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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species (Species B), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 30, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species B in the reply filed on January 30, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the subject matter between Species A and B are sufficiently related that a thorough search for the subject matter of one species would necessarily encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining species, and there is thus no serious burden placed on the examiner to examiner the entire set of claims. This is not found persuasive because a primary form of evidence of a burden on the examiner is a showing of divergent subject matter. Such is the case here. The elected species (Species A) comprises a single cylinder, while the non-elected species (Species B) comprises two cylinders. Because the Specification does not teach an embodiment in which the invention comprises both a single cylinder and two cylinders, the examiner would have to perform separate searches for each of Species A and B. Having to perform a search for each embodiment would indeed be a burden on the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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(s) is/are:
“support part” recited in claim 1
“flow control arrangement” recited in claim 1
“lowering operating element” recited in claim 1
“locking means” recited in claim 4
“pump operating element” recited in claim 11
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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.
The limitation “support part” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The claim limitation uses a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“part”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“for supporting a load”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “support part” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a table, a support plate, or a support frame,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraph 72), or a functional equivalent thereof.
The limitation “flow control arrangement” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The claim limitation uses a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“arrangement”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (‘which in a blocking state is configured to block fluid flow from the elevating work chamber via the second fluid conduit into the fluid reservoir and in a release state is configured to allow fluid flow from the elevating work chamber via the second fluid conduit into the fluid reservoir,’ see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection below).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “flow control arrangement” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a switchable valve or differential pressure valve,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraphs 30 – 31 and 62 – 63), or a functional equivalent thereof.
The limitation “lowering operating element” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The claim limitation uses a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“element”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“configured to switch the flow control arrangement between the blocking state and the release state”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “lowering operating element” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘foot pedal,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraphs 27 and 58), or a functional equivalent thereof.
The limitation “flow control arrangement” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The claim limitation uses a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“arrangement”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“which in a blocking state blocks fluid flow from the elevating work chamber via the second fluid conduit into the fluid reservoir and in a release state allows fluid flow from the elevating work chamber via the second fluid conduit into the fluid reservoir”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “flow control arrangement” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a switchable valve or differential pressure valve,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraphs 30 – 31 and 62 – 63), or a functional equivalent thereof.
The limitation “locking means” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The claim limitation uses the term “means.”
(B) The term “means” is modified by functional language (“for locking relative rotation of the support part about a longitudinal axis of the piston rod relative to the mobile frame in a locking state and for allowing relative rotation of the support part about the longitudinal axis of the piston rod relative to the mobile frame in a release state”).
(C) The term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The limitation “pump operating element” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The claim limitation uses a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“element”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“configured for operation by means of muscle power for actuating the auxiliary pump”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “pump operating element” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘foot pedal,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraphs 27 and 58), or a functional equivalent thereof.
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 – 8 and 11 – 18 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 flow control arrangement ... which in a blocking state blocks fluid flow from the elevating work chamber ... and in a release state allows fluid flow from the elevating work chamber ...” in the sixth paragraph of the body of the claim. Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is directed towards “a lifting device.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the ‘flow control arrangement’ to either ‘block fluid flow’ or ‘allow fluid flow,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of operating a lifting device,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘flow control arrangement,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘lifting device’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a flow control arrangement ... which in a blocking state is configured to block fluid flow from the elevating work chamber ... and in a release state is configured to allow fluid flow from the elevating work chamber ...”
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the locking means automatically assumes the locking state ...” Examiner notes that the claim is directed towards a “lifting device.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the ‘locking means’ to ‘automatically assume the locking state,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of operating a lifting device,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘locking means,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘lifting device’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “wherein the locking means is configured to automatically assume the locking state ...”
Claims 6 and 16 each recites the limitation “wherein the locking means automatically assumes the release state ...” Examiner notes that the claims are directed towards a “lifting device.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to positively require the ‘locking means’ to ‘automatically assume the release state,’ such that the claims are directed towards ‘a method of operating a lifting device,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitations to recite functional language of the ‘locking means,’ such that the claims are directed towards the ‘lifting device’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitations as “wherein the locking means is configured to automatically assume the release state ...”
Claims 7 and 17 each recites the limitation “a fluid reservoir.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to refer to the “fluid reservoir” previously set forth in claim 1, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a second ‘fluid reservoir’ which is separate and independent from the ‘fluid reservoir’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitations so as to refer to the ‘fluid reservoir’ previously set forth.
Claims 7 and 17 each further recites the limitation “wherein the fluid reservoir is an intermediate space between the fluid reservoir and the cylinder housing.” It is generally unclear as to how the ‘fluid reservoir’ can be an “intermediate space” between the ‘cylinder housing’ and itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitations as “wherein the fluid reservoir is an intermediate space between a fluid container and the cylinder housing.”
As explained above, the claim limitation “locking means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Examiner recognizes that the Specification teaches the “locking means” as comprising a “locking body” (paragraph 72). However, it is the position of the Examiner that “locking body” is in sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. This can be found for several reasons. First, “body” is insufficient structure for performing the claimed function of “for locking relative rotation of the support part about a longitudinal axis of the piston rod relative to the mobile frame in a locking state and for allowing relative rotation of the support part about the longitudinal axis of the piston rod relative to the mobile frame in a release state.” Secondly, it is the position of the Examiner that “body” is a generic placeholder for “means,” such that “locking body” itself also invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Likewise, Specification does not teach sufficient structure for the “locking body” to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 4 – 6 and 16 – 18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As explained above, the limitation “locking means” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As further explained above, the Specification fails to teach sufficient structure for the limitation to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the limitation is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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(s) 1, 2, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (Chinese Patent Publication Number CN 209872220 U, cited in IDS) in view of Prowse (International Publication Number WO 2018/195564 A1).
As to claim 1, Guo teaches a lifting device (figure 1; machine translation, page 1, ‘Technical Field’) comprising: a fluid cylinder comprising a cylinder housing, an elevating work chamber in the cylinder housing, a piston and a piston rod, which is fixed with an inner end to the piston and which projects with an outer end from the cylinder housing (figure 1, element 1 being the ‘fluid cylinder,’ element 14 being the ‘cylinder housing,’ lower portion of element 11 below element 13 being the ‘elevating work chamber,’ element 132 being the ‘piston,’ element 131 being the ‘piston rod,’ see below; machine translation, page 6, third – fourth full paragraphs, page 7, second paragraph, and page 8, second paragraph). Examiner notes that Guo teaches fluid entering the ‘first cavity’ (element 11) and pushing the piston upwards (machine translation, page 6, fourth full paragraph). Therefore, the portion of the ‘first cavity’ which is below the piston in this upwards position is the ‘elevating work chamber’ (figure 1, see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
521
1068
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Guo further teaches that the piston adjoins the elevating work chamber (figure 1, element 132 and lower portion of element 11, see above) and wherein the piston and the piston rod are mounted movably in a lifting direction (figure 1, elements 132 and 131; machine translation, page 6, fourth full paragraph), a fluid reservoir (figure 1, element 12 being the ‘fluid reservoir’; machine translation, page 6, fourth full paragraph), a first fluid conduit and a second fluid conduit, each fluidly connecting the fluid reservoir and the elevating work chamber (figure 1, element 52 being the ‘first fluid conduit’ and element 51 being the ‘second fluid conduit’; machine translation, page 6, fourth full paragraph). Examiner notes that this can be found because Guo expressly teaches that the first and second conduits are connected to the fluid reservoir and the elevating work chamber either directly, or through a ‘single acting vane pump’ (element 3) (figure 1, elements 52, 51, 11, 12, and 3; machine translation, page 6, fourth full paragraph). Guo further teaches a rotatably drivable main pump in the first fluid conduit, which is configured to supply fluid from the fluid reservoir via the first fluid conduit into the elevating work chamber in a driven state (figure 1, element 3 being the ‘rotatably drivable main pump’; machine translation, page 6, fourth full paragraph – page 7, second paragraph), a tool interface drivingly connected to the main pump and configured to be connected to a rotatably drivable hand tool to drive the main pump (figure 3, element 4 being the ‘tool interface’; machine translation, page 7, fourth – fifth paragraphs). Examiner notes that this can be found because Guo teaches that the ‘tool interface’ is connected to a ‘foot pedal assembly’ (element 2) which drives the main pump (figures 1 – 4, elements 4, 2, and 3; machine translation, page 7, fourth – fifth paragraphs). It is the position of the Examiner that the ‘foot pedal assembly’ may reasonably be considered a ‘rotatably drivable hand tool’ because the ‘foot pedal assembly’ is operated by rotating about an axis and may be operated by hand, rather than by foot. Guo further teaches a flow control arrangement, comprising a ball, in the second fluid conduit, which in a blocking state is configured to block fluid flow from the elevating work chamber via the second fluid conduit into the fluid reservoir and in a release state is configured to allow fluid flow from the elevating work chamber via the second fluid conduit into the fluid reservoir (figures 1 and 6, element 532 being the ‘flow control arrangement’; machine translation, page 7, second – third paragraphs). Examiner notes that this can be found because Guo teaches a ‘first check valve’ being located in the second fluid conduit and operating to block or release fluid from the elevating work chamber (figures 1 and 6, element 53; machine translation, page 7, second – third paragraphs), wherein the ‘first check valve’ comprises a ball and a spring (figure 6, element 532 being a ‘ball’ and element 531 being the ‘spring’; machine translation, page 7, third paragraph). It is the position of the Examiner that the ball itself is the ‘flow control arrangement.’ This is because when the ball is position in the second fluid conduit, the ball itself acts to block the fluid flow and when the ball is positioned away from the second fluid conduit, the ball allows the fluid flow (machine translation, page 7, second – third paragraphs). Because the ball itself causes the fluid flow to be either blocked or allowed, the ball itself may reasonably be considered the ‘flow control arrangement.’ Guo further teaches a lowering operating element connected to the flow control arrangement and configured to switch the flow control arrangement between the blocking state and the release state (figures 1 and 6, element 531 being the ‘lowering operating element’; machine translation, page 7, second – third paragraphs). This can be found because, again, Guo teaches the ‘first check valve’ as comprising the ball and a spring (figure 6, element 531 being the ‘spring’; machine translation, page 7, third paragraph), wherein the ball is considered to be the ‘flow control arrangement’ and the spring is configured to move the ball into or out of the blocking and release state (figure 6, element 531; machine translation, page 7, second – third paragraphs). Therefore, the spring is being reasonably interpreted as the ‘lowering operating element.’
However, while Guo teaches the lifting device comprising a piston rod whose outer end projects from the cylinder housing (figure 1, upper end of element 131 being the ‘outer end’ and element 14), Guo does not teach a support part for supporting a load. Prowse teaches a lifting device (abstract) comprising: a fluid cylinder comprising a cylinder housing, an elevating work chamber in the cylinder housing, a piston and a piston rod, which is fixed with an inner end to the piston and which projects with an outer end from the cylinder housing, wherein the piston and piston rod are mounted movably in a lifting direction (figures 1 and 2, element 58 being the ‘cylinder housing,’ element 42 being the ‘piston,’ and element 4 being the ‘piston rod,’ see below; page 5, third and fourth paragraphs).
PNG
media_image2.png
592
731
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prowse further teaches that the piston rod further has a support part, comprising a support plate, for supporting a load (figures 1 and 2, element 2 being the ‘support part’ and ‘support plate’; page 5, third and fourth paragraphs). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the piston rod of Guo with the support part of Prowse, because one skilled in the art would have recognized that the support part provides the benefit of more securely connecting the lifting device to the workpiece to be lifted by the lifting device.
As to claim 2, Guo teaches that the lifting device is formed as a mobile unit such that it can be moved and positioned at a desired location on a ground by a single person (figure 2, machine translation, page 1, last paragraph).
As to claim 7, Guo further teaches that the fluid reservoir surrounds the cylinder housing (figure 1, elements 12 and 14), wherein the fluid reservoir is an intermediate space between a fluid container and the cylinder housing (figure 1, elements 12 and 14, see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
357
765
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 8, Guo teaches that the fluid cylinder is a single-acting cylinder (figure 1, element 1; machine translation, page 6, fourth full paragraph – last paragraph).
Claim(s) 3 and 13 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Prowse as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hong (U.S. Patent Number 5,975,496).
As to claim 3, Guo teaches a mobile frame (figures 1 and 2, element 5 being the ‘mobile frame’; machine translation, page 6, third full paragraph). However, Guo does not teach the mobile frame having a plurality of castors. Hong teaches a lifting device comprising a mobile frame (figure 4, elements 12 and 18 being the ‘mobile frame’; column 3, lines 25 – 32), wherein the mobile frame has a plurality of castors, such that the lifting device is configured as a rollable unit (figure 4, elements 24 being the ‘castors’; column 3, lines 25 – 32). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the mobile frame of Guo with the castors of Hong, because Hong teaches that castors provide the benefit of increasing the mobility of the lifting device (column 3, lines 29 – 32).
As to claim 13, for the purposes of this claim, Examiner is interpreting Guo such that the ‘first check valve’ of Guo is the ‘flow control element’ (figures 1 and 6, element 53 being the ‘flow control element’; machine translation, page 7, second – third paragraphs) and the Guo does not teach a ‘lowering operating element.’ Hong taches a lifting device (figure 4, element 10 being the ‘lifting device’; column 3, lines 24 – 27) comprising: a flow control arrangement, comprising a switchable valve, in a fluid conduit, which in a blocking state blocks fluid flow through the fluid conduit and in a release state allows fluid flow through the fluid conduit (figure 8, element 88 being the ‘switchable valve,’ and element 90 being the ‘fluid conduit’; column 3, lines 55 – 58 and column 4, lines 34 – 36); and a lowering operating element, which one skilled in the art would understand to comprise a foot pedal, connected to the flow control arrangement and configured to switch the flow control arrangement between the blocking state and the release state (figures 4 and 8, see below.)
PNG
media_image4.png
448
632
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the first check valve of Guo for the switchable valve and lowering operating element of Hong, because one skilled in the art would have appreciated that either the first check valve Guo or the switchable valve and lowering operating element of Hong would provide the benefit of blocking or allowing a fluid flow through the second conduit, as desired by Guo.
As to claim 14, the discussion of claim 13 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 15, the discussion of claim 13 is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunau (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0009283) in view of Guo.
As to claim 1, Kunau teaches a lifting device (abstract) comprising: a fluid cylinder comprising a cylinder housing and a piston rod, which projects with an outer end from the cylinder housing and has there a support part, comprising a support frame, for supporting a load, wherein the piston rod is mounted movably in a lifting direction (figures 1 and 2, element 101 being the ‘fluid cylinder,’ element 115 being the ‘cylinder housing,’ element 103 being the ‘piston rod,’ and element 107 being the ‘support part’; paragraph 10), a fluid reservoir (figure 2, element 129 being the ‘fluid reservoir’; paragraph 11); a first fluid conduit and a second fluid conduit, each fluidically connecting the fluid reservoir to the fluid cylinder (figure 2, element 125-2 being the ‘first fluid conduit’ and element 125-4 being the ‘second fluid conduit’; paragraphs 22 – 23 and 33), a rotatably drivable main pump in the first fluid conduit, which is configured to supply fluid from the fluid reservoir via the first fluid conduit into the fluid cylinder in a driven state (figure 2, element 123 being the ‘rotatably drivable main pump’; paragraph 11). Examiner notes that element 123 of Kunau may reasonably be considered to be a “rotatably drivable” main pump because element 123 is operated by ‘rotating’ a handle (figures 1 and 2, element 109 being the ‘handle’; paragraph 11). Kunau further teaches a tool interface drivingly connected to the main pump and configured to be connected to a rotatably drivable hand tool to drive the main pump (figure 2, element 137 being the ‘tool interface’; paragraph 13).
However, while Kunau teaches the fluid cylinder, wherein the piston rod is movable within the cylinder housing in the lifting direction, Kunau does not teach the mechanics of the fluid cylinder which allows the piston rod to be movable within the cylinder housing. Guo teaches a lifting device (figure 1; machine translation, page 1, ‘Technical Field’) comprising: a fluid cylinder comprising a cylinder housing, a piston rod which projects with an outer end from the cylinder housing (figure 1, element 1 being the ‘fluid cylinder,’ element 14 being the ‘cylinder housing,’ and element 131 being the ‘piston rod’; machine translation, page 6, third – fourth full paragraphs, page 7, second paragraph, and page 8, second paragraph). Guo further teaches that the fluid cylinder further includes an elevating work chamber in the cylinder housing and a piston, wherein the piston rod is fixed with an inner end to the piston, wherein the piston adjoins the elevating work chamber (figure 1, lower portion of element 11 below element 13 being the ‘elevating work chamber’ and element 132 being the ‘piston,’ see below; machine translation, page 6, third – fourth full paragraphs, page 7, second paragraph, and page 8, second paragraph). Examiner notes that Guo teaches fluid entering the ‘first cavity’ (element 11) and pushing the piston upwards (machine translation, page 6, fourth full paragraph). Therefore, the portion of the ‘first cavity’ which is below the piston in this upwards position is the ‘elevating work chamber’ (figure 1, see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
521
1068
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the fluid cylinder of Kunau with the elevating work chamber and piston of Guo, because Guo teaches that the elevating work chamber and piston allows the main pump to actuate the piston in the lifting direction (machine translation, page 6, third – fourth paragraphs), as desired by Kunau.
Kunau further teaches the lifting device comprising a spring-type check valve in the second fluid conduit, which in a blocking state is configured to block fluid flow from the cylinder housing via the second fluid conduit into the fluid reservoir and in a release state is configured to allow fluid flow from the cylinder housing via the second fluid conduit into the fluid reservoir (element 119 within element 125-4 being the ‘spring-type check valve’; paragraphs 20 and 31). However, Kunau does not teach the structure of the ‘spring-type check valve.’ Guo further teaches the lifting device comprising ‘spring-type check valve’; figure 6, element 53 being the ‘spring-type check valve’; machine translation, page 7, second – third paragraphs), wherein the ‘spring-type check valve’ comprises a ball and a spring (figure 6, element 532 being a ‘ball’ and element 531 being the ‘spring’; machine translation, page 7, third paragraph). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the ‘spring-type check valve’ of Guo, which comprises a ball and a spring, for the ‘spring-type check valve’ of Kunau, because ones skilled in the art would have recognized that such a check valve is configured to operate in a one-way direction, as desired by Kunau (paragraph 20).
It is the position of the Examiner that when the ‘spring-type check valve,’ which comprises a ball and a spring, of Guo is used as the ‘spring-type check valve’ of Kunau, the ball of the ‘spring-type check valve’ equates to the ‘flow control arrangement’ and the spring of he ‘spring-type check valve’ equates to the ‘lowering operating element’ of the claim. This is because Guo teaches the ‘check valve’ being located in a fluid conduit and operating to block or release fluid from the elevating work chamber (figures 1 and 6, element 53; machine translation, page 7, second – third paragraphs). When the ball of the ‘check valve’ is positioned in the fluid conduit, the ball itself acts to block the fluid flow and when the ball is positioned away from the second fluid conduit, the ball allows the fluid flow (machine translation, page 7, second – third paragraphs). Because the ball itself causes the fluid flow to be either blocked or allowed, the ball itself may reasonably be considered the ‘flow control arrangement.’ Guo further teaches the spring of the ‘check valve’ being configured to move the ball into or out of the blocking and release state (figure 6, element 531; machine translation, page 7, second – third paragraphs). Therefore, the spring is being reasonably interpreted as the ‘lowering operating element.’
As to claim 2, Kunau teaches that the lifting device is formed as a mobile unit such that it can be moved and positioned at a desired location on a ground by a single person (figure 1; abstract).
As to claim 8, Kunau teaches that the fluid cylinder is a single-acting cylinder (figures 1 and 2, element 101; paragraphs 10 – 11).
As to claim 10, Kunau further teaches a third fluid conduit fluidically connecting the fluid reservoir and the fluid chamber (figure 2, element 125-5 being the ‘third fluid conduit’; paragraph 20), an auxiliary pump in the third fluid conduit (figure 2, element 121 being the ‘auxiliary pump’; paragraphs 11 and 20), and a pump operating element, comprising a handle, configured for operation by means of muscle power for actuating the auxiliary pump (figure 2, element 109; paragraph 20), wherein the auxiliary pump is configured to supply fluid from the fluid reservoir via the third fluid conduit into the elevating work chamber in an actuated state (figure 2, elements 121, 109, and 125-5; paragraph 20).
As to claim 11, Kunau teaches the pump operating element comprising a handle (figure 2, element 109; paragraph 20). However, it is the position of the Examiner that the handle of Kunau is also configured to be operated by a foot (figures 1 and 2, element 109).
Claim(s) 3 and 13 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunau in view of Gu as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hong.
As to claim 3, Kunau teaches a mobile frame (figure 1, element 113 being the ‘mobile frame’; paragraph 10). However, Kunau does not teach the mobile frame having a plurality of castors. Hong teaches a lifting device comprising a mobile frame (figure 4, elements 12 and 18 being the ‘mobile frame’; column 3, lines 25 – 32), wherein the mobile frame has a plurality of castors, such that the lifting device is configured as a rollable unit (figure 4, elements 24 being the ‘castors’; column 3, lines 25 – 32). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the mobile frame of Kunau with the castors of Hong, because Hong teaches that castors provide the benefit of increasing the mobility of the lifting device (column 3, lines 29 – 32).
As to claim 13, for the purposes of this claim, Examiner is interpreting Kunau such that the ‘check valve’ of Kunau is the ‘flow control element,’ wherein the ‘check valve’ is a ‘flow-controlled valve arrangement’ (element 119 within element 125-4 being the ‘check valve’ and ‘flow control element’; paragraphs 20 and 31) and the Guo does not teach a ‘lowering operating element.’ Hong taches a lifting device (figure 4, element 10 being the ‘lifting device’; column 3, lines 24 – 27) comprising: a flow control arrangement, comprising a switchable valve, in a fluid conduit, which in a blocking state blocks fluid flow through the fluid conduit and in a release state allows fluid flow through the fluid conduit (figure 8, element 88 being the ‘switchable valve,’ and element 90 being the ‘fluid conduit’; column 3, lines 55 – 58 and column 4, lines 34 – 36); and a lowering operating element, which one skilled in the art would understand to comprise a foot pedal, connected to the flow control arrangement and configured to switch the flow control arrangement between the blocking state and the release state (figures 4 and 8, see below.)
PNG
media_image4.png
448
632
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the check valve of Kunau for the switchable valve and lowering operating element of Hong, because one skilled in the art would have appreciated that either the check valve Kunau or the switchable valve and lowering operating element of Hong would provide the benefit of blocking or allowing a fluid flow through the second conduit, as desired by Kunau.
As to claim 14, the discussion of claim 13 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 15, the discussion of claim 13 is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (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 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726