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
Claims 7-8, 17, 22-32, 36-37, and 51-65 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on March 20, 2026. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a claim grouping error erroneously placed claim 32 into the elected Species A. Applicant has addressed this typographical error in their response by adding claim 32 into the nonelected Species B.
Examiner notes that claim 36 depends from withdrawn claim 31, but was not withdrawn. This claim shall be deemed to be withdrawn.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-71 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-110 of copending Application No. 18/234,965 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims are nearly identical except include the narrowing work cell.
Claims 1-71 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-94 of copending Application No. 18/588,467 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims are nearly identical except include the narrowing work cell.
Claims 1-71 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-74 of copending Application No. 18/986,510 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims are nearly identical except include the narrowing work cell.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 70 is objected to because of the following informalities: in clause (a), “and a said lower end” should be --and said lower end--. 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 38-50 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 38 recites “[a] transportation system module as in claim 1,” however claim 1 is directed to a transportation system comprising a transportation module. This causes the claim to be indefinite as it is unclear whether the claim is claiming a transportation system that further comprises a cart in addition to its transportation module; or if the cart feature is somehow to be interpreted to be part of the transportation module (as the claim currently reads). For examination purposes, this claim is interpreted to read --A transportation system-- rather than “A transportation system module.” Claims 39-50 are rejected as being dependent on rejected claim 38.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-15, 19-21, 33, 66, and 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Ward (US 2007/0000057).
Regarding claim 1, Ward discloses a transportation system with loading features, comprising a transportation module, said module comprising:
a. a frame member (34) defining a longitudinal axis and having a front and a rear opposing ends, wherein said front end comprising an overhang member (44/49a) having an overhang portion (44) protruding downwardly below said frame member; said overhang portion having at least one approach wheel (50);
b. a base member (12) comprising a plurality of ground wheels (14), said wheels configured for engaging and rolling over a supporting surface;
c. a lifting assembly (150) connected between said base member (12) and said frame member (34); said lifting assembly configured to lift and lower said frame member relative to said base member; and
d. a leg member (162) comprising a leg body (166) and at least one loading wheel (164); said leg body having a first end and a second end; said first end connected to said frame member (see Fig. 10); and said loading wheel connected to said second end.
Regarding claim 2, Ward further discloses that said frame member further comprising leg-receiving means (176, see Fig. 10a), so that said leg member (162) operable to extend from and retract to said means.
Regarding claims 3 and 20, Ward further discloses that said transportation module further comprising leg body immobilizing means (see Fig. 12 and ¶0044) configured to secure said leg member in substantially vertical position.
Regarding claim 4, Ward further discloses that said leg body (166) is length-adjustable (see ¶0042).
Regarding claim 5, Ward further discloses that said leg receiving means comprising a leg receiving assembly (176), said assembly comprising a pair of spaced apart linear slide rails (see Fig. 10) extending longitudinally, each of said rails having a medially facing track (see inwardly facing track groove in Fig. 10a); and wherein said first end of said leg body (166) mounted to said medially facing tracks by mounting means (174) having rotational axes (172); said tracks configured to translatably receive said leg body (see e.g., Fig. 11), so that said leg body operable to extend and retract from said tracks; and pivot about said rotational axes when extended.
Regarding claim 6, Ward further discloses that said immobilizing means (see Fig. 12) comprising at least one locking pin (e.g., rod 168) on said leg body (166) and at least one gravity latch (182) on said frame member, said gravity latch configured to releasably couple (via a notch, see ¶0044) to said pin (168) to secure said leg member in substantially vertical position.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 69, Ward further discloses that said lifting assembly (150) is a scissor lift (see Fig. 9) that is manual or electrically powered (see ¶0043).
Regarding claims 11-12, 15, 21, and 33, Ward further discloses that said transportation module further comprising a handle (see the upwardly turned handles shown in Figs. 10 and 11) connected to said rear end of said frame member and that said handle includes at least one user engagement portion (e.g., the slot/opening adjacent to reference character “178” in Fig. 10 allows a user to engage the device by grasping the handle).
Regarding claims 13-14, Ward further discloses that said frame member further comprising a platform member (e.g., plate 140 in Fig. 3) extending longitudinally between said front and rear ends of said frame member (i.e., the plate extends in the longitudinal direction and is located between the front and rear ends of the frame) and said platform member (40) comprising at least one aperture extending therethrough (see Fig. 3 showing two through holes/slots).
Regarding claim 19, Ward further discloses that said frame member (34) having a length l1, and said base member (12) having a length l2, and wherein l1 > l2 (see Fig. 1 showing the frame 34 is longer than the base 12).
Regarding claim 66, Ward discloses a method for loading a transportation system to an elevated surface (see Fig. 1), the method comprising:
providing the system comprising a transportation module (10), said transportation module comprising the structures discussed above with respect to claim 1;
advancing said transportation module (10) along a supporting surface toward an elevated surface edge (160) via said plurality of ground wheels of said base member;
lifting said frame member relative to said base member via said lifting assembly, so that said approach wheel is elevated to a height exceeding a height of the elevated surface (see Fig. 1 showing the wheel 50 above the elevated surface 160);
advancing said transportation module via said plurality of ground wheels until said base member is adjacent to an edge of the elevated surface and said approach wheel is positioned above the elevated surface (see Fig. 1);
extending said leg member (162, from position shown in Fig. 11 to extended position shown in Figs. 1 and 10); so that said leg body has achieved substantially vertical position relative to the supporting surface;
securing said leg member in a position substantially vertical to the supporting surface (via immobilizing means shown in Fig. 12);
lowering said frame member relative to said base member via said lifting assembly until said approach wheel engages the elevated surface (implicit to the use of a lifting assembly is that the assembly can be lowered/adjusted to a desired height);
lifting said base member (12) relative to said frame member (34) via said lifting assembly (150), so that said ground wheels (14) have substantially aligned with the elevated surface; advancing said transportation module via said approach wheel (50) and said loading wheel (164) until said ground wheels engaged the elevated surface; retracting said leg member (162; see ¶0042 describing the use of the rear approach wheels 162/164 to allow for the transition/loading onto the elevated surface).
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 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.
Claim 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward.
Regarding claim 70, Ward discloses a transportation system, comprising a transportation module (10), said module comprising:
a. a frame member (34) defining a longitudinal axis and having a front and a rear opposing ends, said frame member comprising: a platform member (e.g., plate 40), said platform member extending longitudinally between said front and rear ends; a pair of spaced apart linear slide rails (176), said slide rails mounted below said platform member and extending longitudinally, each of said slide rails having a medially facing track (see Figs. 10 and 10a); said slide rails having a front and a rear opposing portions; and wherein said front end comprising an overhang member (44, 49a, and leg of approach wheel 50) comprising an overhang portion (49a and leg “50”); said overhang portion having an upper end and a lower end; said upper end connected to said front portions of said slide rails (e.g., the overhang 44 and rails 176 are each a part of the overall frame member 34 and are interconnected together), said overhang portion protruding downwardly below said rails (see Fig. 1 showing the leg of wheel 50 extending below the rest of the frame 34, including its slide rails), and said lower end comprising at least one approach wheel (50); and wherein said rear end comprising a strut (180, see Fig. 12) and at least one user engagement portion (e.g., the controls 80), said strut mounted to said rear portions of said rails and protruding downwardly (see Fig. 1);
b. a base member (12) comprising a plurality of ground wheels, said wheels configured for engaging and rolling over a supporting surface;
c. a lifting assembly (150) connected between said base member and said frame member; said lifting assembly configured to lift and lower said frame member relative to said base member;
d. a leg member (162) comprising a leg body (166) and at least one loading wheel (164); said leg body having a first end and a second end; said loading wheel mounted to said second end of said leg body; and said first end of said leg body mounted to said medially facing tracks (see Fig. 10 and 10a) by a pair of laterally protruding pins having rotational axes (172); said tracks configured to translatably receive said leg body, so that said leg body operable to extend and retract from said medially facing tracks (see Figs. 11 and 10); and pivot about said rotational axes when extended; and
e. a handle (42) connected to said rear end of said frame member; wherein said leg member (162) further includes a of laterally protruding locking pin (168) and said strut includes a gravity latch (182), said latch is configured to releasably couple to said locking pin (via a notch, see ¶0044) to secure said leg member in substantially vertical position; and
wherein said lifting assembly (150) is powered (see ¶0043) and comprising a scissor lift (see Fig. 9)and an actuator (e.g., hydraulic cylinder from ¶0043) configured to be connected to a source of electrical power (e.g., battery from ¶0043).
While Ward discloses that a single latch is used as an immobilizing means, it does not specifically recite that two pins and two latches are used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use two sets of immobilizing latches for the rear legs assembly, since a mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to lock each of the two vertical legs separately to ensure a more rigid and/or secure support leg. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward in view of Bishop et al. (7,140,055).
Regarding claim 16, Ward does not disclose that any of its wheels have a shock absorbing feature.
Bishop teaches another scissor-type lifting transportation module (see e.g., Fig. 16) wherein the wheels (see Fig. 6) can include a shock absorbing assembly (216).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the module of Ward to have its wheels include shock absorbers as taught by Bishop to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., improving the ride/controllability of a wheeled vehicle by providing the wheels with a suspension/shock absorption system) to known devices (e.g., collapsible transport modules) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a module that more readily adapts to irregularities in the rolling surface).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward in view of Pizzi Spadoni (8,011,035).
Regarding claim 18, Ward does not disclose that its front approach wheel leg/overhang has a height that is greater than the height of the collapsed base and lifting assembly.
Pizzi Spadoni teaches another scissor-type lifting transportation module (see e.g., Fig. 2) wherein the approach wheels (5) are mounted upon an overhanging leg (4) that is coupled the frame via an angle-adjustable disk (3a) allowing the overhanging leg (4/5) to adjust its tilt angle (as shown in Fig. 8, the adjustment disk can allow for the collapsed base to be raised above the supporting surface 60).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the module of Ward to have its approach wheels mounted via an adjustment feature as taught by Pizzi Spadoni to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., providing more adjustability and customization to a vehicle’s wheel assembly to ensure better comfort/handling by avoiding extraneous shock) to known devices (e.g., collapsible transport modules having two sets of wheels) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a transport module that ensures only two sets of wheels engage the rolling surfaces during a loading/unloading process to avoid additional drag/shock associated with additional wheels engaging the rolling surface).
Claims 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward in view of McCoy (4,059,285).
Regarding claims 34-35, while Ward appears to disclose embodiments having its rear handle both flat (Fig. 2) and angled upwardly (Figs. 10 and 11), it does not disclose that the handle is angle adjustable or length adjustable.
McCoy teaches another rolling transport module including the well-known expedients of having its handle (45) being mounted to the frame to be both angle adjustable (at 52, see Fig. 5) and length adjustable (90, see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the module of Ward to have its handle both angle and length adjustable as taught by McCoy to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., providing size and shape adjustments to suit a given user) to known devices (e.g., wheeled transport modules having user-manipulated handles) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a handle that is more comfortable for different users).
Claims 38-50, 67-68, and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward in view of Myers et al (6,431,319).
Regarding claims 38 (as best understood), 43 and 67, Ward discloses a transportation module and method that has a top load-supporting surface (see Fig. 3) formed from plates (104 and 136-140) that support the transported load, but does not disclose that the load can be a cart.
Myers teaches another scissor-type (16) lifting transportation module (13, see Fig. 3) that supports a cart (12 generally; see Fig. 1) on top of a frame (14), the cart comprising a cart body (12 generally, see Figs. 1 and 2) and at least one front wheel (38); said cart body having a front and a rear opposing sections; said front wheel mounted to said front section of said cart body; said cart body configured to detachably couple to said frame member of said transportation module (see e.g., Col. 5, lines 14-30) via a transportation-module-to-cart coupling mechanism (33).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the module of Ward to include it within a rolling table/cart elevating system as taught by Myers to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., supporting different loads on a transportation module) to known devices (e.g., collapsible transport modules that carry a load upon a top surface) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a module incorporated into a system that transports a detachable load carrier/cart).
Regarding claim 39, Ward further discloses that said frame member further comprising leg-receiving means (176, see Fig. 10a), so that said leg member (162) operable to extend from and retract to said means.
Regarding claim 40, Ward further discloses that said leg receiving means comprising a leg receiving assembly (176), said assembly comprising a pair of spaced apart linear slide rails (see Fig. 10) extending longitudinally, each of said rails having a medially facing track (see inwardly facing track groove in Fig. 10a); and wherein said first end of said leg body (166) mounted to said medially facing tracks by mounting means (174) having rotational axes (172); said tracks configured to translatably receive said leg body (see e.g., Fig. 11), so that said leg body operable to extend and retract from said tracks; and pivot about said rotational axes when extended.
Regarding claim 41, Ward further discloses that said transportation module further comprising leg body immobilizing means (see Fig. 12 and ¶0044) configured to secure said leg member in substantially vertical position.
Regarding claim 42, Ward further discloses that said immobilizing means (see Fig. 12) comprising at least one locking pin (e.g., rod 168) on said leg body (166) and at least one gravity latch (182) on said frame member, said gravity latch configured to releasably couple (via a notch, see ¶0044) to said pin (168) to secure said leg member in substantially vertical position.
Regarding claim 43-44, Ward discloses that the transportation module includes a rear handle (e.g., upwardly angled handles in Fig. 10) and that the upper load-support surfaces of the transportation module includes plate members (e.g., plate 40), but does not disclose a coupling mechanism at the plates/platform members to secure the load.
Myers teaches that the detachable cart body (12) of the above Myers combination further comprises a cart base (e.g., the lower downwardly protruding wheel legs/overhangs, see Fig. 1) and a cart platform (e.g., the flat load carrying plate); said cart platform having a top surface and a bottom surface; said cart base connected to said bottom surface of said cart platform (see Fig. 1); and wherein the frame member (14; see Fig. 3) of said transportation module (13) further comprising a platform member (e.g., the top surfaces 24 collectively define a platform) extending longitudinally between said front and rear ends of said frame member; and wherein said cart platform (12) configured to detachably couple to said platform member (24/24) by a transportation module-to-cart coupling mechanism (20/22, see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the module of the Ward combination to include a cart-coupling platform on the transportation module as taught by Myers to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using a locking mechanism to couple a transportation module to its load) to known devices (e.g., collapsible transport modules that carry a load upon a top surface) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a module incorporated into a system that securely transports a detachable load carrier/cart).
Regarding claims 45, 47-48 and 71, in the above Ward/Myers combination, the transportation-to-cart coupling mechanism comprises: at least one mating element (the downwardly projecting supports for rollers 20, 22 mounted to the underside of the cart 12) having a first end and a second end; wherein said first end connected to said bottom surface of said cart platform; said second end protruding downwardly (e.g., at rollers 20/22); and said platform member/plate (24/24) of said transportation module (13) is configured to detachably mount to the cart body by having at least one groove (26) extending therethrough and configured to receive said mating element (rollers 20/22 roll within groove 26); so that said cart operable to couple to, and uncouple from said transportation module by guiding said mating element into and out of said groove; wherein the plates/platform (24) have a plurality of apertures (for lock 33) extending therethrough (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 46, the cart body (12) of the above Myers combination further comprises a cart base (e.g., the lower downwardly protruding wheel legs/overhangs, see Fig. 1) and a cart platform (e.g., the flat load carrying plate); said cart platform having a top surface and a bottom surface; said cart base connected to said bottom surface of said cart platform; and wherein said cart platform further comprising a first plurality of apertures extending therethrough (see Fig. 2 showing a plurality of through apertures/slots in the platform).
Regarding claims 49-50, Ward further discloses that said transportation module further comprising a handle (see the upwardly turned handles shown in Figs. 10 and 11) connected to said rear end of said frame member and that said handle includes at least one user engagement portion (e.g., the slot/opening adjacent to reference character “178” in Fig. 10 allows a user to engage the device by grasping the handle).
Regarding claim 67¸ as discussed above with respect to claim 66, Ward discloses a method for loading a transportation system to an elevated surface (see Fig. 1), the method comprising:
providing the system comprising a transportation module (10), said transportation module comprising the structures discussed above with respect to claim 1;
advancing said transportation module (10) and any load it is carrying along a supporting surface toward an elevated surface edge (160) via said plurality of ground wheels of said base member;
lifting said frame member relative to said base member via said lifting assembly, so that said approach wheel is elevated to a height exceeding a height of the elevated surface (see Fig. 1 showing the wheel 50 above the elevated surface 160);
advancing said transportation module via said plurality of ground wheels until said base member is adjacent to an edge of the elevated surface and said approach wheel is positioned above the elevated surface (see Fig. 1);
extending said leg member (162, from position shown in Fig. 11 to extended position shown in Figs. 1 and 10); so that said leg body has achieved substantially vertical position relative to the supporting surface;
securing said leg member in a position substantially vertical to the supporting surface (via immobilizing means shown in Fig. 12);
lowering said frame member relative to said base member via said lifting assembly until said approach wheel engages the elevated surface (implicit to the use of a lifting assembly is that the assembly can be lowered/adjusted to a desired height);
lifting said base member (12) relative to said frame member (34) via said lifting assembly (150), so that said ground wheels (14) have substantially aligned with the elevated surface; advancing said transportation module via said approach wheel (50) and said loading wheel (164) until said ground wheels engaged the elevated surface; retracting said leg member (162; see ¶0042 describing the use of the rear approach wheels 162/164 to allow for the transition/loading onto the elevated surface).
Regarding claim 68, Ward discloses that the upper load-support surfaces of the transportation module includes plate members (e.g., plate 40), but does not disclose a coupling mechanism at the plates/platform members to secure the load.
Myers teaches that the detachable cart body (12) of the above Myers combination further comprises a cart base (e.g., the lower downwardly protruding wheel legs/overhangs, see Fig. 1) and a cart platform (e.g., the flat load carrying plate); said cart platform having a top surface and a bottom surface; said cart base connected to said bottom surface of said cart platform (see Fig. 1); and wherein the frame member (14; see Fig. 3) of said transportation module (13) further comprising a plate (e.g., the top surfaces 24 collectively define a platform) configured to detachably mount to the cart body (12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the module of the Ward combination to include a cart-coupling platform on the transportation module as taught by Myers to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using a locking mechanism to couple a transportation module to its load) to known devices (e.g., collapsible transport modules that carry a load upon a top surface) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a module incorporated into a system that securely transports a detachable load carrier/cart).
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 303-297-4337. 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.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights