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 .
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 18-20 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 18 claims a method of using an expandable pallet jack device, the method comprising the following steps:
providing an expandable pallet jack device comprised of a frame, a first fork that attaches over the frame, a second fork that attaches over the frame, a first rear wall that attaches to the first fork, and a second rear wall that attaches to the second fork;
increasing or decreasing a distance between the first fork and the second fork;
increasing or decreasing a distance between the first fork and the first rear wall;
increasing or decreasing a distance between the second fork and second first rear wall; and placing an item on the forks.
The claim language claims increasing or decreasing a distance between the first fork and the first rear wall and increasing or decreasing a distance between the second fork and second first rear wall. First, what is the “second first rear wall” rereferring to? Should this read “and the second rear wall”. Second, the specification does not support this claim, as the figures and specification describe that the first rear wall is attached to the first fork and the second rear wall is attached to the second fork, and the distance between the first and second fork is increased or decreased along with the distance between the first and second rear wall, as the wall and fork are attached to each other, see paragraphs 0033 of the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simpson (2020/0398881).
Regarding claim 1, Simpson teaches an expandable pallet jack device, 10, comprising:
a frame, 14, comprised of a first wheel,26;
a first fork, 16;
a second fork, 16; and
an arm, 18, connecting the first fork to the second fork.
Regarding claim 2, Simpson teaches the arm is comprised of a hydraulic arm, 32.
Regarding claim 3, Simpson teaches the first fork and the second fork movably attach to the frame, see figures 2 and 3.
Regarding claim 6, Simpson teaches the arm can be decreased or increased in length via a handle, see paragraphs 0027 and 0028.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 11, 12, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baumgarner et al. (US 7,114,906).
Regarding claim 8, Baumgarner et al. teaches an expandable pallet jack device comprising:
a frame, 12, comprised of a first wheel, 110;
a first fork, 36, comprised of a first rear wall, 18;
a second fork, 46, comprised of a second rear wall, 20;
a first arm, 210, connecting the first fork to the second fork; and
a second arm, 22 and 26, connecting the first rear wall to the second rear wall, see column 3, lines 4+.
Regarding claim 9, Baumgarner et al. teaches the first arm is comprised of a hydraulic arm, an electronic arm, or a motored arm, see column 4, line 58 through column 5, line 6.
Regarding claim 11, Baumgarner et al. teaches the first fork and the second fork movably attach to the frame, see figures 10 and 11.
Regarding claim 12, Baumgarner et al. teaches the first arm and the second arm can be decreased or increased in length via a handle, see column 4, lines 18+.
Regarding claim 14, Baumgarner et al. teaches of a connecting member, 32.
Regarding claim 15, Baumgarner et al. teaches the connecting member attaches to the first rear wall and the second rear wall, see figures 10.
Regarding claim 16, Baumgarner et al. teaches the first fork is comprised of a first roller, 112.
Regarding claim 17, Baumgarner et al. teaches the second fork is comprised of a second roller, 116.
Regarding the method steps of claim 18, Baumgarner et al. teaches a method of using an expandable pallet jack device, the method comprising the following steps: providing an expandable pallet jack device comprised of a frame, 12, a first fork,36, that attaches over the frame, a second fork, 46, that attaches over the frame, a first rear wall, 18, that attaches to the first fork, and a second rear wall, 20, that attaches to the second fork; increasing or decreasing a distance between the first fork and the second fork, see figures 10 and 11. Baumgarner et al. further teaches increasing or decreasing a distance between the first rear wall and the second rear wall, see figures 10 and 11, and placing an item on the forks, see column 1, lines 59+. Baumgarner et al. does not teach increasing or decreasing a distance between the first fork and the first rear wall; increasing or decreasing a distance between the second fork and second first rear wall, as claimed. However, as outlined in the rejection above, this claimed feature is rejected as being indefinite, as the pallet jack is not described in the specification to be used in this manner. Baumgarner et al. teaches a pallet jack that is used in the same manner as described in the specification.
Regarding claim 19, Baumgarner et al. teaches the item is comprised of a pallet, see column 1, lines 59+.
Regarding claim 20, Baumgarner et al. teaches an arm, 210, that connects the first fork to the second fork, see column.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Quayle (US 3,166,207).
Regarding claim 8, Quayle teaches an expandable pallet jack device comprising:
a frame comprised of a first wheel, see figure 1;
a first fork, 16, comprised of a first rear wall, see figure 1 and 7;
a second fork, 17, comprised of a second rear wall, see figure 1 and 7;
a first arm, 26, connecting the first fork to the second fork; and
a second arm, 27, connecting the first rear wall to the second rear wall, see figure 7.
Regarding claim 10, Quayle teaches the second arm is comprised of a hydraulic arm, 27.
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) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson (2020/0398881) in view of Giannetti (US 2016/0137469).
Regarding claim 4, Simpson does not teach a first top surface of the first fork and a second top surface of the second fork are comprised of a texture.
Giannetti teaches forklift forks with top surfaces that are comprises of a texture, see figure 8, 9, and 10 and paragraphs 0089+. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the textured surface of Giannetti with the forks of Simpson in provided an anti-slip layer between the forks and the load being carried to improved the stability of the as it is being carried by the forks.
Regarding claim 5, Giannetti teaches the texture is comprised of a raised texture, see figures 8-10 and paragraphs 0089+.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson (2020/0398881) in view of Adam (US 4,027, 771).
Regarding claim 7, Simpson does not teach that the arm can be decreased or increase in length via a foot lever. Adams teaches a pallet jack with a foot pedal. 53, which controls the operation of the pallet jack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the foot lever of Adams with the pallet jack of Simpson in order to achieve the predicting result of enabling the adjustment of the jack to be easily controlled by a foot.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgarner et al. (US 7,114,906) in view of Adam (US 4,027, 771).
Regarding claim 13, Baumgarner et al. does not teach that the arm can be decreased or increase in length via a foot lever. Adams teaches a pallet jack with a foot pedal. 53, which controls the operation of the pallet jack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the foot lever of Adams with the pallet jack of Baumgarner et al. in order to achieve the predicting result of enabling the adjustment of the jack to be easily controlled by a foot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art cited on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is included in the file to show additional examples of expandable pallet jacks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLIN S JOERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 (CST).
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571)270-5565. 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.
/KAITLIN S JOERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
9 March 2026