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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the adjustable ratchet on each of the pivot point brace and the main brace as described in par. 20 and 23 of 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show top handle’s clamp locking mechanism in par. 18 of 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the adjustable pivot ratchet, the adjustable ratchet, the clamp locking mechanism, the clamp attaching mechanism, platform, spring must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 4, 7, 8, 10, 14, 16 and 19. No new matter should be entered.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; the following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for.";and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 12 recites “a connecting mechanism attaching the bottom left arm with a lifting handle” and “a connecting mechanism attaching the bottom right arm with a lifting handle”. The three prong tests are:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or a generic placeholder (mechanism),
(B) the term “means” is modified by functional language (attaching),
(C) the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
All three prongs are met and therefore this claim limitation is going to be interpreted to invoke 35 USC 112f; andpar. 0024 of the specification reveals “the bottom left arm 12 further comprises a hole 13 for carabiner, cables, hooks, or handles to connect to a lifting handle 18” and par. 0026 of the specification reveals “the lifting handles are designed to attach beneath a box and comprise a spring or bungee cord that connects the lifting handles to each other”, “the lifting handles are designed to support a material tray or platform” and “Each variation of lifting handles 18 may be used to lift objects of different sizes and weight during use of the present invention as needed”.
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 12 recites the limitation “a connecting mechanism attaching the bottom left arm with a lifting handle, … and a connecting mechanism attaching the bottom right arm with a lifting handle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if “a lifting handle” is part of “lifting handles” earlier recited in claim 1 or is different. Based on Figs. of the invention this claim language is suggested to be amended as below to overcome this rejection:--a first connecting mechanism attaching the bottom left arm with a first lifting handle of the lifting handles, … and a second connecting mechanism attaching the bottom right arm with a second lifting handle of the lifting handles--.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Martini et al. (US 20090121203 A1) hereinafter Martini.
Claim 1 recites a device that is used for lifting storage tote. More limiting the features and relationship between the storage tote and the device mount to mere components associated with the intended use of the recited device. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (anticipation rejection affirmed based on Board’s factual finding that the reference dispenser (a spout disclosed as useful for purposes such as dispensing oil from an oil can) would be capable of dispensing popcorn in the manner set forth in appellant’s claim 1 (a dispensing top for dispensing popcorn in a specified manner)) and cases cited therein. See also MPEP § 2112 - MPEP § 2112.02. Thus, the prior art only needs to teach the recited components of the device.
Martini teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a cantilevered lifting device comprising: a top section, a pivot point brace (angle member 126 connected to the wheels 138), an attaching mechanism (connector 124, threaded bolt 116, a flat washer 118, a lock washer 120 and a threaded nut 122) on said pivot point brace, a middle section (114), a main brace (main brace comprises at least 108, 106L, 106R, 132, 132), a bottom left arm (left side receiver tube 146), a bottom right arm (right side receiver tube 146), and lifting handles (left and right lift members 152, 152). Device of Martini is capable of lifting totes by engaging U-shaped part of handles under a tote lip.
PNG
media_image1.png
1021
651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
537
784
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Martini teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the top section further comprising: a top handle, a top left arm, and a top right arm.
Regarding claim 3, Martini teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the top handle further comprising a locking mechanism.
Regarding claim 5, Martini teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the top section further comprising: an outer sleeve of the top left arm (left side 112), inner tubing (left side of 102) of the top left arm, an outer sleeve of the top right arm (right side 112), inner tubing (left side of 102) of the top right arm, and locking pins (132, 132).
Regarding claims 6, 18 and 20, Martini teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the attaching mechanism comprises at least two drill holes and locking pins (holes through which threaded bolt 116/locking pin passes).
Regarding claim 9, Martini teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the middle section further comprising: a middle left arm (left side of 130), and a middle right arm (right side of 130).
Regarding claim 10, Martini teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the main brace further comprising an adjustable (adjustability by plurality of attachment holes as shown in Fig. 13A-13B below) pivot ratchet (106L/106R) .
PNG
media_image3.png
680
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Martini teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the main brace further comprising: an outer sleeve (108) of the main brace, inner tubing (tube shaped cap plug 132) of the main brace, and locking pins (hair pin cotter pins 162).
Regarding claim 12, Martini teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) a hole found on the bottom left arm (rectangular shaped hole inside 146), a connecting mechanism (grip pins and holes) attaching the bottom left arm with a lifting handle, a hole found on the bottom right arm, and a connecting mechanism (ring grip pins 128 and holes) attaching the bottom right arm with a lifting handle.
Claim 13 is further limiting intended use of the lifting handles being shaped specifically for lifting totes. U-shaped part of handles of Martini are capable of engaging under a tote lip to lift.
Claim 14 is further limiting intended use of the lifting handles being shaped specifically for lifting totes. U-shaped part of handles of Martini are capable of engaging under a tote lip to lift. Martini further teaches lifting handles comprise spring lock washer 120.
Claim 17 is combination of claims 1, 2 and 9 and is rejected for the same reasons by Martini.
Claim 19 is combination of claims 1-3, 5 and 9-11 and is rejected for the same reasons by Martini.
Claims 1-3, 9, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (CN 116789033 A) hereinafter Yang.
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a storage tote lifting device
PNG
media_image4.png
42
888
media_image4.png
Greyscale
comprising: a top section, a pivot point brace, an attaching mechanism (rotation connections 111, 121) on said pivot point brace, a middle section, a main brace (13), a bottom left, a bottom right arm, and lifting handles.
PNG
media_image5.png
628
921
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
378
479
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
500
573
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Yang teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the top section further comprising: a top handle, a top left arm, and a top right arm.
Regarding claim 3, Yang teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the top handle further comprising a locking mechanism (“fastening pieces”).
Regarding claim 9, Yang teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the middle section further comprising: a middle left arm (422), and a middle right arm (412).
Regarding claim 13, Yang teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the lifting handles are shaped specifically for lifting totes (for locating flat bottom section of tote on flat top of the lifting handles).
Claim 17 is combination of claims 1, 2 and 9 and is rejected for the same reasons by Yang.
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.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martini in view of Forester (US 5099539 A).
Regarding claims 4 and 7, telescopic pieces are fixed together by bolt/pin and not a clamp.
Forester teaches spring loaded pivoting clamping mechanism for fixing telescopic pieces (col. 8, line 39-col. 9, line 20).
PNG
media_image8.png
374
395
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use clamp for fixing inner tubes to outer tubes of Martini instead of regular pins/bolts for faster adjustment.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martini in view of Rabey (US 0852846 A).
Regarding claim 8, in cantilevered device of Martini, angle of middle section (114) relative to the lifting handles (152, 152) can be set on zero or 90 degrees, but not incrementally adjustable.
Rabey teaches a cantilevered device with incremental adjustment of handle G relative to the base I using ratcheting mechanism (O, N).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ratcheting angular adjustment between the lifting handles (152, 152) and the middle section (114) of Martini. Doing so would make the device capable of changing lifting height level.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martini in view of Perlstein (US 20200079627 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the two lifting handles of Martini do not have a tray platform.
Perlstein teaches a lifting system 100 with two lifting handles (120, 122) connected together by a tray platform (184) having a width 186.
PNG
media_image9.png
422
538
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach a tray platform to the lifting handle to increase engagement width with the lifted object such as base of a tote.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martini in view of Wallace et al. (US 20220371637 A1) hereinafter Wallace.
Claim 15 is further limiting intended use of the lifting handles being shaped specifically for lifting totes. U-shaped part of handles of Martini are capable of engaging under a tote lip to lift. Martini does not have tie-downs such as bungee cord to fasten cargo/load to the lifting device.
Wallace teaches a lifting hand-truck using tie-down devices such as straps, bungees to secure and stabilize a cargo to the frame of the lifting device (see par. 0040).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use tie-downs such as bungee cords to securely hold the load on the device.
Claims 4-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Forester.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 11, Yang teaches the top section further comprising: an outer sleeve (6) of the top left arm, inner tubing (51) of the top left arm, an outer sleeve of the top right arm, inner tubing of the top right arm; the main brace further comprising: an outer sleeve of the main brace, inner tubing of the main brace.Yang does not clearly show the fastening mechanism between the outer sleeve 6 and inner tubing 51 and locking pins between the inner tubing 13 and the outer sleeve 6.
Forester teaches spring loaded pivoting clamping mechanism with locking pin 296 for fixing telescopic pieces (col. 8, line 39-col. 9, line 20).
PNG
media_image8.png
374
395
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use clamp for fixing inner tubes to outer tubes of Yang for faster assembly and disassembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gao Zhi et al. (CN 111483951) teaches a cantilevered lifting device pivotally installed on an A frame structure (12).
PNG
media_image10.png
800
724
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHDI H NEJAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4pm EST.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
MAHDI H. NEJAD
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MAHDI H NEJAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723