DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “tilting unit”, as recited in Claim 10, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 1-12 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, “Device for delimiting a hoisting device with at least two forks when picking up a transport load with at least one recess for the insertion of the forks with the hoisting device, wherein the device has a fastening means by which the device can be reversibly fastened to the forks, the device has a rear stop and the device is designed to limit the insertion depth when inserting the forks into the recess in an operational state by having the rear stop rest against the transport load in an inserted state.” Claim 1 lacks one of the accepted US transitional phrases, i.e., “comprising”, “consisting of”, or “consisting essentially of”, as described in MPEP 2111.03, and this section of the MPEP does not include a discussion of the verb “has” as a transitional phrase. As such, the scope of the term “has” cannot be determined, thereby making Claim 1 is indefinite.
Claims 2-12 also stand rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because of their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the securing element" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because Claim 6 depends from Claim 1 and Claim 1 does not introduce the claimed “securing element”.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FR 2,844,507 (“FR ‘507”; cited by Applicant; English translation of the Description provided with this Office Action).
With regard to Claim 1, FR ‘507 discloses a device (100, Figs. 1-6, P2 – P4) for delimiting a hoisting device with at least two forks when picking up a transport load with at least one recess for the insertion of the forks with the hoisting device (P1), wherein the device (100) has a fastening means (214a, 214b) by which the device can be reversibly fastened to the forks (Fig. 1, P2), the device has a rear stop (340, Fig. 3, P3) and the device is designed to limit the insertion depth when inserting the forks into the recess in an operational state by having the rear stop rest against the transport load in an inserted state (P2, P3).
With regard to Claim 2, FR ‘507 discloses wherein the device has a front stop (212a, 212b, Fig. 2) connected to the rear stop (via 210a, 210b) and the front stop rests against a front tip of the forks in the operational state (Fig. 3).
With regard to Claim 10, FR ‘507 discloses wherein the device has a tilting unit (300, 320a, 320b, Figs. 1-4) that is designed to tilt the transport load about a transverse axis and/or a longitudinal axis when in the inserted state (Fid. 4, P3-P4).
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 4408293 (“DE ‘293”; cited by Applicant; English translation of the Description provided with this Office Action).
With regard to Claim 1, DE ‘293 discloses a device (Figs. 1-5, [0001]-[0031]) for delimiting a hoisting device with at least two forks when picking up a transport load with at least one recess for the insertion of the forks with the hoisting device (Figs. 4-5, [0001]-[0011]), wherein the device has a fastening means (1/3/13, 2/4/14, 10, Figs. 1-3, [0022]) by which the device can be reversibly fastened to the forks ([0029]), the device has a rear stop (7, 8) and the device is designed to limit the insertion depth when inserting the forks into the recess in an operational state by having the rear stop rest against the transport load in an inserted state (Figs. 4a-4c).
With regard to Claim 9, DE ‘293 discloses wherein the device has at least one carrying handle (11, 12, Fig. 1) for carrying and holding the device ([0029]).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2000185899 (“JP ‘899”; cited by Applicant; English translation of the Description provided with this Office Action).
With regard to Claim 1, JP ‘899 discloses a device (1, Figs. 1-7, [0001]-[0019]) for delimiting a hoisting device with at least two forks when picking up a transport load with at least one recess for the insertion of the forks with the hoisting device (Figs. 2-3, [0017]), wherein the device has a fastening means (screws, [0018]) by which the device can be reversibly fastened to the forks ([0007]-[0009]), the device has a rear stop (21, Figs. 2-3) and the device is designed to limit the insertion depth when inserting the forks into the recess in an operational state by having the rear stop rest against the transport load in an inserted state (Figs. 2-3, [0017]).
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘899, as applied to Claim 1, in view of Haslberger et al., US 2011/0068309. While JP ‘899 discloses a rear stop, JP ‘899 fails to teach a pivotable securing element attached to the rear stop. Haslberger discloses a device (19, Figs. 3-6, [0039]-[0050]) for delimiting a hoisting device (13/15) with at least two forks (17) when picking up a transport load (1, 11, 25) with at least one recess for the insertion of the forks with the hoisting device (Figs. 3, 6), wherein the device has a fastening means (65, 67, Fig. 6, [0048]) by which the device can be reversibly fastened to the forks ([0048]), and at least one, pivotably mounted, securing element (47, 49, Figs. 6-10) that can be inserted into an opening in the transport load (55) and is designed to secure the transport load in the transverse direction in the inserted state (Figs. 7-8. [0043]-[0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to modify JP ‘899 to include a pivotably mounted securing element because it would allow the device to be easily secured to the load and allow the device to remove a component of the load that is contained in a housing (for example a battery unit (7) can be removed from the battery compartment (7) as taught by Haslberger [0047]). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to modify JP ‘899 to include a pivotably mounted securing element because it would provide a safe and effective way to secure the load to the hoisting device/forks, thereby making the transport of the load to a different place safer.
Claims 7-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘899, as applied to Claim 1, in view of Haslberger et al., US 2011/0068309, DE 102011122137 (“DE ‘137”; cited by Applicant) and Giannetti, US 10,106,385. While JP ‘899 discloses a fastening means, JP ‘899 only describes a generic fastening means (i.e., screws, [0018]); as such, JP ‘899 fails to teach the use of at least one magnet as the fastening means, with the magnet having a tensile force greater than 550 N, or 600 N, or 650 N. The combination of Haslberger, DE ‘137, and Giannetti collectively teach these limitations:
Haslberger describes a fastening means that includes the use of pin plugs (67) located on the device that fit into a series of holes (67) provided in the forks ([0048]) thereby allowing the device to be attached to the forks at different locations;
DE ‘137 discloses a hoisting device (1, Fig. 1) having two forks (2) used to lift a load, the forks having magnets/electromagnets (20) arranged in retainers (22) on the forks (Fig. 1, Abstract);
Giannetti discloses a device (1, Figs. 1-13, C4, L34 – C7, L35) that is attached to the forks (10) of a forklift (Figs. 4-5, 9, 13), the device being fastened to the forks via a magnet (2, C2, L45-46), the magnet being selected to exert a force that is sufficient for avoiding the detachment of the device during is operative phase, which is disclosed as being at least equal or superior to 700 N (C5, L45-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to modify the JP ‘899 device to use a fastening means that allow the device to be attached to the forks at different locations because it would allow the device to be used with loads of different sizes and provide a quick and easy way to make this attachment, as taught by Haslberger ([0016], [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to modify the JP ‘899/Haslberger device to secure the device to the forks using a magnet located in retainers found in the forks as taught by DE ‘137 (Fig. 1, Abstract) and to provide magnets having a tensile force greater than 550 N, or 600 N, or 650 N, as taught by Giannetti (C5, L45-50, wherein 700 N is greater than any of the three recited tensile force values) because the magnet would provide an fastening means that is both easy to attach and detach (similarly to Haslberger’s fastening means) while also providing a sufficient tensile force the prevents detachment of the device during its use, as taught by Giannetti (C5, L45-50).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 9,394,150 and US 2023/0034152 describe the use of magnets to attach a device to the forks of a hoisting device.
US 2014/0191517 describes an electromagnetic lock and provides a discussion of several parameters that affect the optimum value of the tensile force of the magnet to secure an attachment plate to the magnet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNN E SCHWENNING whose telephone number is (313)446-4861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272 -7097. 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.
/LYNN E SCHWENNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652