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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/17/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show how the chains, drive sprockets, and idler sprockets of claims 3 and 4 power and translate the side platform as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
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 rack and pinion drive system of claim 6 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 3-8 and 12-15 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 3 recites the limitation "the vertical folding" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "or other work surface" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or other work surface"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The examiner would like to point out that the phrase “or other work surface” is being treated in the same manner as the phrase “or the like”. Both are considered indefinite for the same reasons.
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 (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 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, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duplessis (2002/0170784) in view of Peruzzi et al. (5381872).
In regard to claim 1, Duplessis discloses a mast climbing work platform structure 10 comprising: a base structure 14; a mast 12 attached to the base structure and rising vertically from the base structure; and a work platform 16 attached to the mast, the work platform further comprising; a deck 20; a structural frame 22 underneath the deck; and at least one side platform (not labeled but located to the right and below of deck 20 in figure 1) connected to a side of the structural frame; wherein the work platform is configured to ascend and descend via the vertical mast. Duplessis does not specifically disclose that the side platform is configured to raise vertically and translate alongside the side of the structural frame. Peruzzi et al. teaches the use of a side platform 10, 11 that is configured to raise vertically (i.e. see element 11 in figures 3 and 4) and translate alongside the side of a structural frame (column 2, lines 35-68). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Duplessis’ side platform foldable and translatable as taught by Peruzzi, because by allowing the side platform to fold up and translate, it could be stored out of the way if it was not needed.
In regard to claim 2, Duplessis in view of Peruzzi disclose the basic claimed invention, except for specifically stating that the base structure, mast, and work platform are comprised of at least steel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the claimed elements of Duplessis’ invention of steel because that is the typical material used in the construction of masts, platforms, and bases of this type. Further, by using steel, the mast, platform, and base will have the necessary strength to support workers and any other needed objects on the platform. The examiner takes Official Notice that the use of steel for masts, platforms, and bases of climbing work platforms is known.
In regard to claims 10-12, Duplessis in view of Peruzzi disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Duplessis further discloses that the base structure comprises at least a stability structure having at least movement means (figure 1, at least the outriggers attached to the base 14 can move up and down with the cranks shown. This type of outrigger structure is well-known in the art.) configured to secure the base. Further, the outriggers are configured to attach to a building or “other work surface”, i.e. the ground. They could be attached to the ground using stakes, anchor bolts, or ballast.
Claim(s) 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duplessis (2002/0170784) in view of Peruzzi et al. (5381872) and further in view of Bennett et al. (8051951).
In regard to claims 3 and 4, Duplessis in view of Peruzzi disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Duplessis discloses the use of a drive unit (figures 2-5, Abstract, [0030]) that attaches the work platform to the mast, wherein the drive unit further includes at least: one or more drive gears and a rack and pinon system, which powers the vertical movement of the platform. Duplessis does not teach that the drive unit powers the folding and translating functions of the side platform. Peruzzi also does not disclose that his movable side platforms are moved with a chain and sprockets. However, Bennett teaches that it is known to move a translating platform through the use of a chains 32 and multiple sprockets 30 (figure 8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a chain and sprockets to move the side platforms, because using a chains and sprockets as taught by Bennett would be easier on the operators. The operators would not have to try and lift and slide heavy metal platforms into the desired location while being up in the air a considerable height. The use of a pneumatic means like chains and sprockets would be safer. Further, the use of pneumatic means to move platforms is well-known in the art.
In regard to claim 5, Duplessis in view of Peruzzi and Bennett disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Peruzzi’s side platforms 10 include an extendable portion 11 that extends from the work platform to increase the length of the one or more side platforms. Note that there are multiple platforms 10 and multiple platforms 11 which extend from or beside the platforms 10. Therefore, the claimed limitations are met.
In regard to claim 6, Duplessis in view of Peruzzi and Bennett disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the drive unit (Duplessis) further comprises at least a rack 40 and pinion 118 drive system configured to propel the drive unit up and down the mast.
In regard to claim 7, Duplessis in view of Peruzzi and Bennett disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Duplessis further discloses that the drive unit further comprises at least two drive motors attached to the drive shaft via one or more pinions [0036], i.e. the platform could be extended to project from the opposite side of the mast as well and duplicate a second drive mechanism.
In regard to claim 8, Duplessis in view of Peruzzi and Bennett disclose the basic claimed invention, except for specifically disclosing that the drive motor is electric. The examiner would like to point out that the type of motor used does not appear to be critical the applicant’s claimed invention. The applicant discloses in paragraph [0019] that “The drive motors may be any kind of motor known in the art, for example electric motors and/or hydraulic motors”. Therefore, since Duplessis teaches the use of a motor that is known in the art, the examiner contends that the claimed limitations are obviously met. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an electric or hydraulic motor, because, as pointed out by applicant, those types of motors are “known in the art”. Thus, to use a known motor would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duplessis (2002/0170784) in view of Peruzzi et al. (5381872) and further in view of Barker et al. (2021/0362980).
In regard to claim 13-15, Duplessis in view of Peruzzi disclose the basic claimed invention, except for specifically disclosing the use of an emergency hatch and an emergency engine, wherein the emergency engine is contained under the emergency hatch, and the emergency engine is configured to provide power to the drive unit and power the drive train to descend the work platform in emergency scenarios, such as damage or loss of power to a primary hydraulic power unit. Barker teaches that it is known to provide a backup power supply or generator to power the electric motors. Barker also teaches the use of hatches 82 and/or 84 on the deck to house the components. The examiner contends that the components could obviously include the battery backup or motors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include backup power supplies, motors, and hatches to store or provide access to said backup power supplies and motor in the case of an emergency. Redundant systems in any electrical device are common and widely used. Electrical devices break down from time to time and those of ordinary skill in the art know that it is important to have a backup in case of an emergency. Therefore, provided a backup operating system in case of an emergency is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art, and it is not considered a novel feature.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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 prior art references of record do not disclose the use of a carriage support connected to a structural frame of a mast climbing platform and a carriage connected to said support, wherein the side platform is connected to the carriage and translates with the carriage along the carriage support that is attached to the platform. Although some of the prior art references of record show side platforms attached to main platforms that extend and retract from the main platform, none of the prior art references of record show the connection of a side platform as claimed in claim 9 and described above. There is no proper motivation to combine the references of record to produce applicant’s claimed invention without the improper use of hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian E Glessner whose telephone number is (571)272-6754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 to 4:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633