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 § 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) 1-6, 10-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green US 3941324 in view of Gill US 2006/0192507.
PNG
media_image1.png
400
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Green discloses a line pulling system comprising: a chassis (12); a reel carrier assembly (45) attached to the chassis and configured to support a reel (70) having an electrical utility line (not shown) disposed thereon; and a jack assembly (15, 18) comprising a housing attached to the chassis; a leg (15, 18) configured to extend and retract axially from the housing to lift the chassis.
Green does not specify an electric power source and an electric jack assembly as claimed. Gill, however, teaches a speed control for an electric linear actuator for a trailer jack wherein the trailer jack comprises an electric power source (14, 52); and an electric jack assembly (12) comprising: a housing (18) attached to a chassis (46); a leg (22) configured to extend and retract axially from the housing to lift the chassis; an electric motor (34) in communication with the electric power source and configured to cause the leg to extend and retract axially from the housing (¶0024); a current sensor (motor current indicator, ¶0031) configured to detect a current supplied to the electric motor; and a controller (16) in communication with the electric power source and the electric motor, the controller configured to: receive current data from the current sensor (¶0031); in response to determining that the detected current is less than a threshold current, cause a first voltage to be supplied to the electric motor, the first voltage being configured to cause the electric motor to extend or retract the leg at a first speed; and in response to determining that the detected current is greater than or equal to the threshold current, cause a second voltage to be supplied to the electric motor, the second voltage being configured to cause the electric motor to extend or retract the leg at a second speed that is less than the first speed (¶0030-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify and/or substitute the jack assembly of Green with an electric speed control jack assembly as taught by Gill in order to provide a jack assembly that has a reliable and fast operation for lifting and lowering the chassis.
As for claim 2, the modified Green teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: in response to receiving an extend command, cause the electric motor to begin extending the leg from the housing (Gill, ¶0032).
As for claim 3, the modified Green teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: in response to receiving a retract command, cause the electric motor to begin retracting the leg to the housing (Gill, ¶0033).
As for claim 4, the modified Green teaches a user interface in communication with the controller, the user interface configured to receive an input from a user (Gill, ¶0028-29).
As for claim 5, the modified Green teaches wherein the extend command and the retract command are received from the user interface, the user interface being mounted on the line pulling system (Gill, ¶0028-29).
As for claim 6, the modified Green teaches wherein the extend command and the retract command are received from the user interface, the user interface being remote from the line pulling system (Gill, ¶0028-29, any suitable location and/or connected by any other suitable manner, i.e. wireless connection).
As for claim 10, the modified Green teaches a switch configured to cause the electric motor to extend or retract the leg without input from the controller (Gill, user input switch 74 and 76).
As for claim 11, the modified Green teaches a foot (see Fig. 1 above and Gill, 26) attached to the leg (see Fig. 1 and Gill, 22), the foot configured to engage the ground to lift the chassis.
As for claim 13, the modified Green teaches wherein the electric power source comprises a battery (Gill, 52).
Claim(s) 7-9 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green US 3941324 in view of Gill US 2006/0192507 as applied to claims 1 above (for claims 7-9), and further in view of James et al. US 7726690.
As for claim 7, the modified Green teaches all the limitations as recited above but does not specify wherein a level sensor configured to detect whether the chassis is level. However, James teaches a vehicle chassis jack leveling system (Fig. 3) for deploying a mobile surveillance module wherein the vehicle chassis jack leveling system comprises a level sensor (101, 112a) configured to detect whether the vehicle is level (col. 8, lines 65-67 and col. 9, lines 1-22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system of Green to include level sensors as taught by James in order to deploy the jacks to level and stabilize the system efficiently.
As for claim 8, the modified Green teaches the controller (James, 100) being further configured to: receive level data (James, 106) from the level sensor; in response to determining that the chassis is not level and that the current is less than the threshold current, cause the first voltage to be supplied to the electric motor (James, col. 9, lines 35-67 and col. 10, lines 1-8). James teaches the use of a controller with a hydraulic system, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the controller of Green to include the operational programming taught by James to be applied and used with an electrical system as disclosed and taught by Green.
As for claim 9, the modified Green teaches the controller being further configured to: in response to determining that the chassis is not level and that the current is greater than or equal to the threshold current, cause the second voltage to be supplied to the electric motor (as taught by Gill ¶0030-31; and James, see claim 8 rejection above).
As for claim 16, the modified Green teaches a line pulling system comprising: a chassis (Green, 12); a reel carrier assembly (Green, 45) attached to the chassis and configured to support a reel (Green, 70) having an electrical utility line disposed thereon; an electric power source (Gill, 14, 52); a level sensor (James, 101, 112a) configured to detect whether the chassis is level; and an electric jack assembly (Green, 18; Gill, 12) comprising: a housing (Gill, 18) attached to the chassis; a leg (Gill, 22) configured to extend and retract axially from the housing to lift the chassis; an electric motor (Gill, 34) in communication with the electric power source and configured to cause the leg to extend and retract axially from the housing; and a controller (Gill, 16) in communication with the electric power source and the electric motor, the controller configured to: receive level data from the level sensor (James, col. 9, lines 35-67 and col. 10, lines 1-8); and in response to determining that the chassis is not level, cause a voltage to be supplied to the electric motor to extend or retract the leg (Gill, ¶0030-31; James, col. 8, lines 65-67, col. 9, lines 1-22, lines 35-67 and col. 10, lines 1-8).
As for claim 17, the modified Green teaches a plurality of electric jack assemblies (Green, 15, 18; Gill, Fig. 8).
As for claim 18, the modified Green teaches wherein the controller (Gill, 16; James, 100) is further configured to: determine, based at least in part on the level data (James, 106), which electric jack assembly of the plurality of electric jack assemblies needs to be actuated; and cause a voltage to be supplied to the determined electric jack to extend or retract the leg (Gill, ¶0030-31).
As for claim 19, the modified Green teaches a current sensor configured to detect a current supplied to the electric motor (Gill, motor current indicator sensor, ¶0031).
As for claim 20, the modified Green teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: receive current data from the current sensor; in response to determining that the detected current is less than a threshold current, cause a first voltage to be supplied to the electric motor, the first voltage being configured to cause the electric motor to extend or retract the leg at a first speed; and in response to determining that the detected current is greater than or equal to the threshold current, cause a second voltage to be supplied to the electric motor, the second voltage being configured to cause the electric motor to extend or retract the leg at a second speed that is less than the first speed (Gill, ¶0030-31).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green US 3941324 in view of Gill US 2006/0192507 as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Wilson US 4796864
As for claim 12, the modified Green teaches all the limitations as recited above but does not specify wherein the foot (Green, 15 and 18; Gill, 26) comprises a drop foot configured to be extended manually. However, the use of a manually extended and retracted jack foot on a trailer jack is well known in the art as evidence by Wilson who teaches a spring-loaded drop foot trailer jack (see Fig. 1 below) having a telescopic sleeve (22) slidable relative to a tubular housing (14, 20) and actuated manually by a release handle (84). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the foot of the modified Green to a drop foot as taught by Wilson in order to provide a means for quickly positioning the foot towards the support ground manually without having to actuate the electric motor.
PNG
media_image2.png
496
312
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green US 3941324 in view of Gill US 2006/0192507 as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Sproatt et al. US 6619693.
As for claim 14, the modified Green teaches a controller capable of alerting the user with an audible sound when the motor voltage increases (Gill, ¶0034) but does not specify wherein the controller is further configured to: determine whether a sensor error is present; and in response to determining that a sensor error is present, output a notification indicative the line pulling system being unable to complete an auto-leveling process. However, Sproatt teaches a controller (110) for an automatically levelling jack system wherein the system is provided with leveling sensors (90) such that the controller is configured to determine whether a sensor error is present; and in response to determining that a sensor error is present, output a notification (alarm, 138 and visual 66a) indicative the line pulling system being unable to complete an auto-leveling process (col. 6, lines 49-63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the controller of Green to include an alarm and visual indicator for a sensor error as taught by Sproatt in order to provide a means for alerting the user when an error is detected by the controller.
As for claim 15, the modified Green teaches wherein the sensor error comprises an indication that one or more level sensors are in operable (audible sound, Gill, ¶0034).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYRONE V HALL JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5948. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/TYRONE V HALL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723