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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 on pages 5-6 are not persuasive. Applicant argues “Cai does not teach or suggest that turning a lead screw causes a rear leg to rotate away from the center of the transport”. Cai discloses front legs (51) and rear legs (52) that coupled to sliding seat (551) on lead screw (54) to fold and unfold legs. Lead screw (54) both, pulls sliding seat (551) toward the center of the and push sliding seat (551) away from center when folding and unfolding legs. When sliding seats (551) are towards the center of the transporter and screw (54) pushes the sliding seats (551) toward the sides of the transporter legs (51 and 52) rotate away from the center of the transporter to unfold.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9 and 15 on pages 5-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 of their remarks, filed 06/27/2025, with respect to non-statutory double patenting rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The non-statutory double patenting rejection has been withdrawn as applicant has filed a terminal disclaimer.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cai (CN 115300240 A).
Regarding claim 1, Cai discloses a transporter (fig.1) comprising: a pair of articulating rear legs (52, fig.8); and a lead screw (54, fig.9) coupled with the pair of articulating rear legs (fig.9); wherein turning the lead screw causes the pair of articulating legs to rotate about a pivot point (turning screw 54 pivots rear legs 52 about a pivot point as seen in figure 9) to allow the pair of articulating rear legs to rotate away from a center of the transporter (when sliding seats 551 are near the center of the transporter screw pushes sliding seats 551 toward the sides and legs 51 and 52 pivot away from the center of the transporter to unfold, figs.8-9).
Regarding claim 2, Cai discloses further comprising a pair of articulating front legs (51, fig.8).
Regarding claim 3, Cai discloses further comprising a transporter bed (support plate 44, body 20 and stretcher 10, fig.1) supported by the pair of articulating rear legs.
Regarding claim 4, Cai discloses further comprising a rotation port (573, fig.9) used to turn the lead screw.
Regarding claim 5, Cai discloses wherein the transporter bed comprises a plurality of cross beams coupled with a pair of parallel side beams (frame body 20 has a plurality of cross beams and a pair of parallel side beams as seen in figure 6).
Regarding claim 6, Cai discloses wherein the lead screw comprises a dual-threaded lead screw (screw 54 has a first screw thread 541 and a second screw thread 542, fig.9).
Regarding claim 7, Cai discloses wherein the dual-threaded lead screw is coupled the pair of articulating rear legs and a pair of articulating front legs (screw 54 is coupled to the rear legs 52 and front legs 51 as seen in figures 8-9).
Regarding claim 8, Cai discloses wherein the transporter bed remains level when it is raised or lowered (screw 54 moves sliding seats 551 connected to front and rear legs equally allowing the bed to remain level when raised or lowered, also body 20 remains level when raised or lowered by lifting device 40, figs.6 and 8-9).
Claim(s) 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vos (US 20230091283 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Vos discloses a transporter with adjustable height (transporter as seen in figures 1-19), the transporter comprising: a load-bearing transporter bed (bed 10 with frame 12, fig.1); articulating rear legs coupled with the load-bearing transporter bed (legs 36, figs.1-2); and articulating front legs coupled with the load-bearing transporter bed (legs 36, figs.1-2); wherein rotating the articulating rear legs and the articulating front legs in opposite directions and away from each other causes the load-bearing transporter bed to be lowered and stay level (legs 36 when rotated in opposite directions lowers the bed 10 and stays level as seen in figs 1-2).
Regarding claim 18, Vos discloses wherein the load-bearing transporter bed stays level when raised or lowered (bed 10 with frame 12 can stay level when raised or lowered, figs.1-2).
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) 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (CN 115300240 A) in view of Broadley (US 7631373 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Cai discloses a foldable transporter (fig.1) comprising: a pair of articulating rear legs (52, fig.8); and rear leg struts (transmission rod 552, fig.8-9) coupled with the pair of articulating rear legs; wherein the rear leg struts form a triangular truss (the rear leg 52 with rod 552 forms a triangular support structure as seen in figure 8) with the pair of articulating rear legs to keep the pair of articulating rear legs rigid (fig.8-9). Cai fails to disclose the rear leg struts are configured to allow decoupling the rear leg struts from a transporter side beam to release the rear legs to rotate freely.
However, Broadley discloses the rear leg struts (strut 5/65 for leg 3, figs.1-3A and 16A-17A) are configured to allow decoupling the rear leg struts from a transporter side beam to release the rear legs to rotate freely (strut 5/65 decouples from the frame of transport and leg 3 can rotate freely, figs.1-5 and 16A-17A).
Cai and Broadley are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of transporters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cai with the decoupling strut of Broadley with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of allowing the transporter to be more easily loaded onto a taller surface like a truck bed or other vehicle.
Regarding claim 10, Cai in combination with Broadley, Cai discloses further comprising a lead screw (54, fig.9) coupled with the pair of articulating rear legs.
Regarding claim 11, Cai in combination with Broadley, Broadley discloses a strut hook (75, fig.15A-17A).
Regarding claim 12, Cai in combination with Broadley, Broadley discloses wherein the rear leg struts are coupled with the rear struts hook to lock the pair of articulating rear legs (struts 65 are coupled to the hooks 75 to lock the legs, figs.14-16A).
Regarding claim 13, Cai in combination with Broadley, Cai discloses wherein the pair of articulating rear legs are coupled with lead screw via a rear leg carriage (moving seat 55, fig.9).
Regarding claim 14, Regarding claim 12, Cai in combination with Broadley, Broadley discloses a rear carriage lock release to decouple the lead screw from the rear leg carriage (hooks 75 lock and unlock cross member 66, moving seat 55 is a cross member as seen in figure 9 of Cai, and it would be obvious that this same hook mechanism can be used to lock and unlock the moving seat 55 from the sliding seat 551).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vos (US 20230091283 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Vos discloses further comprising a height indicator to indicate a height of the load-bearing transporter bed (it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the position of the carriage member 60 in their respective channel 66 is an indication of the height of the bed, figs.1-3 and 5).
Claim(s) 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vos (US 20230091283 A1) in view of Cai (CN 115300240 A).
Regarding claim 17, Vos discloses the transporter of claim 16 and actuators (52) drive legs (36) with carriage members (60) along channels (66) to fold and unfold. Vos fails to disclose a dual-threaded lead screw coupled to the legs.
However, Cai discloses a dual-threaded lead screw (screw 54 with first screw thread 541 and second screw thread 542, figs.8-9) coupled with the articulating rear legs and the articulating front legs (screw 54 connected to legs 51 and 52 through sliding seats 551, figs. 8-9)
Vos and Cai are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of transporters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the actuators (52) of Vos with the lead screw of Cai with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have been a simple substitution of the actuator for the lead screw to obtain predictable results as lead screws are ideal for heavy loads and have self-locking features making the transporter safer and capable of moving heavier loads.
Regarding claim 19, Vos in combination with Cai, Cai discloses wherein the height indicator (position of the sliding seats 551 on screw 54, figs.8-9) is coupled with the dual-threaded lead screw and changes position as the dual-threaded lead screw is turned (sliding seats 551 are coupled to the screw 54 and change position when screw 54 is rotated, figs.8-9).
Regarding claim 20, Vos in combination with Cai discloses wherein turning the dual-threaded lead screw causes the articulating rear legs and the articulating front legs to rotate in opposite directions (Vos, legs 36 have carriage members 60 that slide along channels 66 and when slide toward second end 70 or first end 68 legs 36 rotate in opposite directions, figs.1-5; Cai, turning screw 54 drives sliding seats 551 of legs 51 and 52 inward and outward, figs.8-9).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN BRYCE SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303)-297-4337. 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.
/IAN BRYCE SHELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613