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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it begins with “The present disclosure relates to…”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show a turntable as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-10 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.
The term “large” in claims 1, 4, and 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In the claims the phrase "mast type lifting device" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claims include elements not actually disclosed. The addition of the language “type” makes it unclear if a mast or a different structure is being claimed, rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable.
In claim 5, second and third cylinders are claimed but not a first cylinder.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kishi US 5,107,955.
Regarding claim 1, Kishi discloses a walking type aerial work platform, comprising a walking base (Kishi, Figure 1), wherein the walking base is provided with a turntable (Kishi, Figure 9); a mast type lifting device (5) being fixed on the turntable; the mast type lifting being hinged (at 15) with one end of a retractable large supporting arm; the other end of the large supporting arm is connected with a work platform (11)(Kishi, Figure 1) through a connecting structure (at 12); an up-and-down amplitude changing mechanism (14) is arranged between the large supporting arm and the mast type lifting device (Kishi, Figure 1); and a leveling mechanism (13) being arranged among the mast type lifting device, the large supporting arm, and the connecting structure.
Regarding claim 4, Kishi further discloses the up-and-down amplitude changing mechanism comprising two first fixed plates (brackets in which pivot 15 rests) fixed on front and rear sides close to a lower end of the large supporting arm (Kishi, Figure 1); one end of a first oil cylinder (14) being hinged between the two first fixed plates; and the other end of the first oil cylinder being hinged to the mast type lifting device (Kishi, Figure 1).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beeson US 20090218173 in view of MacDonald et al US 4,775,029.
Regarding claim 1, Beeson discloses a walking type aerial work platform, comprising a walking base (Beeson, Figure 1); a mast type lifting device (14); the mast type lifting being hinged (at 26) with one end of a retractable large supporting arm (24); the other end of the large supporting arm being connected with a work platform (36)(Beeson, Figure 1) through a connecting structure (40); an up-and-down amplitude changing mechanism (20) being arranged between the large supporting arm and the mast type lifting device (Beeson, Figure 1); and a leveling mechanism (38) being arranged among the mast type lifting device, the large supporting arm, and the connecting structure. Beeson fails to disclose wherein the walking base is provided with a turntable with the mast type lifting device being fixed on the turntable. MacDonald teaches a walking type aerial work platform comprising a turntable (14) with the mast type lifting device being fixed on the turntable (MacDonald, Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of Beeson to comprise a turntable as taught by MacDonald as to provide a way to pivot the work platform.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beeson US 20090218173 in view of MacDonald et al US 4,775,029, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hamer et al WO 2018185607.
Regarding claim 10, Beeson in view of MacDonald further discloses extending legs for stability (Beeson, ¶0014). Beeson in view of MacDonald fails to disclose a pit plate structure arranged at a bottom of the walking base. Hamer teaches a pit plate structure (111) arranged at a bottom of a walking base. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify the device of Beeson in view of MacDonald with a pit plate structure as claimed as to provide stability to the work platform.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 prior art fails to disclose either alone or in combination the invention with a connecting structure or leveling mechanism as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 4,359,137.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN C HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-7881. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm.
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, Michener Joshua can be reached at 571.272.1467. 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.
/KRISTEN C HAYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642