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 Objections
Claims 2-10 and 13-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 2, “tapered segment” should read --a tapered segment--.
Claims 2-10, 13-15 and 17-20 “wherein” should read --,wherein--.
Claim 14, “the each” should read --each--.
Claim 16, line 9, “a length from” should read --a length--.
Claim 16, last line, “the footprint” should read --a footprint--.
Claim 16, line 13, “the top” should read --a top--.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.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a torque strut” in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “a torque strut” is earlier recited in the claim. Therefore this limitation should read --the torque strut--.
Claims 2-10 are rejected due to dependency on rejected claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a frustrum” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “a frustrum” is earlier recited in claim 3, to which claim 8 depends on. Therefore “a frustrum” in claim 8 should read --the frustrum--.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a torque strut” in last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “a torque strut” is earlier recited in the claim. Therefore this limitation should read --the torque strut--.
Claims 12-15 are rejected due to dependency on rejected claim 11.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the notch” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “notch” is not earlier introduced. For the purpose of this examination “the notch” is interpreted to be --a notch--.
Claims 17-20 are rejected due to dependency on rejected claim 16.
Claims 4, 5, 6 and 9 recite “the X direction” and “the Y direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. Claim 1 recites “X axis” and “Y axis” and it is not clear if applicant intended to claim --the X axis” and --the Y axis--.
Claim 8 recites “a frustrum having a length in the direction”. It is not clear which direction or axis is claimed. For the purpose of this examination and based on Figs. of the invention this limitation is interpreted to be --the X axis--.
Claim 16 recites “the X direction” and “the Y direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. Claim 16 earlier recites “an X axis” and “a Y axis” and it is not clear if applicant intended to claim --the X axis” and --the Y axis--.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a torque strut” in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “a torque strut” is earlier recited in the claim. Therefore this limitation should read --the torque strut--.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a torque strut” in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “a torque strut” is earlier recited in claim 16. Therefore this limitation should read --the torque strut--.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Guardline (GB 2032385 A).
Claim 1 recites an apparatus that is used for supporting torque struts of an aircraft. More limiting the features and relationship between the aircraft and the lift and support apparatus mount to mere components associated with the intended use of the recited apparatus. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (anticipation rejection affirmed based on Board’s factual finding that the reference dispenser (a spout disclosed as useful for purposes such as dispensing oil from an oil can) would be capable of dispensing popcorn in the manner set forth in appellant’s claim 1 (a dispensing top for dispensing popcorn in a specified manner)) and cases cited therein. See also MPEP § 2112 - MPEP § 2112.02. Thus, the prior art only needs to teach the recited components of the apparatus. Guardline teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) an apparatus having an X axis and a Y axis perpendicular thereto that is capable of intended use of supporting a torque strut of an aircraft for installation and removal (this depends of size and weight and material of the aircraft), the apparatus comprising: a mobile platform defining an XY plane and a vertical Z direction perpendicular thereto, the platform having a generally isosceles triangular shape with two equal isosceles sides and a notched side with a notch for accommodating an operator therein (this is intended use of the device and an operator can enter into the notch for moving the apparatus or maintaining it) and connecting the two isosceles sides, the two isosceles sides convergently having an included angle ranging from 40 degrees to 70 degrees (Fig. 3 shows angle a is approximately 70 degrees) and diverging as the notched side is approached; and a jack (single acting cylinder 15) disposed on the platform; the jack is capable of vertically raising and lowering objects including an aircraft’s torque strut; and at least one cradle (cradle comprises curved plates 12 and arms 7) disposed on the jack; the cradle is capable of receiving certain size objects thereon including a torque strut.
PNG
media_image1.png
1323
1107
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Guardline teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the platform has an isosceles frustro-triangular shape (see thickness t).
Regarding claim 3, Guardline teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the two isosceles sides converge proximate a frustrum having a respective castor (caster 3) and comprising spaced apart two casters (casters 2) oppositely disposed proximate the notched side of the platform.
Regarding claim 4, Guardline teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) each isosceles side comprises tapered segment and a respective parallel segment connected thereto at a vertex, the parallel segment being parallel the Y direction and intercepting the notched side and the tapered segment extending from the frustrum to the vertex, whereby the platform comprises two tapered segments which converge as the frustrum is approached and two spaced apart parallel segments.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guardline in view of Rich et al. (US 9139214 B2) hereinafter Rich.
Regarding claim 10, the notch is straight similar to the first embodiment of the invention shown in Fig. 3A and is not convergently tapered towards the frustrum as shown in second embodiment of the invention (Fig. 3B).
Rich teaches a lift device with convergently tapered outriggers “to accommodate different types and/or sizes of loads or items to be raised, lowered and/or moved” (see par. 26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to make outrigger/notch of Rich adjustable. Doing so would make it capable of accommodating different types and/or sizes of loads or items to be raised, lowered and/or moved.
Claims 5-9, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guardline.
Regarding claims 5-7 and 9, Guardline is silent regarding size of the notch, notched side and parallel segment.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change overall size of the lifting apparatus based on type and weight of the workpiece/load, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is general recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Guardline teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the platform has an isosceles frustro-triangular shape (see thickness t) with a frustrum; but is silent regarding size of the frustrum.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change overall size of the lifting apparatus based on type and weight of the workpiece/load, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is general recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 11 recites an apparatus that is used for supporting torque struts of an aircraft. More limiting the features and relationship between the aircraft and the lift and support apparatus mount to mere components associated with the intended use of the recited apparatus. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (anticipation rejection affirmed based on Board’s factual finding that the reference dispenser (a spout disclosed as useful for purposes such as dispensing oil from an oil can) would be capable of dispensing popcorn in the manner set forth in appellant’s claim 1 (a dispensing top for dispensing popcorn in a specified manner)) and cases cited therein. See also MPEP § 2112 - MPEP § 2112.02. Thus, the prior art only needs to teach the recited components of the apparatus. Guardline teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) an apparatus having an X axis and a Y axis perpendicular thereto that is capable of intended use of supporting a torque strut of an aircraft for installation and removal (this depends of size and weight and material of the aircraft), the apparatus comprising: a mobile platform defining an XY plane and a vertical Z direction perpendicular thereto, the platform having a generally isosceles triangular shape with two equal isosceles sides convergently defining a frustrum therebetween and an opposed notched side divergently connecting the two isosceles sides, the frustrum having an included angle (Fig. 3 shows angle a is approximately 70 degrees), the isosceles sides each having a respective segment (parallel segment) parallel to the Y axis and intercepting the notched side of the platform and a respective tapered segment connected to the parallel segment at a vertex and extending therefrom to the frustrum;a jack (single acting cylinder 15) capable of vertically raising and lowering objects including an aircraft’s torque strut; and two spaced apart cradles (cradle comprises two spaced apart curved plates 12 and two spaced apart arms 7) disposed on the jack; the cradle is capable of receiving certain size objects thereon including a torque strut.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change overall size of the lifting apparatus including frustrum angle based on type and weight of the workpiece/load, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is general recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, Guardline teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the jack is a bottle jack (bottle jack with single acting cylinder 15 and piston rod 16).
Claims 12-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guardline in view of Betcher et al. (US 5605207 A) hereinafter Betcher.
Regarding claims 12-14, cradles of Guardline is connected to only one bottle jack and the cradles are not independently adjustable in the Z direction and are not connected to the top of the stage.
Betcher teaches a support and lifting apparatus with two independently adjustable cradles in the Z direction connected to the top of the stage (par. 11: “The cradle assemblies 74 and 76 can then be independently raised using the bottle jack assemblies 92 and 94 to a raised position”); each of the two spaced apart cradles is threaded and held in place with a respective jam nut (jam nut is inside the bottle jack engaging with external threads of threaded shaft 102) against the platform.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use two bottle jacks for independently raising or lowering the cradles of Guardline. Doing so would make it possible to support the load in a tilted position as well as flat position.
Claim 16 recites an apparatus that is used for supporting torque struts of an aircraft. More limiting the features and relationship between the aircraft and the lift and support apparatus mount to mere components associated with the intended use of the recited apparatus. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (anticipation rejection affirmed based on Board’s factual finding that the reference dispenser (a spout disclosed as useful for purposes such as dispensing oil from an oil can) would be capable of dispensing popcorn in the manner set forth in appellant’s claim 1 (a dispensing top for dispensing popcorn in a specified manner)) and cases cited therein. See also MPEP § 2112 - MPEP § 2112.02. Thus, the prior art only needs to teach the recited components of the apparatus. Guardline teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) an apparatus having an X axis and a Y axis perpendicular thereto that is capable of intended use of supporting a torque strut of an aircraft for installation and removal (this depends of size and weight and material of the aircraft), the apparatus comprising: a frustro-triangular mobile platform defining an XY plane and a vertical Z direction perpendicular thereto, the platform having a generally isosceles triangular shape with two equal isosceles sides and a notched side connecting the two isosceles sides, a notch (Guardline does not teach the claimed size of the notch) for accommodating an operator therein (this is intended use of the device and an operator can enter into the notch for moving the apparatus or maintaining it), the two isosceles sides forming an included angle ranging from 40 degrees to 70 degrees (Fig. 3 shows angle a is approximately 70 degrees); and one jack (single acting cylinder 15) disposed on the platform; the jack is capable of vertically raising and lowering objects including an aircraft’s torque strut; and at least one cradle (cradle comprises curved plates 12 and arms 7) disposed on the jack; the cradle is capable of receiving certain size objects thereon including a torque strut.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change overall size of the lifting apparatus based on type and weight of the workpiece/load, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is general recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Betcher teaches a support and lifting apparatus with two independently adjustable jacks independently operable to raise and lower an object (par. 11: “The cradle assemblies 74 and 76 can then be independently raised using the bottle jack assemblies 92 and 94 to a raised position”); the two spaced apart jacks comprise mutually identical manually actuated bottle jacks.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use two bottle jacks for independently raising or lowering the cradles of Guardline. Doing so would make it possible to support the load in a tilted position as well as flat position.
Regarding claims 17-18, Betcher teaches the two independently adjustable jacks independently operable to raise and lower an object (par. 11: “The cradle assemblies 74 and 76 can then be independently raised using the bottle jack assemblies 92 and 94 to a raised position”); the two spaced apart jacks comprise mutually identical manually actuated bottle jacks.
Regarding claims 19-20, Betcher is silent regarding load capacity and extended size of the jacks.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change overall size and capacity of the lifting apparatus based on type and weight of the workpiece/load, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is general recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peters et al. (US 3850441 A) is a hand truck with isosceles triangular shape platform, two casters (11, 12) on base leg of the triangle and one caster (30) on the apex of the triangle.
PNG
media_image2.png
587
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Krug (US 20130299757 A1) teaches a lawn mower lift with isosceles triangular shape platform (equal side legs 13 and base 17).
PNG
media_image3.png
744
564
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHDI H NEJAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4pm EST.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
MAHDI H. NEJAD
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MAHDI H NEJAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723