DETAILED ACTION
The Office Action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 30 April 2026
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 .
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.
The limitation “means for detecting” (claim 17, lines 1-2) invokes 112(f).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “detecting means” in claims 18 and 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021050894 A1 in view of DE 102005032390 A1.
Regarding claim 1, WO ‘894 discloses a lifting device (see Figs. 1, 3, 5, 6; [0047]–[0053]) comprising a base (14), a mast (30) coupled to the base, the mast including a first/second/third portions (48, 50, 52), and a carriage (34/222) coupled to the mast.
A lifting assembly (56) including an electric motor (86), a battery pack (66), a winch/spool (94/96), and cable (100) for raising/lowering the mast and carriage in a first (vertical) direction ([0050]–[0054]).
An auxiliary drive unit including a second spool (206) with a second cable (202) to raise and lower the lifting device in a second direction different than the first direction (Figs. 8-12).
WO ‘594 does not teach means for adjusting the mast between a locked state and an unlocked state.
Means for locking the slidable members of masts are well known in the art. For example DE ‘390 discloses a locking means (Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
699
379
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of WO ‘894 to include locking means in view of DE ‘390 for improving the safety of the device.
Regarding claim 5, WO ‘894 discloses a lifting device wherein the auxiliary drive unit is removably coupled to the electric motor (86 -- the second spool 206 and cable 202 are discrete elements and are removeable).
Regarding claim 6, WO ‘894 discloses a lifting device wherein the auxiliary drive unit is removably coupled to the first spool (94/96 -- the second spool 206 and cable 202 are discrete elements and are removeable).
Regarding claim 9, WO ‘894 discloses a lifting device wherein the lifting device includes a selector (76 - FIGS. 2, 4, and 13) configured to selectively operate the lifting device and the auxiliary drive unit.
Claim(s) 8, 10-13, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021050894 A1 in view of DE 102005032390 A1..
Regarding claim 8, WO ‘894 in view of DE ‘390 does not explicitly teach a lifting device wherein the second spool includes a female feature, wherein the second cable includes an end having a male feature, and wherein the female feature is configured to receive the male feature, to secure the second cable to the second spool.
The examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is well known use to male/female elements for anchoring a cable to a spool/drum. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a male/female anchor because fastening the cable to the spool allows the drum to generate tension on the cable.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, WO ‘894 in view of DE ‘390 does not explicitly teach a remote control unit in wireless communication with the lifting device (claim 10), a remote control unit (140) in wireless communication with the lifting device (claim 11), or a transceiver configured to receive instructions wirelessly from the remote control unit (claim 20).
The examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is well known use to wireless communication with transceivers to remotely control a device. 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 wireless controller with a transceiver because controlling a device remotely without cables allows for operation of the device at longer distances without the limitations of a physical cable.
Regarding claim 11, WO ‘894 in view of DE ‘390 discloses a lifting device (see WO Figs. 1, 3, 5, 6; [0047]–[0053]) comprising a base (WO 14), a mast (WO 30) coupled to the base, and a carriage (WO 34/222) coupled to the mast.
A lifting assembly (WO 56) including an electric motor (WO 86), a battery pack (WO 66), a winch/spool (WO 94/96), and cable (WO 100) for raising/lowering the mast and carriage in a first (vertical) direction (WO [0050]–[0054]).
Regarding claim 12, WO ‘894 in view of DE ‘390 discloses a lifting device wherein the remote control unit (WO 76) includes a first user control configured to activate the electric motor to move the mast and the carriage in the first direction, and a stop button (WOI 258) operable to deactivate the electric motor.
Regarding claim 13, WO ‘894 in view of DE ‘390 discloses a lifting device wherein the remote control unit includes a pistol grip (WO see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 16, WO ‘894 in view of DE ‘390 discloses a lifting device wherein the remote control unit includes a user interface operable to communicate information about the lifting device to an operator (WO Fig. 7).
Claim(s) 2-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021050894 A1 in view of DE 102005032390 A1 and further in view of US 5678805 A.
WO ‘894 in view of DE’390 does not teach:
Re claim 2, the auxiliary drive unit is electrically coupled to the electric motor to alternately raise and lower the lifting device in the second direction relative to a grounded position.
Re claim 3, the electric motor provides torque to the first spool to alternately raise and lower the carriage in the first direction, and wherein the electric motor provides torque to the second spool to alternately wind and unwind the second cable from the second spool.
Re claim 4, the electric motor provides torque to both the first spool and the second spool in a first configuration, and wherein the electric motor provides torque to only the second spool in a second configuration.
Re claim 7, the auxiliary drive unit includes a shaft coupling the auxiliary drive unit to the first spool.
US ‘805, however, disclose that it’s known to selectively drive different spools (24, 26) with a single motor (34) via a shaft (28) that couples the spools.
Then, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of WO ‘894 in view of DE ‘390 to use a single motor to drive both spools in view of US ‘805 to reduce the number of motors and spool components.
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021050894 A1 in view of DE 102005032390 A1 and further in view of US 20190039826 A1.
WO ‘894 in view of DE ‘390 does not teach:
Re claim 14, a second lifting device including a second base, a second mast coupled to the second base, a second carriage coupled to the second mast, and a second lifting assembly configured to move the second mast and the second carriage to a desired elevation relative to the second base, wherein the second lifting assembly includes a second electric motor and a second battery pack for providing electrical power to the second electric motor, and wherein the remote control unit is in wireless communication with at least one of the first lifting device or the second lifting device.
Re claim 15, a second remote control unit in wireless communication with at least one of the first lifting device or the second lifting device.
US ‘826 disclose that is known to use cooperating lifting devices (see Figs. 12-15) connected wirelessly [0090] where a command server remotely controls a first lifting device. Also, US ‘826 teaches that the first lifting device operates as a second remote control for controlling the second lifting device utilizing a mesh wireless system.
Then, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of WO ‘894 in view of DE ‘390 to use a cooperating first/second lifting devices that communicate wirelessly in view of US ‘826 to increase the load capacity of the system.
Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021050894 A1 in view of DE 102005032390 A1 and further in view of US 4921385 A.
WO ‘894 in view of DE ‘390 does not teach:
Means of detecting a weight and/or a center of gravity of a load to be lifted by the lifting device.
Detecting means includes at least one sensor configured to detect the weight of the load to be lifted by the lifting device.
US ‘385 discloses a lifting device comprising a sensor for detecting the weight of the load (par 19, claim 1).
Then, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of WO ‘894 in view of DE ‘390 to incorporate a load sensor as taught by US ‘385 to monitor the operating parameters of the system.
Claim(s) 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021050894 A1 in view of DE 102005032390 A1 and further in view of JP 2012086971 A.
WO ‘894 in view of DE ‘390 does not teach:
Means of detecting a weight and/or a center of gravity of a load to be lifted by the lifting device.
Detecting means includes at least one sensor configured to detect the center of gravity of the load to be lifted by the lifting device.
JP ‘971 discloses a lifting device comprising a sensor for detecting the center of gravity of the load to be lifted by the lifting device (57).
Then, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of WO ‘894 in view of DE ‘390 to incorporate a center of gravity sensor as taught by JP ‘971 to monitor ensure proper balance of the lifting system and prevent tilting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SAUL J RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7097. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:00.
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, Joseph Thomas can be reached at 571-272-8004. 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.
SAUL J. RODRIGUEZ
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights