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 . 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 for including extraneous written matter. See measurements “75” and “>75” in Figure 1. Written matter is reserved the specification, wherein the description of the drawings is used to describe the drawing views. See MPEP 608.01(F).
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.
Specification
The abstract is objected to for beginning with a phrase which can be implied. See “The invention provides” in line 1. The abstract is also objected to for referring to purported merits of the invention in lines 10-12. The abstract is further objected to for being greater than 150 words in length. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(i) for failing to separate claim elements by line indentation.
Claims 1-4 are objected to because at line 1 of each claim, “for tank-type container” should read --for a tank-type container--.
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 1-4 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 first recites “a top side frame” and “a gangway plate” as part of an intended use for a handrail linkage assembly in lines 1-2. However, claim 1 goes on to positively recited the top side frame in lines 3-4, in reciting “a connecting plate welded on the top side frame”. Claim 4 further positively recites both the top side frame and gangway plate in lines 2-3. It is therefore unclear from the claims whether Applicant is intending to claim the combination of the handrail linkage assembly, or the combination of the handrail linkage assembly, top side frame, and gangway plate.
For the purpose of this action, the Examiner has interpreted the claims as being directed to only the subcombination of the handrail linkage assembly, given the preamble of each claim. As such, limitations directed to structure not a part of the handrail linkage assembly are given limited patentable weight. Appropriate corrections should be made, such as the utilization of “configured to” language. For example, at line 3, amending “a connecting plate welded on the top side frame” to read “a connecting plate configured to be welded on the top side frame--.
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, 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 206395222 (Gu; the citations of which are taken from the attached translation) in view of US 4,848,818 (Smith) and US 2008/0193205 (Peng).
Regarding claim 1, Gu discloses a handrail linkage assembly for tank-type container (see Figure 1), provided between a top side frame (1) and a gangway plate (see “walkway” in paragraphs [0004], [0011], and [0012]), characterized in that: the handrail linkage assembly comprises
a connecting plate (2) welded on the top side frame (see Figure 1 and paragraphs [0007], [0019], [0020]),
a connecting shaft (3) is welded on the connecting plate (see Figure 1 and paragraphs [0007], [0019], [0020]the connecting shaft is provided longitudinally, the top outer side of the connecting shaft is covered with a shaft sleeve (5),
a handrail linkage (4) is welded on the shaft sleeve (see Figure 1 and paragraphs [0007], [0019], [0020]).
Gu does not expressly disclose a groove is provided in the circumferential direction at the position where the connecting shaft contacts the shaft sleeve, that is, the groove is provided on the outer circumferential surface of the connecting shaft,
a hole is opened on the shaft sleeve, and
a limit pin is welded inside the hole, one end of the limit pin is inserted into the groove, and the other end is located outside the shaft sleeve.
Smith teaches a linkage assembly (see Figures 3-5) comprising:
a groove (28) is provided in the circumferential direction at the position where a connecting shaft (12) contacts a shaft sleeve (14B), that is, the groove is provided on the outer circumferential surface of the shaft sleeve (see Figure 3),
a hole (40) is opened on the connecting shaft (see Figure 5), and
a limit pin (26) is positioned inside the hole, one end of the limit pin is inserted into the groove (see, e.g., Figure 3 where one end is inserted into the groove), and the other end is located outside the shaft sleeve (see Figure 4).
Smith teaches this structure allows for the linkage assembly to be rotated between set rotational limits (see Figures 3-5 and column 3, lines 54-63). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handrail linkage assembly of Gu to include the groove, hole, and limit pin structure, as taught in Smith, in order to allow for the linkage assembly to be rotated between set rotational limits.
The combination of Gu and Smith does not expressly teach the groove is provided on the outer circumferential surface of the connecting shaft, and the hole is opened on the shaft sleeve, and instead Smith teaches the opposite, where the groove is provided on the outer circumferential surface of the shaft sleeve, and the hole is opened on the connecting shaft.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handrail linkage assembly of the combination of Gu and Smith such that the groove is provided on the outer circumferential surface of the connecting shaft, and the hole is opened on the shaft sleeve, as such a modification involves only routine skill in the art via mere reversal of the essential working parts. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification based upon the relative dimensions of the parts to be connected (i.e. which part is hollow vs. solid, or which part would better withstand the forces imposed on the pin and/or groove).
The combination of Gu and Smith also does not expressly teach the limit pin is welded inside the hole.
Peng teaches welding a limit pin (23) inside a hole (212) in order to provide a permanent connection between the limit pin and a shaft sleeve (21; see Figures 4A-4C and paragraph [0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handrail linkage assembly of the combination of Gu and Smith, such that the limit pin is welded inside the hole, as taught in Peng, in order to provide a permanent connection between the limit pin and shaft sleeve.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Gu, Smith, and Peng teaches the handrail linkage assembly for tank-type container according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach the groove (28 of Smith) is a 90° arc groove.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (i.e. a linkage component with an arc groove) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Gu, Smith, and Peng such that the groove is a 90° arc groove, as such a modification involves only routine skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification depending upon the desired angle of the handrail in the stored and/or in-use configuration.
Regarding claim 3, Smith teaches the limit pin (26) can move within the groove (28; see Figures 3-5 and column 3, lines 54-63).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Gu, Smith, and Peng teaches the distance between the top side frame (1 of Gu) and the gangway plate (see “walkway” in paragraphs [0004], [0011], and [0012] of Gu) only needs to be more than 75mm (see NOTE below).
NOTE: As set forth in the 112 rejection above, limitations directed to structure not a part of the handrail linkage assembly are given limited patentable weight. Given the limitation of claim 4 depends wholly on structure not a part of the handrail linkage assembly itself, claim 4 amounts to an intended use recitation. Applicant is reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As such, the combination of Gu, Smith, and Peng (see especially Gu) is capable of providing for a distance between the top side frame and the gangway plate being more than 75mm.
In the interest of compact prosecution, in the event the claims are properly amended to claim the combination of the handrail linkage assembly, top side frame, and gangway plate, the following alternative rejection of claim 4 is made:
The combination of Gu, Smith, and Peng teaches the handrail linkage assembly for a tank-type container according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach the distance between the top side frame (1 of Gu) and the gangway plate (see “walkway” in paragraphs [0004], [0011], and [0012] of Gu) only needs to be more than 75mm.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (i.e. a distance between a top side frame and gangway plate) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Gu, Smith, and Peng such that the distance between the top side frame and the gangway plate only needs to be more than 75mm, as such a modification involves only routine skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification based upon the desired distance between the top side frame and gangway plate and/or safety regulations.
Conclusion
The prior art set forth in the attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Skroupa whose telephone number is (571)270-3220. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM – 3:30 PM 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, Amber Anderson can be reached on (571)270-5281. 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.
/Josh Skroupa/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
February 5, 2026