage (such as the inner surface of the cylindrical bracket) configured to [functional use] receive at least a portion of the support rod (as depicted in fig. 4), the mounting bracket configured to be coupled with a support structure of an elevated platform (as seen in fig. 12 for example).
Regarding Claim 8,
(Original) The cam locking assembly of claim 1, further comprising one or more magnetic devices (as so broadly claimed, ‘a magnetic device’ doesn’t require an actual magnet like claiming -one or more magnets- would) configured to [functional use] encourage movement of the cam in one or more directions. The term magnetic as recited herein as an adjective can be interpreted with the broadest reasonable interpretation as describing a device that possesses similar qualities or properties to a magnet such as a device with the similar properties of being able to pull or push another element in its vicinity. When used as an adjective, someone’s personality can be described as ‘a magnetic personality’ which demonstrates the broadness of this term as an adjective. Therefore, it is noted that many elements in Ho meet this reasonably broad interpretation such as the boom which is a device able to push or pull the cam 20 (along with all of the elements 10-36 in fig.’s 3 and 4) in all 3 dimensional directions. Note too the boom can be reasonably interpreted as part of the assembly of the cam lock assembly since assembly is so broad as well. As an additional alternative - the boom is described in the disclosure of Ho as being made of steel which would be a material generally understood to be capable of being attracted to magnets (see definition 3 of magnetic inserted below).
The applicant can overcome this interpretation/rejection above by amending ‘magnetic devices’ to --magnets--.
PNG
media_image4.png
348
741
media_image4.png
Greyscale
From translation of Ho: boom made of steel
PNG
media_image5.png
69
1512
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9,
(Original) The cam locking assembly of claim 1, wherein movement of the cam is configured to be [functional use] activated by an operator (it can perform this function as claimed since an operator drives the movement of the system which drives the movement of the cam).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, 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 10-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Waters (US 5427197) in further view of Ho as applied above.
Regarding Claim 10, Waters teaches:
(Original) A safety rail support system (see fig. 3; note that there are many rails designed to keep the operators safe and supported as a seen in fig. 3) configured to be [functional use] operably coupled with an elevated platform (each bucket 162), first and second raising and lowering leveling pivoting assemblies (at 111/128; see fig. 3), wherein the third rail component in the loaded position (when the bucket is raised in the working position of fig. 3 and the right side of fig. 8) is configured to [functional use] block access onto or off of the elevated platform (by virtue of being raised, access is blocked), and the third rail component in the unloaded position (the left side position of fig. 8) is configured to [functional use] allow access onto or off of the elevated platform (as seen in fig. 8).
All of the elements are discussed in Waters above except for the particulars of each cam lock assembly. Attention however is directed to the 102 rejection of claim 1 above which explains the similar platform assembly taught by Ho teaching each of the claim limitations of the first and second cam lock assemblies of claim 10 (not repeated here for brevity). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a cam lock assembly leveling device as taught by Ho in each of the first and second raising and lowering leveling pivoting assemblies of Waters in order to provide a more fine tuned and accurate leveling device for the buckets for improved leveling accuracy and/or safety.
PNG
media_image6.png
556
523
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
721
498
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11,
(Original) The safety rail support system of claim 10, wherein movement of the first cam and movement of the second cam is configured to be [functional use] activated by an operator (the modification can perform this function).
Regarding Claim 12,
12. (Original) The safety rail support system of claim 10, wherein the plural first recesses of the first cam includes first locked position recesses and first travel path recesses, and the plural second recesses of the second cam includes second locked position recesses and second travel path recesses, wherein the plural first recesses have a first arrangement that is substantially the same as an arrangement of the plural second recesses (as seen in fig. 3 of Ho, there are four recess in the cam - note that each recess locks movement at the end of travel and each recess has travel paths such they can be when interpreted with the broadest reasonable interpretation as ‘locked position recesses and travel path recesses since the claim doesn’t further limit the scope of these claimed terms).
Regarding Claim 14,
14. (Original) The safety rail support system of claim 12, wherein the third rail component is configured to be in the loaded position while the first set of guide pins are disposed in the first locked position recesses and the second set of guide pins are disposed in the second locked position recesses (as seen via fig. 4 and 7 of Ho).
Regarding Claim 15,
15. (Original) The safety rail support system of claim 12, wherein the first and second cams are allowed to [intended use] rotate while the first set of guide pins are disposed in the first travel path recesses and the second set of guide pins are disposed in the second travel path recesses (as understood via fig.’s 4 and 7 of Ho).
Regarding Claim 16,
16. (Original) The safety rail support system of claim 10, further comprising: a first mounting bracket configured to be operably coupled with a support structure of the elevated platform at a first location, the first mounting bracket including a first passage configured to receive a portion of the first support rod and a portion of the first rail component (as understood via cylindrical bracket that 10 points to in fig.’s 3 and 4 of Ho); and a second mounting bracket configured to be operably coupled with the support structure of the elevated platform at a second location, the second mounting bracket including a second passage configured to receive a portion of the second support rod and a portion of the second rail component (as understood via cylindrical bracket that 10 points to in fig.’s 3 and 4 of Ho).
Regarding Claim 17,
17. (Original) The safety rail support system of claim 10, further comprising one or more motors (as discussed in the Abstract of Waters) configured to activate [functional use] movement of the first cam and movement of the second cam (the abstract discusses using the engine to power hydraulic rams to adjust the platforms; note that this would move the cams of the modified Waters.) to [intended use] control movement of the third rail component between the loaded position and the unloaded position (it performs this function as modified).
Regarding Claim 18,
18. (Original) The safety rail support system of claim 10, wherein the first support rod, the first rail component, and the first cam are concentric with each other about the first axis, and the second support rod, the second rail component, and the second cam are concentric with each other about the second axis (as seen via fig. 4 of Ho).
Regarding Claim 19,
19. (Original) The safety rail support system of claim 10, further comprising one or more of a magnetic device or a spring, wherein the one or more of the magnetic device or the spring are configured to encourage movement of the first cam and the second cam in one or more directions (as discussed in substantial detail in the rejection of claim 10 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten as suggested above by the examiner to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Contact Information:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P CAHN whose telephone number is (571)270-5616. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-8.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NAMRATA BOVEJA can be reached on (571) 272-8105. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights