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
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 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, 10-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LPA in view of Johnson et al. (2004/0255872) (“Johnson”).
Regarding claim 1, LPA teaches an articulating transport assembly for a movable platform, the assembly comprising: a plurality of arm segments connected to each other and movable to a retracted state and an extended state to define an articulating arm but fails to teach the arm segments move relative to each other with a single degree of freedom. Johnson teaches a movable arm having a plurality of arm segments (7,9); and a plurality of joints (6,8) each including a first connector and a second connector (each half of the joint attached to the arms 7,9) disposed between a respective pair of the arm segments to join the arm segments such that the arm segments move relative to each other with a single degree-of-freedom between the retracted state and the extended state (paragraph [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the joints on the arms of LPA with a single degree of freedom as taught by Johnson as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 10, LPA as modified by Johnson teaches one of the arm segments is defined as a proximal arm segment and another one of the arm segments is defined as a distal arm segment; and further including an anchor point coupled to the proximal arm segment. The proximal arm segment has an anchor point and the distal segment is connected to the chock cart.
Regarding claim 11, LPA as modified by Johnson teaches the anchor point defines a pivot axis, and the proximal arm segment is coupled to the anchor point such that the proximal arm segment is rotatable about the pivot axis to selectively change a location of the distal arm segment relative to the anchor point. The proximal arm segment is pivotably attached to the anchor.
Regarding claim 12, LPA as modified by Johnson teaches a transport actuator attached to the distal arm segment and configured to move the articulating arm relative to the anchor point. LPA teaches a wheeled drive.
Regarding claim 13, LPA as modified by Johnson teaches at least one of the arm segments is disposed between the proximal arm segment and the distal arm segment; the at least one of the arm segments disposed between the proximal arm segment and the distal arm segment is defined as an intermediate arm segment; each of the arm segments has a length but fails to teach the length of the proximal arm segment and the distal arm segment are different than the length of the intermediate arm segment. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the arm segments different lengths, since such a modification would have involved a mere chance in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 14, LPA as modified by Johnson teaches each of the arm segments include a first side and a platform attached to the first side (supporting cables), and the platform is configured to support a flexible structure (cables) that extends across more than one of the arm segments (from the anchor point to the cart); each of the arm segments include a second side opposing the first side of the respective arm segments; and the first connector and the second connector of each of the arm segments are attached to the first side of the respective arm segments.
Regarding claim 15, LPA as modified by Johnson teaches at least one ground support attached to the second side of each of the arm segments to support the arm segments. The ends of the arms have a wheeled structure attached to the arm segments.
Regarding claim 16, LPA as modified by Johnson teaches each of the arm segments includes a platform configured to support a flexible structure across each of the arm segments to transport the flexible structure. The cable feeds through the arm structure defining a platform.
Regarding claim 18, LPA as modified by Johnson teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach the first connector and the second connector of each of the arm segments is defined as a link. The examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known to make joint connectors a link. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the connectors of LPA links as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 19, LPA as modified by Johnson teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach the first connector and the second connector of each of the arm segments is defined as a gear. The examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known to make joint connectors gears. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the connectors of LPA gears as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 20, LPA teaches a transport system for moving a flexible structure (cables), the system comprising: an aircraft including a port configured to connect to the flexible structure; and an articulating transport assembly including: a plurality of arm segments connected to each other and movable to a retracted state and an extended state to define an articulating arm configured to support and move the flexible structure relative to the aircraft but fails to teach the arm segments move relative to each other with a single degree of freedom. Johnson teaches a movable arm having a plurality of arm segments (7,9); and a plurality of joints (6,8) each including a first connector and a second connector (each half of the joint attached to the arms 7,9) disposed between a respective pair of the arm segments to join the arm segments such that the arm segments move relative to each other with a single degree-of-freedom between the retracted state and the extended state (paragraph [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the joints on the arms of LPA with a single degree of freedom as taught by Johnson as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9, 17 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892. Fulton teaches an extendable arm assembly with joint connectors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL ANNE RISIC whose telephone number is (571)270-7819. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, M-Th.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/ABIGAIL A RISIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 June 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights