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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 9, & 15 recite the limitation "the center plate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “the center plate” is referring to a new center plate or “the plate” previously introduced in the claim. For purposes of examination, the examiner has interpreted the center plate to refer to “the plate” previously introduced in the claim.
Claims 2-8, 10-14, & 16-20 are dependent upon claims 1, 9, & 15 and inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection. See table below for dependencies.
Parent Claim
Dependent Claims
1
2-8
9
10-14
15
16-20
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “each leg has a length in a range of 90 to 120” (line 1) is indefinite as no units are provided. The lack of units makes the range indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). It is noted that the specification recites that “The leg 700 may have a total length in a range of 90mm to 120mm”. For purposes of examination, the examiner has interpreted the units to be in mm as described in the specification.
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 & 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Renfroe (US Patent 3,424,488 A).
Regarding claim 1, the lifting apparatus of Renfroe teaches a lift tool, comprising:
a plate (20, Fig 2); a plurality of arms (14 + 16 + 18) connected to and extending outward from the center plate (Fig 1), wherein each arm comprises a through-hole (Col. 3 ln 45-50; Fig 1); and a plurality of hooks (44 + 42, Fig 2), each hook comprising: a leg (44) extending through the through-hole of a respective arm, and comprising a first end and a second end (Fig 2); and a foot (42) connected to the second end (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 3, Renfroe teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Renfroe further teaches each arm comprises a first end connected to the plate and a second end, and wherein the through-hole is adjacent to the second end (Annotated Fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
579
918
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Renfroe teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Renfroe further teaches the leg is linear and perpendicular to the arm (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 5, Renfroe teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Renfroe further teaches the foot is perpendicular to the leg (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 6, Renfroe teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Renfroe further teaches the leg and foot form an L-shape (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 7, Renfroe teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Renfroe further teaches the hook is movably coupled to the arm (Col. 3 ln 45-50; Fig 1, Fig 2).
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 (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 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renfroe.
Regarding claim 2, Renfroe teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Renfroe does not suggest at least 6 arms. However, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378). In this case, the additional arms serve the same purpose of coupling to hooks to grab an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the lifting apparatus of Renfroe by adding at least 2 more arms to grab the object at more locations for a more secure fitment.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renfroe in view of Borrowman (US Patent 3,559,371 A).
Regarding claim 8, Renfroe teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Renfroe does not teach handles. However, the lifting device of Borrowman teaches a first handle (96) and a second handle (92) coupled to the body of the lifting device (Fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the lifting apparatus of Renfroe by adding handles to the body to allow the user to grasp the lifting device and grasped objects (Col. 3 ln 34-35).
The combination does not teach a first handle coupled to a first and second arm from the plurality of arms and a second handle coupled to a third and fourth arm from the plurality of arms. However, mere rearrangement of parts is held unpatentable if shifting the position would not have modified the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 378). In this case, coupling the first handle and second handle to the top of the plurality of the arms does not impact the user operation of the handles to lift the lifting apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the lifting apparatus of the combination by placing the handles on a plurality of arms to disperse the lifting force across the device for better stabilization during use.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renfroe in view of Collins (PGPub US 2013/0025538 A1)
Regarding claim 9, the lifting apparatus of Renfroe teaches a lift tool, comprising:
a plate (20, Fig 2);
a plurality of arms (14 + 16 + 18) connected to and extending outward from the center plate (Fig 1), wherein each arm comprises a through-hole (Col. 3 ln 45-50; Fig 1); and a plurality of hooks (44 + 42, Fig 2), each hook comprising:
a leg (44) extending through the through-hole of a respective arm, and comprising a first end and a second end (Fig 2); and
a foot (42) connected to the second end (Fig 2).
Renfroe does not teach a stand. However, the substrate processing stand of Collins teaches
a stand (124, Fig 2A-B), comprising:
a base (165 + 167) comprising a first surface and a second surface (Annotated Fig 2B, Annotated Fig 4);
a first plurality of supports (166), wherein each support comprises a first end connected to the first surface of the base and a second end extending away from the base (Fig 4);
a support ring (123) comprising a first surface and a second surface, wherein the second surface is connected to the second end of the first plurality of supports (Fig 2A, 2B); and
a secondary support structure comprising a disk (170) with a slot (304, Fig 3B) and a second plurality of supports (212) connecting the disk to the first surface of the base (Fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the lifting apparatus of Renfroe with the addition of the support structure of Collins to support an object ([0005]).
PNG
media_image2.png
457
813
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
498
779
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 9 as described above, Renfroe further teaches the leg and foot form an L-shape (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 9 as described above, Renfroe further teaches the hook is movably coupled to the arm (Col. 3 ln 45-50; Fig 1, Fig 2).
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 9 as described above, the combination does not suggest at least 6 arms. However, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378). In this case, the additional arms serve the same purpose of holding hooks to grab an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the lifting apparatus of the combination by adding at least 2 more arms to grab the object at more locations for a more secure fitment.
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 9 as described above, Collins further teaches the first plurality of supports (166) has a first length, and the second plurality of supports (212) has a second length that is less than the first length (Annotated Fig 4 above).
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 9 as described above, the combination does not teach a length for each leg and width for each foot. However, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions that would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 220 USPQ 777). In this case, the limitation length of each leg and width of each foot does not perform differently than the prior art device in rotating the foot under the object to be grasped and lifting said object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to optimize the length of each leg and width of each foot to better grasp a specific object.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renfroe in view of Dean (US Patent 3,976,321 A) & Ashby (US Patent 7,237,815 B2).
Regarding claim 15, the lifting apparatus of Renfroe teaches a lift tool, comprising:
a plate (20, Fig 2);
a plurality of arms (14 + 16 + 18) extending radially outward from the center plate (Fig 1), wherein each arm comprises a through-hole (Col. 3 ln 45-50; Fig 1);
a plurality of hooks (44 + 42, Fig 2), each hook comprising:
a leg (44) extending through the through-hole of a respective arm, and comprising a first end and a second end (Fig 2); and
a foot (42) connected to the second end (Fig 2).
Renfroe does not teach a threaded portion on the first end of the leg. However, the lifting apparatus of Dean teaches a first end of a leg (14, Fig 1) comprising a threaded portion (nut 24, Fig 2; Col. 2 ln 23-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the lifting apparatus of Renfroe with a threaded portion at the first end of the leg to securely mount the leg (Col. 2 ln 23-24).
The lifting apparatus of modified Renfroe is silent on the details of the material of the plate. However, the lifting apparatus of Ashby teaches the lifting apparatus fabricated from steel, a metal material (Col. 5 ln 21-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to fabricate the lifting apparatus of Renfroe with a plate made of metal material to increase strength and heat resistance.
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 15 as described above, the combination does not teach a length for each leg and width for each foot. However, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably district from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 220 USPQ 777). In this case, the length of each leg and width of each foot does not perform differently than the prior art device in rotating the foot under the object to be grasped and lifting said object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to optimize the length of each leg and width of each foot to improve fitment of a specific object.
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 15 as described above, Dean further teaches the hook is rotatably coupled to the arm at the first end by a threaded fastener (24, Fig 2; Col. 2 ln 23-24).
Regarding claim 18, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 15 as described above, Renfroe further teaches the leg and foot form an L-shape (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 15 as described above, Renfroe further teaches a fastener (24) coupled to a center of the plate (20, Fig 1; Col. 3 ln 11-14).
Regarding claim 20, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 15 as described above, Renfroe further teaches the leg is linear and perpendicular to the arm (Fig 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent 5,169,271 A discloses a lifting apparatus with pivotable support rods with hook ends.
US Patent 6,579,053 B1 discloses a lifting apparatus with rotating fingers with hook ends to grab.
US Patent 2,857,194 A discloses a lifting apparatus with beams with rotating hook ends to grab materials.
US Patent 2,946,618 A discloses a lifting apparatus with rotating legs with hooks to grab and a central attachment point.
US Patent 6,560,949 B2 discloses a lifting apparatus with rotating fingers with hook ends.
US Patent 4,975,018 A discloses a lifting apparatus with rotating fingers with hook ends.
US Patent 6,082,080 A discloses a lifting apparatus with rotating fingers with hook ends.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RALPH D WILKINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6183. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 4, M-Fr.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/RALPH D WILKINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights