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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/27/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the system is configured to be removably coupled to the aerial lift” should be rewritten as “wherein the kit is configured to be removably coupled to the aerial lift”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7-9, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CMC (“CMC 72HD+ Arbor Pro Truck Mount”), henceforth referred to as CMC.
Regarding claim 1, CMC discloses a system comprising: a self-propelled aerial lift having a plurality of outriggers configured to support the aerial lift relative to a surface (Annotated Figure 2: aerial lift comprises a plurality of outriggers to support the aerial lift), a kit configured to be installed on a chassis of a truck, the kit comprising: a deck for supporting the self-propelled aerial lift (Annotated Figures 1 and 2: deck installed on chassis of a truck to support aerial lift), and a frame configured to be coupled beneath the deck and mounted onto the chassis of the truck (Annotated Figure 2: frame coupled to vehicle chassis underneath the deck), wherein the system is configured to be removably coupled to the aerial lift (Annotated Figures 1 and 2: aerial lift is removably coupled to the deck), and wherein a width of the frame and a width of the deck are each less than a width between rear tires of the chassis such that the deck and the frame are disposed between the rear tires of the chassis when the kit is installed on the chassis of the truck (Annotated Figure 1: frame and deck are narrower than, and disposed between the rear tires.
Regarding claim 4, CMC discloses the deck is configured to: support the self-propelled aerial lift during operation of the self-propelled aerial lift (Annotated Figure 3: deck supports aerial lift during operation), wherein operating the self-propelled aerial lift comprises elevating a compartment of the self-propelled aerial lift configured to accommodate an operator (Annotated Figure 5: operating aerial lift comprises elevating an operator compartment), permit the self-propelled aerial lift to remove itself from the deck, and permit the self-propelled aerial lift to load itself onto the deck (Figure 4: aerial lift can self-load and self-unload from the deck).
Regarding claim 7, CMC discloses the kit further comprises a headache bar configured to be coupled to a front end of the frame (Annotated Figure 7: headache bar coupled to front of the frame).
Regarding claim 8, CMC discloses the kit further comprises a rear bumper configured to be coupled to a rear end of the frame (Annotated Figure 8: rear bumper coupled to rear end of frame).
Regarding claim 9, the truck comprises a standard truck operable without a commercial driver's license (Annotated Figures 1-7: the truck pictured is a modified DODGE® brand consumer pick-up truck).
Regarding claim 15, CMC discloses the self-propelled aerial lift comprises a spider-style self-propelled aerial lift (Annotated Figure 2: aerial lift is a spider-style aerial lift).
Regarding claim 16, CMC discloses a method for use with a self-propelled aerial lift, the method comprising: moving one or more outriggers of the self-propelled aerial lift from a folded configuration to a deployed configuration (Annotated Figures 1 and 2: moving outriggers from a folded configuration to a deployed configuration), while the self-propelled aerial lift is supported by a deck of a system mounted on a chassis of a truck (Annotated Figure 2: deck installed on chassis of a truck to support aerial lift), wherein a distal end of each of the one or more outriggers at least partially supports the self-propelled aerial lift relative to a surface when the one or more outriggers are in the deployed configuration (Annotated Figure 2: deployed outriggers support aerial lift relative to a surface), operating the self-propelled aerial lift while the self-propelled aerial lift is supported by the deck of the system and the one or more outriggers are in the deployed configuration (Annotated Figure 3: operating aerial lift while outriggers are deployed and the aerial lift is supported on the deck), wherein operating the self-propelled aerial lift comprises elevating a compartment of the self-propelled aerial lift configured to accommodate an operator (Annotated Figure 5: operating aerial lift comprises elevating an operator compartment), and unloading the self-propelled aerial lift from the deck of the system by remotely elevating the self-propelled aerial lift from the deck of the system, such that the self-propelled aerial lift supports itself over the deck of the system and the deck can be removed from under the self-propelled aerial lift (Annotated Figures 2 and 4: aerial lift is remotely elevated from the deck, such that the deck can be removed from underneath the aerial lift).
Regarding claim 17, CMC discloses subsequent to unloading the self-propelled aerial lift from the deck of the system, remotely lowering the aerial lift onto the ground (Annotated Figures 4 and 6: aerial lift is lowered onto the ground), and moving the one or more outriggers of the aerial lift to the folded configuration (Annotated Figures 6 and 7: outriggers moved to the folded configuration).
Regarding claim 18, CMC discloses moving the self-propelled aerial lift via a track coupled to the self-propelled aerial lift (Annotated Figure 1: aerial lift comprises a track).
Regarding claim 19, CMC discloses a method for use with a self-propelled aerial lift, the method comprising: loading the self-propelled aerial lift onto a deck of a system coupled to a chassis of a truck, by: remotely elevating the self-propelled aerial lift such that the chassis of the truck can be positioned beneath the self-propelled aerial lift (Annotated Figure 2: aerial lift is remotely elevated from the deck, such that the deck can be positioned underneath the aerial lift), and lowering the self-propelled aerial lift onto the deck of the system such that the self- propelled aerial lift is supported by the deck of the system (Annotated Figure 1: aerial lift is supported by the deck), and operating the self-propelled aerial lift while the self-propelled aerial lift is supported by the deck of the system and one or more outriggers are in a deployed configuration where a distal end of each of the one or more outriggers at least partially supports the self-propelled aerial lift relative to a surface (Annotated Figure 2: operating aerial lift while the aerial lift is supported on the deck and outriggers are deployed, the distal ends of which support the aerial lift relative to a surface), wherein operating the self-propelled aerial lift comprises elevating a compartment of the self-propelled aerial lift configured to accommodate an operator (Annotated Figure 5: operating aerial lift comprises elevating an operator compartment).
Regarding claim 20, CMC discloses subsequent to loading the self-propelled aerial lift onto the deck of the system: moving the one or more outriggers of the self-propelled aerial lift from the deployed configuration to a folded configuration and transporting the self-propelled aerial lift with the truck (Annotated Figure 1: aerial lift is transported via the truck, with the outriggers in the folded configuration).
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 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.
Claims 2-3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CMC.
Regarding claim 2, CMC does not disclose a frame width a width of 34 inches or less. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CMC to have a frame width of 34 inches or less, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device , the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst,. Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of CMC would not operate differently with the claimed width, as the frame would still support the aerial lift. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating “In some embodiments, the frame 104 may have a width of approximately 34 inches” (Paragraph [0093]).
Regarding claim 3, CMC does not disclose a deck width a width of 34 inches or less. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CMC to have a deck width of 34 inches or less, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device , the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst,. Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of CMC would not operate differently with the claimed width, as the deck would still support the aerial lift. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating “In some embodiments, each of the first and second portions 102A- B of the deck 102 may have a width of approximately 34 inches” (Paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claim 5, CMC does not disclose the deck comprising first and second portions coupled together. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the deck comprise first and second portions, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. In the instant case, the device of CMC would not operate differently with the deck in first and second portions, as the deck would still support the aerial lift.
Regarding claim 6, CMC does not disclose the frame comprising first and second portions coupled together. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the frame comprise first and second portions, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. In the instant case, the device of CMC would not operate differently with the deck in first and second portions, as the frame would still support the aerial lift.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the “first and second plurality of bars coupled to respective opposing sides of the frame, wherein respective ones of the first and second plurality of bars extend in a direction substantially perpendicular to the width of the deck and a length of the deck” is not an obvious combination of prior art.
Cited Prior Art not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes Leusder (EP-1710198-B1), which discloses a self-propelled aerial lift.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J O'NEILL whose telephone number is (571)272-4752. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 7AM-4PM.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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.
/MATTHEW JAMES O'NEILL/Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614