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 .
Claim Interpretation
The claim term “collapsed configuration” is discussed here, as it is of issue. Specifically, Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks of 03/18/26, pages 8-9) suggest that the term “collapsed configuration” denotes several things which are not present in claim 1 itself. For the sake of clarity, the Office notes that the word “collapsed” is used more generically, and in many contexts. For example, an online dictionary (thefreedictionary.com) gives one definition to collapse as “To cause to fold, break down, or fall down or inward.” It seems that the word “collapsible” could refer both to the purposeful folding/contraction of elements, as discussed by Applicant (IBID), or to describe other situations, such as something being taken apart, or something falling down (e.g. a collapsed bridge, building, etc.). One example is the use of the phrase “collapsible tent,” which refers either to a pop-up style (per Applicant’s definition), or one which is taken apart into constituent pieces. It is proposed that the term “collapsed configuration” is significantly broader than Applicant seems to intend, and cannot be afforded such a narrow interpretation. The phrase “configured to be convertible between a collapsed configuration and an expanded configuration” is interpreted as meaning the support frame is capable of being made smaller in one configuration than in another configuration. A prior art reference need not necessarily teach “telescoping, pivoting or hinged components,” as per Applicant’s disclosure, as such has not been claimed.
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 1-6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 2364986 A (hereinafter “McGinty”).
Regarding claim 1 McGinty discloses a trolley for transporting (capable of transporting; i.e. this is a functional limitation) one or more stud tensioner devices in a nuclear plant, the trolley comprising:
a support frame (S; see annotated figure below) for supporting (capable of supporting; i.e. this is a functional limitation) a stud tensioner device of the one or more stud tensioner devices;
PNG
media_image1.png
513
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of wheels (19) rotatably mounted to the support frame (S); and
a handling device (30) mounted to the support frame (S) so as to be movable with respect to the support frame (S), the handling device (30) configured to engage and move the stud tensioner device relative to the support frame (S);
wherein the support frame (S) is configured to be convertible between (is capable of being converted between; i.e. this is a functional recitation) a collapsed configuration (for example, with elements 13/13’/15 removed and placed on support 20; see page 4 lines 12-22, which illustrates this capability) and an expanded configuration (e.g. fig. 1), and the trolley (fig. 1) is moveable via the plurality of wheels (19) in the collapsed configuration (for example, with elements 13/13’/15 removed and placed on support 20). It is noted that while McGinty does not discuss a configuration with only elements 13/13’/15 removed, McGinty discloses a crane capable of being set up in the claimed configuration (e.g. see page 4 lines 12-22, which illustrates this capability).
Regarding claim 2 McGinty discloses the above trolley, and further discloses wherein the support frame (S) comprises an elongate gantry (15) to which the handling device (30) is movably mounted so as to be movable along a longitudinal axis of the elongate gantry (15).
Regarding claim 3 McGinty discloses the above trolley, and further discloses wherein the elongate gantry (15) extends substantially horizontally.
Regarding claim 4 McGinty discloses the above trolley, and further discloses wherein the support frame (S) comprises a base (20) for supporting (capable of supporting; i.e. this is a functional limitation) the stud tensioner device thereon, the elongate gantry (15) disposed above, and spaced from the base (20).
Regarding claim 5 McGinty discloses the above trolley, and further discloses wherein each of the plurality of wheels (19) are rotatably mounted to the base (20).
Regarding claim 6 McGinty discloses the above trolley, and further discloses wherein the handling device (30) comprises a winch, the winch comprising an engagement member (see fig. 3; i.e. or else the load 44 could not be engaged) for engaging (capable of supporting; i.e. this is a functional limitation) the stud tensioner device and moving the stud tensioner device along a substantially vertical axis.
Regarding claim 20 McGinty discloses the above trolley, and further discloses wherein the trolley (of fig. 1) is moveable via the plurality of wheels (19) in the expanded configuration (see fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 8) that McGinty fails to teach a collapsible support frame, because the support frame (S, above) of McGinty can be disassembled; this is allegedly different than being collapsible. The argument is unpersuasive. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the word “collapsible” could refer to folding, or braking down, or completely breaking apart. McGinty teaches a support frame which is capable of being broken down into various configurations, and thus is considered “collapsible.”
Applicant argues (page 9) that McGinty fails to teach a collapsed configuration in which the wheels can move the trolley. This is not persuasive. The claim only requires a trolley which is capable of being collapsed from one configuration to another, and in the collapsed configuration the wheels could move the trolley. This is taught by McGinty. McGinty shows a trolley (fig. 1) which could be set up in many partial, or collapsed, configurations (see bottom paragraph on page 4). For instance, an operator could take off only the top bar (15), or disassembly all but the bottom (19-21, 33). As the claim only requires the capability of being set up in this configuration, it is immaterial that McGinty does not explicitly spell out the exact configuration (insofar as the machine could be at least partially collapsed and pushed via wheels 19).
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant is encouraged to claim the specific components which provide the inventive collapsing feature, and not simply the function thereof.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
/N.L.A/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights