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 .
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, “a hinged end cap” of claim 5, “a drum brake” of claim 18, and “a spring-loaded arm” of claim 19 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 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a load” in line 2 should be corrected as --[[a]]the load--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a load” in line 2 should be corrected as --[[a]]the load--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a load” in line 3 should be corrected as --[[a]]the load--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a drum” in line 2 should be corrected as --[[a]]the drum--. 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.
Claim 1-19 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 1: Claim 1 recites “at least one drive unit” in line 4 and “a drive unit” in line 8. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite because claim 1 recites ”at least two drive units” in line 2 and it is not clear whether “at least one drive unit” in line 4 and “a drive unit” in line 8 refer to one of the at least two drive units or if they are separate and distinct from each other. For examination purposes, “at least one drive unit” and “a drive unit” are interpreted as --at least one of the two drive units-- and --[[a]]the drive unit--respectively.
Claim 6: Claim 6 recites “it is moved” in line 3. However, the term, “it” renders the scope of the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, “it is moved” is interpreted as --[[it]]the load is moved--.
Claim 9: Claim 9 recites “a plurality of recesses” in line 2. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. Claim 7 (which upon claim 9 depends) recites “at least one recess” in line 2. It is not clear whether “a plurality of recesses” in claim 9 comprises “at least one recess” or if they are separate and distinct from each other. For examination purposes, “a plurality of recesses” is interpreted as --a plurality of the recesses--.
Claim 10:
Claim 10 recites “a locking member which can be secured over the or each recess” in line 2. However, the phrase, “over the or each recess” renders the scope of the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, upon reviewing claim 7 (which upon claim 10 depends) and claim 10, “which can be secured over the or each recess” is interpreted as --which can be secured over the [[or each]] recess--.
Claim 10 recites “a recess” in line 3. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. Claim 7 (which upon claim 10 depends) recites “at least one recess” in line 2. It is not clear whether “a recess” in claim 10 refers to “at least one recess” or if they are separate and distinct from each other. For examination purposes, “a recess” is interpreted as --[[a]]the at least one recess--.
Claims 2-5, 7-8, 11-19 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Woerner (5,307,880).
Regarding claim 1, Woerner (‘880) discloses a transporter apparatus (fig1) comprising:
a chassis 12 (col.4 line23) mounted upon at least two drive units 16 (col.4 line27), the drive units 16 being arranged in parallel and defining a space 18 (col.4 line28) therebetween (fig1);
a motor 20 (col. 4 line33) providing drive to at least one of the drive units 16 (col.4 lines36-39); and
a lifting mechanism adapted to receive a load and move the load between the ground and a lifted position (fig2, dotted line), the lifting mechanism comprising:
first and second guide bars 30 (col.4 lines52-53), each guide bar 30 having a first end attached to the drive unit 16 (fig2, via the chassis 12) and a second end attached to the chassis 12 (fig2);
first and second lifting carriages 60 (col.5 lines40-41), each lifting carriage 60 slidingly (col.5 lines40-41) mounted on a respective guide bar 30 and adapted to receive a portion of the load (col.5 lines40-51, fig2); and
first and second hydraulic rams 40 (col.4 line64), each ram 40 having a first end attached to the chassis 12 (fig2) and a second end attached to a respective lifting carriage 60 (via the guide bars 30).
Regarding claim 2¸ Woerner discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least two drive units 16 are continuous track units (fig1).
Regarding claim 3¸ Woerner discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the load is a drum which can rotate about a drum axle 68 (col.5 lines47-48), wherein each of the first and second lifting carriages 60 is adapted to receive a respective end of the drum axle 68 (fig2, col.5 lines44-49).
Regarding claim 4¸ Woerner discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a drum axle 68 (col.5 lines47-48) for inserting into a drum (col.5 lines50-51, fig2) such that the drum may rotate about the drum axle 68, wherein each of the first and second lifting carriages 60 is adapted to receive an end of the drum axle 68 (col.5 lines47-51, fig2).
Regarding claim 6¸ Woerner discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the guide bars 30 are inclined relative to the vertical (figs1-2), such that when the load is lifted by the lifting carriages 60 the load is moved upwards and towards a centre of gravity of the apparatus (figs1-2).
Regarding claim 7, Woerner discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein each lifting carriage 60 includes at least one recess 66(col.5 line47, figs1-2) adapted to receive portion of the load (fig2).
Regarding claim 8, Woerner discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein each recess 66 includes a bearing (an exterior surface on the recess 66 which engages the part of the load) located therein.
Regarding claim 11, Woerner discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein each lifting carriage 60 includes one or more fixing apertures 66 (fig2, col.5 line47) adapted to receive a part of the load (fig2).
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(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woerner (5,307,880).
Regarding claim 9, Woerner discloses the apparatus of claim 7, however, does not explicitly disclose a use of a plurality of the recesses 66. It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Woerner to use a plurality of the recesses, for the purpose of receiving a plurality of loads.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woerner (5,307,880) in view of Borntrager et al (US 2010/0183412 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Woerner discloses the apparatus of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose a use of a remote control. Borntrager et al (‘412) teaches a use of a remote control (para[0011],[0060]) adapted to control a transporter apparatus (abstract, para[0011],[0060]) so that an operator can use the apparatus while standing some distance away from the apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Woerner to use a remote control, as taught by Borntrager et al, so that an operator can use the apparatus while standing some distance away from the apparatus.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woerner (5,307,880) in view of Zamboni (4,084,763).
Regarding claim 18, Woerner discloses the apparatus of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose a use of a drum brake. Zamboni (‘763) teaches a use of a drum brake 76 (col.4 lines66-68) to apply a drag of a desired amount against the drum during rotating of the drum (col.4 lines66-68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Woerner to use a drum brake, as taught by Zamboni, to apply a drag of a desired amount against the drum during rotating of the drum (col.4 lines66-68).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 12-16, and 19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if all of intervening claims 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.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The subject matter of the claim(s) could either not be found or was not suggested in the prior art of record.
The subject matter of claim 5 not found was a use of a hinged end cap adapted to close over and secured an end of the drum axle; in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 5 and any of its intervening claims of the instant invention.
The subject matter of claim 10 not found was a use of a locking member which can be secured over the recess; in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 10 and any of its intervening claims of the instant invention.
The subject matter of claim 13 not found was a use of a plurality of roller members and at least one guide roller pivotably connected to the attachment arms; in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 13 and any of its intervening claims of the instant invention.
Claims 14-16 depend on claim 13.
The subject matter of claim 19 not found was a use of a spring-loaded arm for the drum brake; in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 19 and any of its intervening claims of the instant invention.
None of the prior arts of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, teaches or renders obvious the allowable subject matter of the instant invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm ET.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723