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 § 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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the container" in Line 10. It is not clear if containers is singular as recited in Line 10 or plural as recited in Line 2 of the claim. For examination purposes “the container” in Line 10 is being interpreted as “a container of said containers”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “move at least one between the second column and the third column” in Line 13 of the Claim. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, “move at least one between the second column and the third column” is being interpreted as “move at least one of between the second column and the third column.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first crosspiece" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “the first crosspiece” is being interpreted as “a first crosspiece”.
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on a rejected claim.
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, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gove 3,348,711.
In Re Claim 1, as best understood, Gove teaches a variable footprint handling apparatus (Fig. 1) for handling containers (120) comprising: a first column (5) adapted to be associated with the fifth wheel (2) of a tractor (1), a second column (89, left side) to which a first idle ground support wheel (100, Left side) is idly associated, a third column (89, right side) to which a second idle ground support wheel (100, right side) is idly associated, a lifting arrangement (37, 85) for lifting the container (120), a connection arrangement (9, 107-111, 113, See fig. 10) that connects the second column and the third column to the first column and is configured to move at least one between the second column and the third column between a first position (Fig. 3) wherein the distance of the third column from the second column is maximum, and a second position (Fig. 2) wherein the distance is minimum.
In Re Claim 4, Gove teaches wherein the third column and second column are of the telescopic type. (Column 6, Line 69-Column 7, Line 4)
In Re Claim 5, as best understood, Gove teaches wherein the first column and a first crosspiece (7, 8, 9) are of the telescopic type. (Column 3, Lines 3-7) and (Column 3, Lines 15-19)
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.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gove and in view of Warhurst 7,811,044.
In Re Claim 7, Gove teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Gove does not teach a pump driven by a motor and operatively connected to the connection arrangement for moving the first column between the first and the second position and wherein the pump and the motor are connected to at least one between the first, the second or the third column or to the connection arrangement.
However, Warhurst teaches a pump driven by a motor (128) and operatively connected to the connection arrangement (Fig. 17) for moving the first column (64) between the first and the second position and wherein the pump and the motor are connected to at least one between the first, the second or the third column or to the connection arrangement. (See Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a pump and motor in the apparatus of Gove as taught by Warhurst with a reasonable expectation for success in order to easily manipulate the apparatus with hydraulic controls.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gove and in view of Dieleman et al. 9,919,637.
In Re Claim 9, Gove teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Gove does not teach a system for handling containers comprising a tractor, provided with a fifth wheel, wherein the first column is removably connected to the fifth wheel of the tractor.
However, Dieleman et al. teach a system for handling containers comprising a tractor (800) , provided with a fifth wheel (802), wherein the first column (26) is removably connected to the fifth wheel of the tractor. (Fig. 9)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a tractor with a fifth wheel in the system of Gove as taught by Dieleman et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide a well known pivoting connector to the tractor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 6 and 8 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: Harris et al., Bowman-Shaw, Welch et al. and Rezvanian teach a variable width handling apparatus for handling containers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights