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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-15 and new claims 30-43) in the reply filed on 5/29/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 includes “the base pivotably connected to the base at a backrest axis.” This is unclear as it is not clear how the base can be pivotably connected to itself. It appears either the backrest or the platform is pivotably connected to the base. Clarification is necessary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9, 11, 13, 15, 30-32 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3,380,606 to Trumpore.
Regarding claim 1 Trumpore discloses a lift comprising: a platform (28), the platform including a plurality of rollers (34, 34’) rotatable about a horizontal roller axes; and a pair of load wheels supporting the platform (16), each of the load wheels having a horizontal load wheel axis about which the load wheel rotates, wherein the horizontal load wheel axes are parallel to the horizontal roller axes (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 8 Trumpore discloses a lower structure (front of 10 near attachment to 16), wherein the pair of load wheels support the lower structure (see figure 1), wherein the platform is pivotable relative to the lower structure (see axis 25), the lift further including a tilt actuator (20, 20’) configured to pivot the platform relative to the lower structure.
Regarding claim 9 Trumpore discloses a base (rear portion of 10), the lower structure extending forward of the base (see figure 1); and a backrest (32/23/24) fixed relative to the platform (see figure 1), the base pivotably connected to the base at a backrest axis (25) spaced vertically higher than the platform (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 11 Trumpore discloses a base (rear portion of 10), the lower structure extending forward of the base (see figure 1); a rear wheel (14) supporting the base; and a tiller arm (15 and connection to 14) configured to pivot the rear wheel about a vertical axis.
Regarding claim 13 Trumpore discloses including a rear wheel (14), the lift further including a tiller arm (15 and connection to 14) configured to pivot the rear wheel about a vertical axis.
Regarding claim 15 Trumpore discloses the platform is pivotable between a lowered position in which the platform is tilted forward relative to a floor (see figure 3) on which the lift is supported and a raised position in which the platform is tilted rearward relative to the floor (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 30 Trumpore discloses a lift comprising: a base (rear portion of 10); a platform (28) extending forward from the base, the platform including a plurality of rollers (34, 34’) rotatable about respective horizontal roller axes; a backrest (32/24) fixed relative to the platform and extending upwardly therefrom (see figure 1); a lower structure supporting the platform (front section of 10), the lower structure including a pair of load wheels (16); and a tilt actuator (20, 20”) operatively connected between the base and the platform (see figure 3), the tilt actuator configured to pivot the platform and the backrest relative to the lower structure between a lowered position and a raised position (see figure 3), wherein the backrest is pivotably connected to the base at a pivot axis (25) spaced vertically above the platform (figure 3).
Regarding claim 31 Trumpore discloses the pivot axis is generally parallel to the horizontal roller axes (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 32 Trumpore discloses in the lowered position the platform is tilted forward relative to a floor on which the lift is supported, and in the raised position the platform is tilted rearward relative to the floor (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 41 Trumpore discloses a lift comprising: a base (rear portion of 10); a rear wheel (14) supporting the base; a tiller arm (15) pivotably connected to the base and configured to pivot the rear wheel about a vertical axis (connection of 15 to 14); a lower structure extending forward from the base (front portion of 10), the lower structure including a pair of load wheels (16); a platform (28) supported by the lower structure, the platform including a plurality of rollers (34, 34’) rotatable about horizontal axes; and a tilt actuator (20, 20’) configured to pivot the platform relative to the lower structure.
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) 2-6, 33-34, 36, 38-39, and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trumpore in view of US 10,017,325 to Ramezani.
Regarding claims 2-4 Trumpore disclose all the limitations of the claims except the plurality of rollers are powered to move a load placed thereon, the plurality of rollers includes a first roller having a hub motor therein, the plurality of rollers are interconnected such that each of the plurality of rollers is rotatably coupled to an adjacent one of the plurality of rollers. Trumpore discloses a separate moveable pin for pulling the load onto to the platform rather than powered rollers.
Ramezani teaches a system including plurality of rollers are powered to move a load placed thereon (10/12 and motor 30), the plurality of rollers includes a first roller having a hub motor therein (see figure 3), the plurality of rollers are interconnected such that each of the plurality of rollers is rotatably coupled to an adjacent one of the plurality of rollers (16 and figure 3) in order to facilitate loading and unloading of a variety of materials (see col. 1 lines 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Trumpore to include the plurality of rollers are powered to move a load placed thereon, the plurality of rollers includes a first roller having a hub motor therein, the plurality of rollers are interconnected such that each of the plurality of rollers is rotatably coupled to an adjacent one of the plurality of rollers, as taught by Ramezani, in order to facilitate loading and unloading of a variety of materials.
Regarding claim 5 the combination teaches a plurality of objects supported on the plurality of rollers (see Trumpore figure 3, showing two items on the platform).
Regarding claim 6 the combination teaches the plurality of objects directly contact the plurality of rollers (see Trumpore figure 3).
Regarding claims 33-34 and 43 Trumpore discloses all the limitations of the claims except the plurality of rollers are powered to move a load placed thereon and the plurality of rollers are interconnected such that rotation of one roller causes corresponding rotation of an adjacent roller.
As discussed above with respect to claims 2-4, Ramezani teaches a system including the plurality of rollers are powered to move a load placed thereon (10/12 and motor 30) and the plurality of rollers are interconnected such that rotation of one roller causes corresponding rotation of an adjacent roller (16 and figure 3) in order to facilitate loading and unloading of a variety of materials (see col. 1 lines 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Trumpore to include the plurality of rollers are powered to move a load placed thereon and the plurality of rollers are interconnected such that rotation of one roller causes corresponding rotation of an adjacent roller, as taught by Ramezani, in order to facilitate loading and unloading of a variety of materials.
Regarding claim 36 Trumpore discloses a lift comprising: a platform (28) including a plurality of rollers (30, 34’), each roller rotatable about a respective horizontal axis (See figure 2), wherein the platform is tiltable relative to a supporting lower structure between a forward-tilted loading/unloading position and a rearward-tilted transport position (see figure 3).
Trumpore does not disclose wherein the plurality of rollers are drivingly interconnected such that all of the rollers rotate together in a same rotational direction; and at least one motor operatively connected to at least one of the rollers to drive rotation of the plurality of rollers.
Ramezani teaches a system including the plurality of rollers are drivingly interconnected such that all of the rollers rotate together in a same rotational direction (see motor 30 and bands 16); and at least one motor (30) operatively connected to at least one of the rollers to drive rotation of the plurality of rollers in order to facilitate loading and unloading of a variety of materials (see col. 1 lines 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Trumpore to include It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Trumpore to include the plurality of rollers are powered to move a load placed thereon and the plurality of rollers are interconnected such that rotation of one roller causes corresponding rotation of an adjacent roller, as taught by Ramezani, in order to facilitate loading and unloading of a variety of materials.
Regarding claim 38 Ramezani teaches the plurality of rollers are interconnected by elastomeric bands (16) received in circumferential grooves in the rollers (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 39 Trumpore discloses a backrest (32/24) fixed to the platform and a base (10) to which the backrest is pivotably connected at a pivot axis (25) spaced vertically above the platform (see figure 3).
Claim(s) 14 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trumpore in view of US 9,334,146 to Meijer.
Regarding claim 14 Trumpore discloses all the limitations of the claim except the plurality of rollers includes a forward-most roller offset downwardly relative to at least a subset of the plurality of rollers, which are substantially coplanar.
Regarding claim 35 Trumpore discloses all the limitations of the claim except a forward-most roller of the plurality of rollers is offset downwardly relative to at least a subset of remaining ones of the plurality of rollers, which are substantially coplanar.
Meijer teaches a system including a forward-most roller of the plurality of rollers is offset downwardly relative to at least a subset of remaining ones of the plurality of rollers, which are substantially coplanar (see figure 4 and col. 2 lines 60-67) in order to facilitate insertion under the load (col. 2 lines 65-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Trumpore to include a forward-most roller of the plurality of rollers is offset downwardly relative to at least a subset of remaining ones of the plurality of rollers, which are substantially coplanar, as taught by Meijer, in order to facilitate insertion under the load.
Claim(s) 7 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trumpore in view of Ramezani as discussed above in further view of Meijer.
Regarding claims 7 Trumpore and Ramezani teach all the limitations of the claims except the plurality of rollers includes a forward-most roller offset downwardly relative to at least a subset of the plurality of rollers, which are substantially coplanar.
Regarding claim 40 the combination teaches all the rollers are drive rollers (see Ramezani figure 3) but the combination does not teach the forward roller offset downwardly relative to the plurality of rollers.
Meijer teaches a system including the plurality of rollers includes a forward-most roller offset downwardly relative to at least a subset of the plurality of rollers, which are substantially coplanar and the forward roller offset downwardly relative to the plurality of rollers (see figure 4 and col. 2 lines 60-67) in order to facilitate insertion under the load (col. 2 lines 65-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Trumpore to include the plurality of rollers includes a forward-most roller offset downwardly relative to at least a subset of the plurality of rollers, which are substantially coplanar and the forward roller offset downwardly relative to the plurality of rollers, as taught by Meijer, in order to facilitate insertion under the load.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trumpore in view of Ramezani as discussed above in further view of US 10,988,154 to Englert.
Trumpore and Ramezani teach all the limitations of the claim except a hub motor within the rear wheel.
Englert teaches a system including a hub motor within the rear wheel (see abstract) in order drive the system and provide a compact design (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Trumpore and Ramezani to include a hub motor within the rear wheel, as taught by Englert, in order drive the system and provide a compact design.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trumpore in view of Ramezani as discussed above in further view of US 7,673,737 to Swoboda.
Trumpore and Ramezani teach all the limitations of the claim except the at least one motor comprises a hub motor disposed inside one of the rollers.
Swoboda teaches a system including the at least one motor comprises a hub motor disposed inside one of the rollers (col. 2 lines 35-37) in order to provide a compact design and ease of assembly (col. 2 lines 35-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Trumpore and Ramezani to include the at least one motor comprises a hub motor disposed inside one of the rollers, as taught by Swoboda, in order to provide a compact design and ease of assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 42 are 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 configuration and shape of the lower structure set forth in claims 10 and 42 distinguish the claims from the prior art when considered in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional cited references show other instances of rollers being used to load/unload goods from a platform.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST).
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.
/MARK C HAGEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights