Detailed Action1
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: switching device in claim 1.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Thus, the switching device is interpreted as a winch, or as a platform that is configured to be raised and lowered to be capable of aligning with any of the three compartments.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of an informality: “a set of annular closed chain” should be changed to “a set of annular closed chains”. Appropriate correction is required.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
While original claims are generally viewed as part of the written description, “issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.” See MPEP 2163(1)(A). In addition, “The specification must still be examined to assess whether an originally-filed claim has adequate support in the written disclosure and/or the drawings.” See MPEP 2163(I). In this case, as detailed below, claim 1 is not described with sufficient particularity and/or contradicts the originally filed specification and drawings, thus one of skill in the art would not recognize that the applicant had possession of claim 1 at the time of filing.
Claim 1 recites the switching device can drive the first unit and the second unit to alternately appear in the first compartment, the second compartment and the third compartment. This limitation is interpreted as the switching device capable of driving the units into the first, second, or third compartments. However, Applicant’s originally filed specification and drawings do not teach this. The originally filed specification and drawings teach the switching device driving the units to be aligned with one of the compartments—then the units are subsequently positioned in the compartments via the push-pull manipulator and feeding tray that extends outward from the compartments (see figures and ¶ [0036] & [0041] of Applicant’s originally filed specification). Claim 2 also recites the push-pull manipulator pulling and pushing the units into and out of the compartments. Thus, one of skill in the art would not recognize that the applicant had possession of the above limitation of claim 1.
Claims 2-7 are rejected for depending from claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 1-7 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what elements are required because it is unclear when the preamble ends and the body of the claim begins. The examiner recommends amending the claim so that the end of the preamble recites: “wherein the three-dimensional quick replacement machine comprises: …”.
Claim 1 also recites the terms “quick” and “quickly”. The terms “quick” and “quickly” are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 further recites the switching device being “next to” the three-dimensional frame. However, claims 3-6 state that the switching device moves the units in the three-dimensional frame. Applicant’s originally filed figures 1-6, 8, and 10 also illustrate the switching device on or within the frame, thus adding to the confusion. Thus, it’s unclear if the switching unit is next to the frame, on the frame, or within the frame in order to move the units within the frame. For purposes of examination, a switching unit on, within, or next to the frame will read on the claims.
Claim 3 recites the two sets of hoisting machines are respectively disposed on two sides of an upper end of the three-dimensional frame. In light of Applicant’s originally filed disclosure, it is unclear if two sets of hoisting machines are disposed on each side for a total of four sets (or eight hoisting machines), if two sets are required wherein a first side has a first set and the other side has a second set (for a total of four hoisting machines), or if each hoisting machine is described as a set so that only two hoisting machines are required with one on each side. In light of Applicant’s originally filed figures, which illustrate only two hoisting machines (and with Applicant’s originally filed disclosure appearing to use the word “set” incorrectly), this limitation will be met if two hoisting machines are taught with one on each side. Claim 3 also recites “each set of hoisting machines is provided with a hoisting hook”. This is consistent with the set of hoisting machines being interpreted a single hoisting machine.
Claim 4 recites two sets of lifting hydraulic cylinders are disposed on two sides of the three- dimensional frame. In light of Applicant’s originally filed disclosure, it is unclear if two sets of cylinders are disposed on each side for a total of four sets (or eight cylinders), if two sets are required wherein a first side has a first set and the other side has a second set (for a total of four cylinders), or if each hydraulic cylinder is described as a set so that only two cylinders are required with one on each side. In light of Applicant’s originally filed figures, which illustrate only two hydraulic cylinders (and with Applicant’s originally filed disclosure appearing to use the word “set” incorrectly), this limitation will be met if two hydraulic cylinders are taught with one on each side.
Claim 5 recites a set of chains, then recites “the chain”. It is unclear if “the chain” is referring to the set of chains or one of the sets of chains.
Claim 5 also recites drive the sliding block to support the first unit or the second unit to move up and down in the three- dimensional frame. This limitation is awkwardly written so as to be confusing. The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “drive the sliding block to move the first unit or the second unit up and down in the three- dimensional frame.”
Claim 5 further recites a set of annular closed chain is disposed on each of two sides of the three-dimensional frame. In light of Applicant’s originally filed disclosure, it is unclear if two sets are required wherein a first side has a first set and the other side has a second set (for a total of four chains), or if each chain is described as a set so that only two chains are required with one on each side. In light of Applicant’s originally filed figures, which illustrate only two chains (and with Applicant’s originally filed disclosure appearing to use the word “set” incorrectly), this limitation will be met if two chains are taught with one on each side.
Claims 2 and 6-7 are rejected for depending from claim 1.
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 obvious3 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-110340735-A (“Dalian”) in view of USPGPub No. 2003/0118427 (“Kojo”).
Regarding claim 1, Dalian teaches a three-dimensional quick replacement machine for a production line (page 1, wherein all references to the Dalian specification refer to the machine translation submitted herewith), the three-dimensional quick replacement machine being adapted for quickly changing specifications of forming units in the production line and comprising a first unit (2) and a second unit (3) (fig. 1, page 1), the first unit and the second unit having different processing specifications and both needing to be installed on a forming base (4) to participate in production operations of the production line (fig. 1, page 1), wherein the three-dimensional quick replacement machine is further provided with … a first compartment (formed by elements 4, 41 & structure that rails 1 are on), and the forming base (4) is disposed in the first compartment (fig. 1, the first compartment being the area delimited by base 4, element 41, and the frame/structure comprising rails 1 therein).
Claim 1 further recites a switching device. Dalian teaches a few interchangeable switching devices (see last full paragraph, i.e. “the technical features mentioned in the various embodiments can be combined in any manner as long as there is not structural conflict.”). One switching device comprises a platform that is configured to be moved vertically to raise or lower the units (see figs. 12-15, pages 5-6). Thus, it would be obvious and predictable to use this switching device of figures 12-15 in the embodiment of figure 1.
Dalian fails to explicitly teach a three-dimensional frame having the first, second, and third compartments thereon, wherein the switching device is disposed next to the three-dimensional frame. However, this would be obvious in view of Kojo.
Kojo is directed to changing machine units of a roll system (¶ [0001]-[0002]). Kojo teaches a production area/compartment 2 and a store 3 comprising a plurality of compartments 31 located one above another to hold rolls that are not being used currently (fig. 1, ¶ [0015] & [0018]). The production area/compartment 2 and the store 3 are each located on upright/frame parts (e.g. 23) interconnected by a base frame part (fig. 1). Kojo teaches a changing apparatus 1 that removes a roll from the first compartment, and raises or lowers the roll to be aligned with a compartment in the roll store (fig. 1, ¶ [0021]-[0024]).
In this case, each of Dalian and Kojo are directed to changing a machine unit in a production line. While Dalian only teaches two units with different specifications, one of skill in the art appreciates that production lines taught by Dalian can have more than two specifications. Kojo teaches a known way to store a plurality of different machine units, i.e. by providing a store having a plurality of compartments arranged on top of each other. Thus, in order to be able to store and switch additional units with different specifications, it would be obvious to provide an upright frame portion having a plurality of compartments arranged on top of each other, and wherein the upright frame portion is interconnected with a frame of the first compartment via a base frame member. It would be predictable to increase the height of the switching unit 7 of Dalian so that it can transfer the units between the first compartment 4/41 and the plurality of compartments in the store because the switching unit of Kojo is relatively tall, and one of skill in the art appreciates that vertical lifts can be formed with a relatively large height. It would further be predictable to move the units horizontally to the compartments in the store as both Dalian and Kojo teach means of doing so (e.g. means 1 of Dalian, and means 15 of Kojo).
Given the above modification, Dalian et al. teach a first compartment 4, and second and third compartments that are located on the upright frame portion, so that each of the first, second and third compartments are on the frame (either upright frame or base frame). Further, the switching device 7 is located next to the frame that comprises the compartments (see fig. 1 of Dalian, wherein fig. 1 was modified to have a plurality of compartments above first compartment 4/41), or on the base frame as taught by Kojo .
Claim 1 further recites the switching device can drive the first unit and the second unit to alternately appear in the first compartment, the second compartment and the third compartment, so as to alternately install the first unit and the second unit on the forming base to achieve replacement of the specifications in the production line. As detailed above, the switching device 7 of Dalian is increased in height so that it can align the platform(s) with the first, second, or third compartment in order for the units to subsequently be moved to any one of the first, second, or third compartment.
Claim 7 recites the forming base is provided with positioning pins, and both of the first unit and the second unit are provided with positioning holes; positions of the first unit and the second unit relative to the forming base can be accurately positioned through matching of the positioning pins with the positioning holes, thereby ensuring processing accuracy of the production line. Dalian teaches the base 4 having a plurality of positioning devices 41 to best position the units on the base (fig. 1, page 4). The positioning devices can be bolts (page 4), which reads on positioning pins. Thus, it would be obvious and predictable to accurately position the units on the forming base by providing the forming base with bolts that are configured to engage bolt holes in the units.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalian et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN-110606341-A (“CN341”).
Regarding claim 2, Dalian et al. fail to explicitly teach each of the second compartment and the third compartment is provided with a push-pull manipulator, and the push-pull manipulator is provided with a push- pull hook at an end; each of the first unit and the second unit is further provided with a load- bearing hook for matching with the push-pull hook at an end, and by means of matching of the push-pull hook with the load-bearing hook, the first unit and the second unit can be pulled into or pushed out of the second compartment and the third compartment by the push-pull manipulator. However, this would have been obvious in view of CN341.
CN341 is directed to a device for moving parts of a production line (page 1, wherein all references to the CN341 specification refer to the machine translation submitted herewith). CN341 teaches a linear actuator that pushes or pulls a unit along a rail 1 (figs. 6-10, pages 5-6). The actuator is connected to the unit via respective hooks 31 & 32, wherein hook 31 is attached to the end of a shaft 21 of the linear actuator (fig. 6). After the hooks 31 & 32 are engaged, the shaft 21 can be extended or retracted to push or pull the unit along rail 1 (figs. 6-10, pages 5-6).
In this case, Dalian teaches rails 1 that move the units between the compartments and the switching device 7 (fig. 1, page 4). Dalian teaches that the units can be moved along rails 1 via a variety of mechanisms, e.g. the units can comprise a pulley that cooperates with the rail 1 so the pulley can be driven by a driving device (page 4), or the rail and pulley can be replaced by a linear slide (page 4). CN341 teaches a known and predictable means for transporting a machine unit horizontally along a rail, i.e. by a linear actuator having a hook that engages a corresponding hook on the machine unit. Since Dalian has rails 1 between the compartment and the switching device, it would be predictable for the linear actuator of CN341 to push or pull the units from the switching device to the compartments. Thus, it would be obvious to replace the translating means of Dalian so that the units are moved horizontally on the rails between the switching device and each compartment by a linear actuator as taught by CN341.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalian et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 5,281,077 (“Phillips”).
Regarding claim 3, Dalian et al. fail to explicitly teach the switching device is formed as a hoisting mechanism, which is provided with two sets of hoisting machines, the two sets of hoisting machines are respectively disposed on two sides of an upper end of the three-dimensional frame, and each set of hoisting machines is provided with a hoisting hook; each of the first unit and the second unit is provided with a hoisting hole for matching with the hoisting hook, and the two sets of hoisting machines can hoist the first unit or the second unit to move up and down in the three- dimensional frame. This would be obvious in view of Phillips.
Phillips is directed to a hoisting apparatus configured to lift machines (fig. 1, col. 1 lines 15-30). The hoisting apparatus comprises an elongated beam 32 with a hoist assembly/machine 46/56/58/62 located at each end of the beam 32 (figs. 1a & 1b, cols. 3-4 lines 58-22). Each hoist assembly has a hook 62 configured to engage a hoisting hole in rings 64 located at each end of the machine to be lifted (figs. 1a &1b, col. 6 lines 1-63).
In this case, Dalian et al. teach lifting units vertically between the three compartments. One of skill in the art appreciates that there are a variety of lifting devices that can lift units between a plurality of vertical positions. Phillips teaches that it is known and predictable to lift objects vertically with a pair of winches/hoisting machines positioned on opposite sides of the objects and having hooks to connect to hoisting holes on the object. Thus, it would be obvious to substitute the lifting means of Dalian with a pair of hoisting machines/winches connected to a beam at an upper end of the frame of the machine, wherein the winches are on opposite sides of the frame, and wherein each winch as a hook that engages respective hoisting holes on the units.
Assuming arguendo that the claim requires more of the hoisting machines, merely duplicating parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). In this case, adding more hoisting machines on each side of the frame will produce the expected result of allowing greater loads to be lifted. Thus, adding additional hoisting machines on each side of the frame is not patentable.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalian et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 6,186,280 (“Healy”).
Regarding claim 4, Dalian fails to explicitly teach the switching device is formed as a lifting hydraulic cylinder structure, two sets of lifting hydraulic cylinders are disposed on two sides of the three- dimensional frame, and an end of each of the lifting hydraulic cylinders is installed with a sliding block; the sliding block is coupled with the three-dimensional frame through a linear sliding rail, the sliding block can support the first unit or the second unit, and under the action of the lifting hydraulic cylinder, the sliding block can drive the first unit or the second unit to move up and down in the three-dimensional frame. However, this would have been obvious in view of Healy.
Healy is directed to a lift assembly for lifting heavy machines (col. 1 lines 5-8). The lift assembly comprises a platform 116 that is slidably coupled to four vertical posts 112 (fig. 1, col. 3 lines 29-50). The platform 116 can be raised via mechanical or hydraulic means, wherein the embodiment of Healy teaches an hydraulic cylinder in each of the posts 112 to cause the platform 116 to be raised or lowered to a predetermined height (fig. 1, cols. 3-4 lines 51-13).
In this case, Dalian teaches a platform either next to or within the frame that moves vertically in order to move units between the three compartments (see figs. 12-15 of Dalian). One of skill in the art appreciates that there are a variety of lifting devices that can lift a platform between a plurality of vertical positions (Healy teaches that one of skill in the art that there are known mechanical and hydraulic means). Healy teaches a predictable way to lift a platform between known heights, i.e. providing four vertical posts at the corners of the platform, wherein each post has an hydraulic cylinder so that the hydraulic cylinders are configured to simultaneously raise or lower the platform. Thus, it would be obvious to substitute the lifting means of Dalian with four posts (i.e. linear sliding rails) at respective corners of the platform (i.e. sliding block) and on two sides of the frame, and wherein each post has an hydraulic cylinder so that the hydraulic cylinders are configured to simultaneously raise or lower the platform to a desired height within the frame.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalian et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 5,971,108 (“Yu”).
Regarding claim 5, Dalian fails to explicitly teach the switching device is formed as a chain structure, wherein a set of annular closed chain is disposed on each of two sides of the three-dimensional frame, a driver is disposed at a bottom of the chain, and a sliding block is further disposed on the chain; the sliding block is coupled with the three-dimensional frame through a linear sliding rail and can support the first unit or the second unit, and the driver can drive the chain to rotate and drive the sliding block to support the first unit or the second unit to move up and down in the three- dimensional frame. However, this would have been obvious in view of Yu.
Yu is directed to a vertically moving load carrier (col. 1 lines 5-15). The platform 21 has retainer blocks 2 at ends thereof that slide within vertical posts 1 (figs. 1-3, col. 1 lines 15-31 & col. 2 lines 25-44). The retainers 2 are secured to an annular transmission belt 14, which can be a chain (figs. 2-3, col. 1 lines 16-31 & col. 3 lines 12-16). The chains 14 engage with sprockets 11 & 12, wherein one of the sprockets 11 is driven by electric motor 13 to rotate the chains to lift or lower the platform 21 (figs. 1-3, col. 1 lines 16-31 & col. 2 lines 30-44).
In this case, Dalian teaches a platform either next to or within the frame that moves vertically in order to move units between the three compartments (see figs. 12-15 of Dalian). One of skill in the art appreciates that there are a variety of lifting devices that can lift a platform between a plurality of vertical positions. Yu teaches that it is known and predictable to lift objects vertically with a platform connected to a pair of annular chains. Yu also teaches the chains extending between a pair of sprockets wherein it is predictable for either one of the sprockets to be driven by a motor that rotates the chain and lifts the platform. Thus, it would be obvious to substitute the lifting means of Dalian with a pair of pillars/linear sliding rails that are on opposite sides of the frame, and wherein each pillar has an annular chain connected to the platform/sliding block, wherein each chain extends around upper and lower sprockets, and wherein electric motors are connected to the lower sprockets to rotate the sprocket and chain to lift the platform.
Assuming arguendo that the claim requires more of the lifting mechanisms/chains, merely duplicating parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). In this case, adding more pillars with annular chains on each side of the frame will produce the expected result of allowing greater loads to be lifted. Thus, adding additional pillars/chains on each side of the frame is not patentable.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalian et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2020/0238505 (“Parks”).
Regarding claim 6, Dalian teaches recites a platform, and the platform can support the first unit or the second unit; … the platform can drive the first unit or the second unit to move up and down in the three-dimensional frame (see figs. 12-15 of Dalian).
Dalian fails to explicitly teach the switching device is formed as a scissor lift structure, and a scissor lift is disposed on one side of the three-dimensional frame, the scissor lift is provided with the platform and drives the platform. However, this would have been obvious in view of Parks.
Parks is directed to a scissor lift that has multiple platforms 130/150 capable of lifting objects vertically (figs. 1-10, ¶ [0020], [0022] & [0029]). The scissor lift is part of an autonomous robot that has wheels, thus providing flexibility in positioning and using the lifting device (figs. 1-10, ¶ [0001]-[0003] & [0023]).
In this case, Dalian teaches a platform that moves vertically in order to move units between the three compartments (see figs. 12-15 of Dalian). One of skill in the art appreciates that there are a variety of lifting devices that can lift a platform between a plurality of vertical positions. Parks teaches that it is known and predictable to lift objects vertically with a platform connected to a scissor lift. Parks also teaches that the scissor lift can be autonomous and be movable. Thus, it would be obvious to substitute the lifting means of Dalian with a scissor lift that can autonomously lift a platform between the plurality of compartments of Dalian.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Thomas Hong (571-272-0993). 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”