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 .
Status
In response to the amendment filed on 05/04/2026, claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 have been amended, and claim 12 is cancelled. Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are pending and under examination.
Drawings
In response to the drawing objections made in the previous non-final office action, Applicant has amended relevant claims, therefore, the drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, line 2, the term may be amended as “the .
Appropriate correction is required.
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” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the locking mechanism configured to receive the locking pin” in claim 14, and “a lift mechanism configured to move the cylindrical cartridge” and “a rotating mechanism configured to move the cartridge” in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “a limit arm coupled to the rotating mechanism and configured to selectively secure the carrier plate the first orientation and the second orientation” in lines 13-14 lacks written description requirement. Similarly, the phrase “a limit arm coupled to the rotating mechanism and configured to selectively secure the cylindrical cartridge in the first orientation and the second orientation” in claim 16, lines 7-8 lacks written description requirement.
Specification of the instant application does not explicitly state whether the limit arm coupled to the rotating mechanism is configured to selectively secure the carrier plate or the cylindrical cartridge in the first orientation and the second orientation.
However, the entirety of specification eventually presents the device for changing the orientation of the carrying basket comprises the limit arm having the pin and the carrier plate wherein the carrier plate is coupled to the locking plate comprising the locking mechanism. The locking mechanism secures the pin in the first orientation and the second orientation. Similarly, the device for lifting and orienting the cylindrical cartridge comprises the rotating mechanism. The carrying basket receives the cylindrical cartridge. Thus, the cylindrical cartridge can be secured in the first orientation and the second orientation by the same mechanism described above. Therefore, it is not the limit arm, but the locking mechanism that secures the carrier plate and the cylindrical cartridge in the first orientation and the second orientation. Therefore, the phrases lack the written description.
Claims 2-9 inherit the above deficiency by nature of their dependency from claim 1, and claims 17-20 inherit the above deficiency by nature of their dependency from claim 16.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 106741282B, cited on 06/07/2024 IDS, hereinafter Zhang), in view of Oh (KR 101122358B1) and Slee (US 2015/0369309).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses, in fig. 2, a lift device (robot leg) comprising:
a first rail guide (supporting frame 12) coupled vertically to a support wall (housing 4);
a rail coupled to the first rail guide (annotated Zhang fig. 2 below, a linear guide rail 13 [corresponds to the recited rail] is coupled to the support frame 12);
a carrier plate (slider 9) coupled to the rail by at least one linear bearing rail block (linear bearing 10) coupled to the carrier plate and the rail, the at least one linear bearing rail block configured to move along a length of the rail (annotated Zhang fig. 2 below, a slider 9 [corresponds to the recited carrier plate] is coupled to the rail 13 by the linear bearing 10 [corresponds to the recited linear bearing rail block] to move up and down the rail);
a threaded drive shaft extending parallel to the first rail guide, through the carrier plate, and coupled to the carrier plate at a top edge and a bottom edge of the carrier plate (annotated Zhang fig. 2 below, a screw 14 [corresponds to the recited threaded drive shaft] extends parallel to the support framer 12 and extends through the slider 9 thus it couples to a top edge and a bottom edge of the slider 9); and
a drive motor (motor 11) coupled with the threaded drive shaft, wherein the drive motor drives movement of the carrier plate along the threaded drive shaft (Zhang English translation, p. 5:22-23, motor 11 drives the screw 14 [corresponds to the recited threaded drive shaft] to move the slider 9 [corresponds to the recited carrier plate] up and down), but does not disclose a rotating mechanism configured to rotate the carrier plate from a first orientation to a second orientation.
Oh teaches, in an analogous orientation changing device field of endeavor, a rotating mechanism (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The rotating mechanism comprises the rotatable shaft, the pinion gear along with components of the lift mechanism and equivalents thereof as described in claim 19 or ¶ 0047) configured to rotate the carrier plate from a first orientation to a second orientation (annotated Oh figs. 2 and 4 below and Oh English translation, p. 4:16-23, the device comprises a horizontal rotary shaft 31 and a gearbox 33 which can rotate a clamping unit 40. The horizontal rotary shaft 31 extends between lifting frame 23 [corresponds to the recited carrier plate] and the clamping unit 40. The shaft 31 can rotate, thus the lifting frame 23 [corresponds to the recited carrier plate] rotates accordingly from a first orientation to a second orientation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lift device of Zhang to provide the rotating mechanism for rotating the carrier plate as taught by Oh so that the device can pour contents out of a container by rotating the container (Oh English translation, p. 5:24-26).
Zhang as modified by Oh does not disclose a limit arm coupled to the rotating mechanism and configured to selectively secure the carrier plate the first orientation and the second orientation.
Slee teaches, in an analogous lift device field of endeavor, a limit arm coupled to the rotating mechanism and configured to selectively secure the carrier plate the first orientation and the second orientation (annotated Slee figs. 1 and 7 below and ¶ 0066, a first plate member 50 [corresponds to the recited limit arm] is coupled to a spindle 48 [corresponds to the recited rotatable shaft] and rotates about the spindle 48. The second plate member 52 can be coupled to the recited carrier plate and the first plate member. A locking pin 58 moves within a slot 56 to rotate the second plate member 52. The locking pin 58 comprises a threaded shaft on which a nut is provided. The nut may be tightened to fix the second plate member 52 in a first orientation and a second orientation, thus it selectively secures the carrier plate accordingly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lifting device of Zhang as modified by Oh to provide the limit arm for securing the carrier plate as taught by Slee. The locking mechanism of Slee allows an engagement member 36 for holding an object to be in a fixedly rotated position as shown in figs. 6a, 6b.
PNG
media_image1.png
834
1071
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Zhang Fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
808
405
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Oh Fig. 2
PNG
media_image3.png
454
890
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Oh Fig. 4
PNG
media_image4.png
742
939
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Slee Fig. 1
PNG
media_image5.png
721
762
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Slee Fig. 7
Regarding claim 2, Zhang as modified by Oh and Slee teaches the lift device as in the rejection of claim 1, further comprising a second rail guide coupled vertically to the support wall, separated from the first rail guide, and a second rail coupled to the second rail guide (annotated Zhang fig. 2 above and Zhang English translation, p. 5:14, there are two linear guide rails 13. Thus, the other side of the screw 14 [corresponds to the recited threaded drive shaft] includes a second rail guide and a second rail).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang as modified by Oh and Slee teaches the lift device as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the first rail guide is coupled to the support wall and the rail is coupled to the first rail guide (Zhang fig. 1 and annotated Zhang fig. 2 above, the supporting frame 12 [corresponds to the recited first rail guide] is coupled to the housing 4 [corresponds to the recited support wall] and the guide rail 13 is coupled to the supporting frame 12), but does not disclose the coupling minimizes oscillations and produces a sound that is less than 90 decibels.
However, specification of the instant application does not provide how the recited lift system minimizes oscillation and allows a noise level less than 90 dB. Specification simply states at least one rail reduces oscillation (¶ 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lift device of Zhang as modified by Oh and Slee to provide the rail (Zhang fig. 2, linear guide rail 13) for lifting a mechanical part. Because the Zhang’s system uses the same rail system as the instant application, it can reduce oscillation and produce noise less than 90 dB. A user may be able to utilize the device repeatedly without annoying noise.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang as modified by Oh and Slee teaches the lift device as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the threaded drive shaft is coupled to the carrier plate by at least one threaded connector (Zhang English translation, p. 5:18, the slider 9 [corresponds to the recited carrier plate] has a screw hole that matches with the screw 14 [corresponds to the recited threaded drive shaft]. Thus, the screw hole works as the threaded connector).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang as modified by Oh and Slee teaches the lift device as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the carrier plate is coupled to a carrying basket (annotated Zhang fig. 2 above, the slider 9 [corresponds to the recited carrier plate] is coupled to a connecting rod 6 [corresponds to the recited carrying basket]. The connecting rod 6 can hold an object 5).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang as modified by Oh and Slee teaches the lift device as in the rejection of claim 6, wherein the carrying basket is configured to receive a cylindrical cartridge (annotated Zhang fig. 2 above, the connecting rod 6 [corresponds to the recited carrying basket] can be configured to receive a cylindrical cartridge. Receiving a cylindrical cartridge is an intended use which has no patentable weight).
Further, Zhang or other cited references does not disclose the cylindrical cartridge comprises a mass of approximately 6.5kg when empty and approximately 56.5kg when carrying powder contents. However, the claim limitations are intended use and have no patentable weight. A cylindrical cartridge of approximately 6.5 kg can be used with the device of Zhang. If 50 kg of powder is filled in the cartridge, the filled cartridge will be approximately 56.5 kg.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang as modified by Oh and Slee teaches the lift device as in the rejection of claim 6, wherein the carrier plate is coupled to the carrying basket by a shaft extending between the carrier plate and the carrying basket (annotated Zhang fig. 2 above, a connecting piece 8 is considered as the recited shaft which extends between the slider 9 [corresponds to the recited carrier plate] and the connecting rod 6 [corresponds to the recited carrying basket] to couple them together).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang as modified by Oh and Slee teaches the lift device as in the rejection of claim 8, wherein the shaft is rotatable relative to the carrier plate and is configured to allow a change in orientation of the carrying basket (annotated Oh fig. 4 above and Oh English translation, p. 4:16-23, a lift device comprises a horizontal rotary shaft 31 which can rotate a clamping unit 40 [corresponds to the recited carrying basket]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lift device of Zhang as modified by Oh and Slee to provide the rotatable shaft as taught by Oh so that the device can pour contents out of a container by rotating the container (Oh English translation, p. 5:24-26).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Oh and Slee, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kelley et al. (US 2005/0076495, hereinafter Kelley).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang as modified by Oh and Slee teaches the lift device as in the rejection of claim 2, but does not disclose explicitly at least one linear bearing rail block comprises four linear bearing rail blocks, and wherein each linear bearing rail block is coupled to a corner of the carrier plate and configured to translate along a respective one of the first rail guide and the second rail guide.
Kelley teaches, in an analogous rail device field of endeavor, at least one linear bearing rail block comprises four linear bearing rail blocks, and wherein each linear bearing rail block is coupled to a corner of the carrier plate and configured to translate along a respective one of the first rail guide and the second rail guide (fig. 3 and ¶ 0014, a positioning apparatus 10 [equivalent to the recited carrier plate] slides along rails 20 on a base frame 12. There are four linear bearings blocks 22 [correspond to the recite linear bearing rail blocks]. Each linear bearing block is couples to a corner of a base plate 27 of the positioning apparatus 10 to translate along the two rails 20. The bearing blocks of Kelley can be applied to the rails of Zhang to translate the slider 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the life device of Zhang as modified by Oh and Slee to provide the four linear bearing rail blocks as taught by Kelley. The linear bearing blocks are anti-friction devices, thus they allow smooth translation of the slider/carrier plate (Kelley ¶ 0014).
Claims 10, 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (KR 101122358B1), in view of Zhang et al. (CN 106741282B, cited on 06/07/2024 IDS, hereinafter Zhang), Semrau (US 2912762), and Slee (US 2015/0369309).
Regarding claim 10, Oh discloses a device for changing an orientation of a carrying basket (fig. 1 and annotated Oh fig. 2 above, tablet input device), the device comprising:
a support wall (vertical frame 10);
a rail coupled to the support wall (a guide rail 14 coupled to the vertical frame 10);
a carrier plate coupled to the rail, the carrier plate configured to move between a first position and a second position along the rail (annotated Oh fig. 4 above, a lifting frame 23 [corresponds to the recited carrier plate] is coupled to the guide rail 14; Oh English translation, p. 4:10, the frame 23 can move up and down);
a rotatable shaft extending between the carrier plate and the carrying basket, and configured to rotate about a rotational axis (annotated Oh fig. 4 above and Oh English translation, p. 4:16-23, the horizontal rotary shaft 31 [corresponds to the recited rotatable shaft] extends between lifting frame 23 [corresponds to the recited carrier plate] and the clamping unit 40 [corresponds to the recited carrying basket]. The shaft 31 can rotate, thus the shaft 31 becomes a rotational axis); and
wherein rotation of the rotatable shaft causes the carrying basket to change from a first orientation to a second orientation (Oh English translation, p. 4:16-23, the rotation of the shaft 31 allows the clamping unit 40 [corresponds to the recited carrying basket] to rotate, thus an orientation of the clamping unit 40 would change from a first orientation to a second orientation), but does not disclose a support wall including an elongated slot.
Zhang teaches, in an analogous rail device field of endeavor, a support wall including an elongated slot (see annotated Zhang fig. 2 above, the housing 4 [corresponds to the recited support wall] includes an elongated slot for accommodating the rails, the drive shaft, and the carrier plate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the support wall of Oh to provide the elongated slot as taught by Zhang in order to securely couple the lift device with the support wall.
Oh as modified by Zhang teaches the rotatable shaft passes through the elongated slot in the support wall.
By modifying the rail, the carrier plate, and the rotatable shaft of Oh to be disposed in the elongated slot of Zhang, the shaft 31 would pass through the elongated slot in the support wall of Zhang. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Oh as modified by Zhang to provide the rotatable shaft to pass through the elongated slot. Assuming that a depth of the slot is deep enough to enclose all lifting structure, the shaft which carries load of the basket and contents would endure load for safe operation over repeated load carrying operations.
However, Oh as modified by Zhang still does not disclose the elongated slot supporting a rack; the rotatable shaft carrying a pinion gear, wherein as the carrier plate moves between the first position and the second position, the pinion gear moves into engagement with the rack thereby causing the rotatable shaft to rotate about the rotational axis.
Semrau teaches, in an analogous orientation changing device field of endeavor, the elongated slot supporting a rack (fig. 4, a rack 40 is coupled to a shaft 39. The shaft accommodates the rack 40); the rotatable shaft carrying a pinion gear, wherein as the carrier plate moves between the first position and the second position, the pinion gear moves into engagement with the rack thereby causing the rotatable shaft to rotate about the rotational axis (figs. 2, 7, and 8, and col. 2:9-37, a dial 16 [equivalent to the recited carrier plate] rotates about a shaft 19 [corresponds to the recited rotatable shaft], and is connected with pinion 41. The rack 40 engages by the pinion 41 when a wheel 42 rotates. The rotation of pinions and gear 30 lead to the rotation of the dial 16 from a first position to a second position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Oh as modified by Zhang to provide the pinion gear and the rack as taught by Semrau in order to allow a rotating component of the device to rotate in unison with other moving components (Semrau col. 2:1-3).
Oh as modified by Zhang and Semrau does not disclose a limit arm coupled to and extending radially from the rotatable shaft, the limit arm having a pin and the limit arm configured to swing radially about the rotational axis, when in a secured position, the pin prevents rotation of the rotatable shaft.
Slee teaches, in an analogous lift device field of endeavor, a limit arm coupled to and extending radially from the rotatable shaft, the limit arm having a pin and the limit arm configured to swing radially about the rotational axis, when in a secured position, the pin prevents rotation of the rotatable shaft (annotated Slee figs. 1 and 7 above and ¶ 0066, the first plate member 50 [corresponds to the recited limit arm] is coupled to the spindle 48[corresponds to the recited rotatable shaft]. The recited limit arm portion of the first plate member 50 [corresponds to the recited limit arm] extends radially from the spindle 48 and is coupled with the locking pin 58 to allow swinging radially within the slot 56 about the spindle 48. The locking pin 58 comprises a threaded shaft on which a nut is provided. The nut can be tightened to fix the rotation of the locking pin 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Oh as modified by Zhang and Semrau to provide the locking mechanism as taught by Slee. The locking mechanism of Slee allows an engagement member 36 for holding an object to be in a fixedly rotated position as shown in figs. 6a, 6b.
Regarding claim 11, Oh as modified by Zhang, Semrau, and Slee teaches the device as in the rejection of claim 10, wherein the rack comprises teeth configured to cooperate with teeth of the pinion gear (Semrau, col. 2:12-14, the rack 40 is adapted to be engaged by the pinion 41 as discussed in claim 10 above), but does not disclose the rack comprises three teeth.
Semrau does not disclose a number of teeth of the rack 40. However, specification of the instant application states it can be any number of teeth (¶ 0047). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rack of Semrau to provide three or any number of teeth in order to engage with the pinion (Semrau col. 2:12-14).
Regarding claim 13, Oh as modified by Zhang, Semrau, and Slee teaches the device as in the rejection of claim 10, further comprising a locking plate coupled to the carrier plate, the locking plate having a limit slot configured to receive the pin, such that the pin moves along the limit slot as the arm swings radially about the rotational axis (annotated Slee figs. 1 and 7 above and ¶ 0066, a second plate member 52 [corresponds to the recited locking plate] is coupled to the recited carrier plate. The second plate member 52 has a slot 56 [corresponds to the recited limit slot] to receive the locking pin 58. The locking pin moves along the slot as the recited arm swings radially about an axis of the rotatable shaft).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Oh as modified by Zhang, Semrau, and Slee to provide the limit slot as taught by Slee so that the rotating component of the device rotates only the limited range. By applying the slot of Slee to the carrier plate of Oh, it ensures the limited tilt of the container.
Regarding claim 15, Oh as modified by Zhang, Semrau, and Slee teaches the device as in the rejection of claim 10, wherein the pinion gear is configured to engage the rack to rotate the rotatable shaft about the rotational axis approximately 90 degrees (Semrau, examination of figs. 1 and 6 reveals the dial 16 rotates about the shaft 19 including approximately 90 degrees).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Zhang, Semrau, and Slee, as applied to claim 13 above, and in further view of Wood et al. (US 2014/0076904, hereinafter Wood).
Regarding claim 14, Oh as modified by Zhang, Semrau, and Slee teaches the device as in the rejection of claim 13, but does not disclose the locking plate further comprises a locking mechanism, the locking mechanism (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The locking mechanism may be an electronic rotary latch configured to receive a locking pin and equivalents thereof as described in ¶ 0049) configured to receive the locking pin to maintain a position of the arm and prevent rotation of the shaft and the carrying basket.
Slee teaches the nut as the locking mechanism. It can receive and secure the locking pin, but the Slee’s locking mechanism is not in a form of a latch or equivalent.
Wood teaches, in a mechanical locking system field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, a locking mechanism, the locking mechanism configured to receive the locking pin to maintain a position of the arm and prevent rotation of the shaft and the carrying basket (fig. 5 and ¶ 0037, a locking system of a mechanical apparatus comprises a latch 540 comprising an aperture 520. The aperture 520 receives an electronic locking pin 300 of a body 550 [equivalent to the recited limit arm]. By applying the locking system of Wood to the device of Oh as modified by Zhang, Semrau, and Slee, the rotation of limit arm would be fixed by locking the pin sliding along the slot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Oh as modified by Zhang, Semrau, and Slee to provide the locking mechanism as taught by Wood. The locking system of Wood prevents a lid from rotating/opening for safety issue. The locking system applied to Oh as modified by Semrau would secure the rotation of the carrier plate for appropriate application such as fixing the container at a tilted orientation for emptying contents of the container.
Claims 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (KR 101122358B1), in view of Slee (US 2015/0369309).
Regarding claim 16, Oh discloses, in figs. 1 and 2, a device for lifting and orienting a cylindrical cartridge, the device comprising:
a lift mechanism this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The lift mechanism is the lift device 100 comprising a rail guide, a rail, a carrier plate, a drive shaft, a drive motor, and equivalents thereof as described in claim 18 or ¶ 0027 and 0033-38) configured to move the cylindrical cartridge from a first vertical position to a second vertical position (see annotated Oh figs. 2 and 4 below for the recited components; Oh English translation, p. 5:21-23, a container 50 [corresponds to the recited cylindrical cartridge] moves vertically from a first position to a second position because a lifting unit moves up and down along the lifting frame); and
a rotating mechanism (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The rotating mechanism comprises the rotatable shaft, the pinion gear along with components of the lift mechanism and equivalents thereof as described in claim 19 or ¶ 0047) configured to move the cylindrical cartridge from a first orientation to a second orientation (annotated Oh figs. 2 and 4 below and Oh English translation, p. 4:16-23, the device comprises a horizontal rotary shaft 31 and a gearbox 33 which can rotate a clamping unit 40 [corresponds to the recited carrying basket]. Thus, the container 50 moves from a first orientation to a second orientation. The device of Oh comprises other components as presented in the lift mechanism);
wherein the lift mechanism and the rotating mechanism are configured to lift and change the orientation of the cylindrical cartridge (Oh English translation, p. 4:16-23 and 5:21-23, the device of Oh can lift and rotate the clamping unit 40), but does not disclose a limit arm coupled to the rotating mechanism and is configured to selectively secure the cylindrical cartridge in the first orientation and the second orientation.
Slee teaches, in an analogous lift device field of endeavor, a limit arm coupled to the rotating mechanism and is configured to selectively secure the cylindrical cartridge in the first orientation and the second orientation (annotated Slee figs. 1 and 7 below and ¶ 0066, a first plate member 50 [corresponds to the recited limit arm] is coupled to a second plate member 52 [corresponds to the recited rotating mechanism]. The second plate member 52 rotates about a spindle 48 [corresponds to the recited rotatable shaft]. The second plate member 52 can be coupled to the recited carrier plate. A locking pin 58 moves within a slot 56 to rotate the second plate member 52. The locking pin 58 comprises a threaded shaft on which a nut is provided. The nut may be tightened to fix the second plate member 52 in a first orientation and a second orientation, thus it selectively secures the carrier plate accordingly. By applying the locking system of Slee to the device of Oh, the rotation of limit arm would be secured by locking the pin of Slee sliding along the slot, and it would prevent rotation of the rotatable shaft in the rotating mechanism of Oh. The cylindrical cartridge of Oh is connected to the rotatable shaft (see Oh fig. 1), thus the cylindrical cartridge is secured).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lifting device of Oh to provide the limit arm for securing the carrier plate as taught by Slee. The locking mechanism of Slee allows an engagement member 36 for holding an object to be in a fixedly rotated position as shown in figs. 6a, 6b.
Regarding claim 17, Oh as modified by Slee teaches the device as in the rejection of claim 16, but does not disclose the first orientation of the cylindrical cartridge is a horizontal orientation and the second orientation of the cylindrical cartridge is a vertical orientation.
Oh discloses the clamping unit 40 rotates but does not disclose the initial orientation and the final orientation. Because the container 50 can be moved vertically and be rotated (Oh English translation, p. 3:15-20), the first orientation can be designated as the horizontally rotated position and the second orientation can be designated as a vertically upright position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Oh as modified by Slee to provide the different orientation positions in order to carry and empty contents in a container.
Regarding claim 20, Oh as modified by Slee teaches the device as in the rejection of claim 16, but does not disclose explicitly the lift mechanism and the rotating mechanism are configured to lift and rotate the cylindrical cartridge simultaneously.
Oh discloses the device can lift and rotate the clamping unit 40 (Oh English translation, p. 4:16-23 and 5:21-23). Although it does not disclose explicitly whether the lifting and rotation can be configured to be done simultaneously, the lifting and the rotating are mutually exclusive mechanisms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Oh as modified by Slee to provide the lifting and the rotating the cartridge simultaneously so that the transporting and emptying the contents of the container can be done effectively in a short time.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Slee, as applied to claim 16 above, in view of Zhang.
Regarding claim 18, Oh as modified by Slee teaches the device as in the rejection of claim 16, wherein the lift mechanism comprises: a rail guide (Oh, flange 13) coupled vertically to a support wall (Oh, vertical frame 10); a rail (Oh, guide rail 14) coupled to the rail guide; a carrier plate (Oh, frame 23) coupled to the rail; a threaded drive shaft (Oh, screw shaft 21) extending parallel to the rail; and a drive motor (Oh, drive motor 24) coupled with the drive shaft, wherein the drive motor drives movement of the carrier plate along the drive shaft (see annotated Oh figs. 2 and 4 above for the recited components; Oh English translation, p. 3:34-35, the drive motor 24 rotates the screw shaft 21 for moving the components vertically), but does not disclose explicitly at least one linear bearing rail block is coupled to the carrier plate and the rail, the at least one linear bearing rail block configured to move along a length of the rail; and the drive shaft through the carrier plate, coupled to the carrier plate at a top edge and a bottom edge of the carrier plate.
Zhang teaches, in the analogous lift device field of endeavor, at least one linear bearing rail block is coupled to the carrier plate and the rail, the at least one linear bearing rail block configured to move along a length of the rail; and the drive shaft through the carrier plate, coupled to the carrier plate at a top edge and a bottom edge of the carrier plate (annotated Zhang fig. 2 above, a slider 9 [corresponds to the recited carrier plate] is coupled to the rail 13 by the linear bearing 10 [corresponds to the recited linear bearing rail block] to move up and down the rail. The screw 14 [corresponds to the recited threaded drive shaft] extends parallel to the support framer 12 and extends through the slider 9 thus it couples to a top edge and a bottom edge of the slider 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Oh as modified by Slee to provide the linear bearing rail block as taught by Zhang in order to provide smooth sliding motion along the rails.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Slee, as applied to claim 16 above, in view of Zhang and Semrau.
Regarding claim 19, Oh as modified by Slee teaches a device for changing an orientation of a carrying basket (fig. 1 and annotated Oh fig. 2 above, tablet input device), the device comprising:
a support wall (Oh, vertical frame 10);
a rail coupled to the support wall (Oh, a guide rail 14 coupled to the vertical frame 10);
a carrier plate coupled to the rail, the carrier plate configured to move between a first position and a second position along the rail (annotated Oh fig. 4 above, a lifting frame 23 [corresponds to the recited carrier plate] is coupled to the guide rail 14; Oh English translation, p. 4:10, the frame 23 can move up and down); and
a rotatable shaft extending between the carrier plate and the cylindrical cartridge, and configured to rotate about a rotational axis (annotated Oh fig. 4 above and Oh English translation, p. 4:16-23, the horizontal rotary shaft 31 [corresponds to the recited rotatable shaft] extends between lifting frame 23 [corresponds to the recited carrier plate] and the container 50 [corresponds to the recited cylindrical cartridge]. The shaft 31 can rotate, thus the shaft 31 becomes a rotational axis); and
wherein rotation of the rotatable shaft causes the carrying basket to change from a first orientation to a second orientation (Oh English translation, p. 4:16-23, the rotation of the shaft 31 allows the clamping unit 40 [corresponds to the recited carrying basket] to rotate, thus an orientation of the clamping unit 40 would change from a first orientation to a second orientation), but does not disclose a support wall including an elongated slot.
Zhang teaches, in an analogous rail device field of endeavor, a support wall including an elongated slot (see annotated Zhang fig. 2 above, the housing 4 [corresponds to the recited support wall] includes an elongated slot for accommodating the rails, the drive shaft, and the carrier plate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the support wall of Oh as modified by Slee to provide the elongated slot as taught by Zhang in order to securely couple the lift device with the support wall.
Oh as modified by Slee and Zhang teaches the rotatable shaft passes through the elongated slot in the support wall.
By modifying the rail, the carrier plate, and the rotatable shaft of Oh to be disposed in the elongated slot of Zhang, the shaft 31 would pass through the elongated slot in the support wall of Zhang. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Oh as modified by Zhang to provide the rotatable shaft to pass through the elongated slot. Assuming that a depth of the slot is deep enough to enclose all lifting structure, the shaft which carries load of the basket and contents would endure load for safe operation over repeated load carrying operations.
However, Oh as modified by Slee and Zhang still does not disclose the elongated slot supporting a rack; the rotatable shaft carrying a pinion gear, wherein as the carrier plate moves between the first position and the second position, the pinion gear moves into engagement with the rack thereby causing the rotatable shaft to rotate about the rotational axis.
Semrau teaches, in an analogous orientation changing device field of endeavor, the elongated slot including a notch supporting a rack (fig. 4, a rack 40 is coupled to a shaft 39. The shaft accommodates the rack 40); the rotatable shaft carrying a pinion gear, wherein as the carrier plate moves between the first position and the second position, the pinion gear moves into engagement with the rack thereby causing the rotatable shaft to rotate about the rotational axis (figs. 2, 7, and 8, and col. 2:9-37, a dial 16 [equivalent to the recited carrier plate] rotates about a shaft 19 [corresponds to the recited rotatable shaft], and is connected with pinion 41. The rack 40 engages by the pinion 41 when a wheel 42 rotates. The rotation of pinions and gear 30 lead to the rotation of the dial 16 from a first position to a second position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Oh as modified by Slee and Zhang to provide the pinion gear and the rack as taught by Semrau in order to allow a rotating component of the device to rotate in unison with other moving components (Semrau col. 2:1-3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Zhang does not teach or suggest the amended claim limitations of claim 1 that a rotating mechanism configured to rotate the carrier plate from a first orientation to a second orientation; and a limit arm coupled to the rotating mechanism and configured to selectively secure the carrier plate the first orientation and the second orientation. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The rotating mechanism was previously recited in claim 16 prior to the current amendments, and Oh teaches the rotating mechanism for rotating the carrier plate from a first orientation to a second orientation wherein Oh discloses the horizontal rotary shaft, the gearbox for rotating the lifting frame, which corresponds to the recited carrier plate (Oh English translation, p. 4:16-23 and figs. 2 and 4).
The limit arm coupled to the rotating mechanism for securing the carrier plate was previously recited in claims 10 and 12-14 prior to the amendments. As Examiner notes in 112(a) rejection above, specification of the instant application does not state directly that the limit arm is configured to selectively secure the carrier plate the first orientation and the second orientation. But the function is made possible by help of the locking mechanism coupled to the rotating mechanism. Slee teaches the limit arm coupled to the rotating mechanism, and the locking mechanism. Thus, Slee can be combined with Oh to teach the recited claim limitations.
Regarding the Mushynski reference, Applicant argues there is no motivation to combine Mushynski with Zhang, Oh, or Semrau. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although Mushynski teaches vehicle restraints, instead of a lift and orientation changing device, it teaches mechanical components of limiting arm sliding along a curvilinear slot so that the limiting arm can rotate with respect to the rotatable shaft. Mushynski also teaches the pin 142 pivotally couples the rocker arm 140 (¶ 0073). Thus, the pin 142 could be the rotatable shaft. Even if the pin 142 of Mushynski does not rotate, Oh teaches the rotatable shaft 31, and the pivoting limit arm of Mushynski can be combined with the rotatable shaft of Oh to teach the claim limitations.
Although Mushynski teaches the recited claim limitations and combined with the locking mechanism of Wood, Slee is cited to simplify the rejection. Slee teaches a lift device comprising a rotating mechanism. The rotating mechanism of Slee includes the recited limit arm extending radially from the rotatable shaft. The limit arm has the locking pin moving within the slot, and the lock pin has the nut for securing the locking pin in a position (see annotated Slee figs. 1 and 7 above)
Finally, Applicant argues interpreting the terms “a locking mechanism”, “a lift mechanism”, and “a rotating mechanism” under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) is improper. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specification of the instant application presents the locking mechanism may be an electronic rotary latch (¶ 0049), the lift mechanism comprises a rail guide, a rail, a carrier plate, a drive shaft, a drive motor (¶ 0027 and 0033-38), and the rotating mechanism comprises a rotatable shaft and a pinion gear along with components of the lift mechanism (¶ 0047). The generic placeholders recited in claims 14 and 16 are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, it is proper to interpret the recited terms under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
For the reasons above, the arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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.
/S.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
