DETAILED ACTION
1. The response dated on 04/28/2026 has been entered and is treated as below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "530b in fig. 15, 17, & 19" and "630b in other figs." have both been used to designate “a second end”. 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. 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 § 103
4. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gove (US 3348711 A) in view of Zukerman et al. (US 20190322204 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gove discloses 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, right side) to which a first idle ground support wheel, wheel (100) is idly associated,
a third column (89, left side) to which a second idle ground support wheel, wheel (100) is idly associated,
a lifting arrangement (37, 85) for lifting the container (120, see column 4, lines 42 through column 5, lines 32 and column 6, lines 53-61 and figure 7)
a connection arrangement (7, 8 and 9) that connects the second column and the third column to the first column and is configured to move at least one of the three columns with respect to another of the three columns between a first position, and a second position, wherein a footprint in plan of the apparatus in said second position is smaller than a footprint in plan of the apparatus in said first position (see column 3, lines 15-35 and figure 5.),
wherein the third column and the second column are of the telescopic type (Column 6, lines 69 through column 7 line 4).
Gove explicitly fails to disclose the first idle wheel and the second idle wheel of the apparatus are rotatably associated with a male section respectively, of the second column and of the third column that are telescopic and are completely in an external position and adjacent to the respective column.
Zukerman et al. teaches the first idle wheel (1a) and the second idle wheel (1b) of the apparatus are rotatably associated with a male section (2a) respectively, of the second column (see attached annotated FIG. 1A) and of the third column (see attached annotated FIG. 1A) that are telescopic (it can be seen in FIG. 3B to 3D) and are completely in an external position and adjacent to the respective column (It can be seen in FIG.1A that wheel 1a and 1b are completely in an external position and adjacent to the respective column).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the applicant’s claim to modify Gove by incorporating the first idle wheel and the second idle wheel of the apparatus are rotatably associated with a male section respectively, of the second column and of the third column that are telescopic and are completely in an external position and adjacent to the respective column in view of Zukerman et al. in order to allow fully extended telescopic movement to male section and reduce the friction during footprint variation.
PNG
media_image1.png
436
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Gove does not disclose each wheel is associated with the male section of the respective column in such a way that a top portion of the wheel is located at a vertical height equal to or greater than a vertical height of a lower end of the male section.
Zukerman et al. each wheel is associated with the male section of the respective column in such a way that a top portion of the wheel is located at a vertical height equal to or greater than a vertical height of a lower end of the male section (it can be seen in FIG. 3B -3C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the applicant’s claim to modify Gove by incorporating each wheel is associated with the male section of the respective column in such a way that a top portion of the wheel is located at a vertical height equal to or greater than a vertical height of a lower end of the male section in view of Zukerman et al. in order to transfer the load from wheel to column to improve the life of wheel.
Regarding claim 4, Gove does not disclose each wheel is rotatably associated with the male section of the respective column with respect to a horizontal axis of rotation at a lower end portion of said male section.
Zukerman et al. teaches each wheel is rotatably associated with the male section of the respective column with respect to a horizontal axis of rotation at a lower end portion of said male section (it can be seen in FIG. 3B -3C, also see above attached annotated FIG. 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the applicant’s claim to modify Gove by incorporating each wheel is rotatably associated with the male section of the respective column with respect to a horizontal axis of rotation at a lower end portion of said male section in view of Zukerman et al. in order to improve the durability of the structure and allow smooth horizontal rolling of variable footprint apparatus while columns are moving horizontally.
Regarding claim 5, Gove does not disclose each wheel is associated with the male section of the respective column in such a way that the axis of rotation is located at a vertical height equal to or greater than a vertical height of a lower end.
Zukerman et al. teaches each wheel is associated with the male section of the respective column in such a way that the axis of rotation (see above attached annotated FIG. 1A) is located at a vertical height equal to or greater than a vertical height of a lower end (it can be seen in FIG. 3B -3C, also).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the applicant’s claim to modify Gove by incorporating each wheel is associated with the male section of the respective column in such a way that the axis of rotation is located at a vertical height equal to or greater than a vertical height of a lower end in view of Zukerman et al. in order to allow the vertical load is being transferred to the column not to the wheel.
Regarding claim 6, Gove discloses the connection arrangement (FIG. 10, 9, 107-11, 113) is configured to move at least one between the second column (89, right side) and the third column (89, left side) between a first position (FIG. 3), in which the distance of the third column from the second column is maximum, and a second position (FIG. 2) in which said distance is minimum.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 8 is allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 8 recites all the elements of claim 1. It further recites the specific arrangement of the ideal wheels, wherein each of said first and second idle wheels is placed side-by- side to the respective column without protruding laterally externally with respect to the side footprint of the respective column. Closest prior art of the record Gove (US 3348711 A) and Zukerman et al. (US 20190322204 A1) fails to teach or suggest the arrangement of the wheel as recited in claim 8. Therefore, the claim 8 deemed allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 7 of remark, “The Examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to modify Gove by incorporating the teachings of Zukerman. In particular, the Office Action states that a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Zukerman's wheel arrangement "in order to allow fully extended telescopic movement to male section and reduce the friction during footprint variation" (Office Action, page 5). In Applicant's view, this rationale appears to rely on impermissible hindsight”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant further argues on page 7-8 of remark, “more specifically, the primary purpose of the telescopic columns in Zukerman is to provide vertical movement of the apparatus relative to the ground, so as to enable it to clear obstacles. By contrast, Gove is directed to modifying the horizontal footprint, namely the track width, for container handling purposes. Accordingly, a POSITA would not have been motivated to combine Zukerman's vertical adjustment mechanism with Gove's footprint-varying apparatus in order to "reduce friction during footprint variation." The two references address different technical problems and pursue different technical objectives. There is no apparent reason why a POSITA seeking to improve Gove's horizontal footprint adjustment would look to Zukerman's vertical lift solution.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Gove includes both, vertical and horizontal telescoping structural members that move relative to one another (see rejection above). Zukerman also teaches the use of wheels positioned adjacent to male telescoping sections to facilitate relative movement between the sections during extension and retraction which is a known low friction technique for adjusting the height of the structural members. It should be further noted that Zukerman is merely intended to teach a male member associated with a lower portion of the structure. Because both references involve vertical telescoping members for adjusting the height, a POSITA would have recognized that Zukerman’s wheel arrangement with a male member associated with the lower portion of the structure could be used in Gove to facilitate relative low friction movement between the vertical telescoping sections. Therefore, the combination represents the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their functions and would have been obvious to a POSITA. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 3-6 under U.S.C. §103 is deemed proper.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other references cited on PTO-892 shows container handling apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAIMIN G PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 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 517-272-7097. 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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/JAIMIN G PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights