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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being Anticipated by Jacobsen et al. (NO 338011 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Jacobsen discloses:
a system for handling containers (5), comprising:
a movable frame (6) configured to be movable on a flat surface (Fig. 4C & Fig. 5C & Fig. 6C & Fig. 7C & Fig. 8C & Fig. 8D);
a engagement element (7) configured to be engaged to a container (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2 & Fig. 3 & Fig. 4C & Fig. 5C & Fig. 6C & Fig. 7C & Fig. 8C & Fig. 8D); and
a sling [0022], wherein the engagement element is located on said movable frame (Fig. 4C & Fig. 5C & Fig. 6C & Fig. 7C & Fig. 8C & Fig. 8D), said movable frame being connected to a connecting end of said sling [0022].
Regarding Claim 6, Jacobsen discloses:
a head to which the engagement element and the connecting end of the sling are connected [0022].
Regarding Claim 9, Jacobsen discloses:
the engagement element comprises a magnet [0004 & 0019 & 0025].
Regarding Claim 10, Jacobsen discloses:
the movable frame comprises a battery pack [0019].
Regarding Claim 11, Jacobsen discloses:
a method for handling containers (5), comprising:
placing a movable frame (6) connected to a connecting end of a sling [0022] on a surface (Fig. 4B & Fig. 4C);
moving the movable frame next to a container provided with a lifting ring (Fig. 2 & Fig. 5B & Fig. 5C & Fig. 6B & Fig. 6C & Fig. 7B & Fig. 7C & Fig. 8B & Fig. 8C & Fig. 8D);
engaging a engagement element on the movable frame with the lifting ring of the container (Fig. 5B & Fig. 5C & Fig. 6B & Fig. 6C & Fig. 7B & Fig. 7C & Fig. 8B & Fig. 8C & Fig. 8D); and
handling the container by lifting it by means of this sling (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 12, Jacobsen discloses:
after positioning the movable frame, the sling is relaxed, keeping a portion of the sling at the connecting end thereof in a substantially vertical position [0022 & 0023].
Regarding Claim 13, Jacobsen discloses:
engaging of the engagement element with the lifting ring of the container is performed using a magnet [0004 & 0019 & 0025].
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen et al. (NO 338011 B1) in view of Matre et al (NO 336096 B1).
Regarding Claim 2, Jacobsen teaches:
further comprising a cone (61) configured to guide a portion of the sling closest to the connecting end of the sling (Fig. 5B & Fig. 5C & Fig. 6B & Fig. 6C & Fig. 7B & Fig. 7C & Fig. 8B & Fig. 8C & Fig. 8D) [0028].
Jacobsen does not teach:
the guide is a pole.
Matre teaches:
a system for handling containers (5 & 9), comprising:
a movable frame (33) configured to be movable (Fig. 3 & Fig. 4);
a engagement element (21) configured to be engaged to a container (Fig. 3 & Fig. 4);
a sling (10), wherein the engagement element is located on said movable frame (Fig. 3 & Fig. 4), said movable frame being connected to a connecting end of said sling (Fig. 5); and
further comprising a pole (8) configured to guide a portion of the sling closest to the connecting end of the sling (Fig. 3 & Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container handling latching system having a guide cone for aligning the engagement element with the lifting ring taught by Jacobsen with the modify the container handling latching system having a series of guide poles for aligning the engagement element with the lifting ring taught by Matre in order to provide an alignment means with a reduced weight thereby reducing the overall weight of the system and therefore stress on the sling.
Regarding Claim 3, Jacobsen does not teach:
the pole is elastic.
Matre teaches:
the pole is elastic [0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container handling latching system having a guide cone for aligning the engagement element with the lifting ring taught by Jacobsen with the modify the container handling latching system having a series of elastic guide poles for aligning the engagement element with the lifting ring taught by Matre in order to provide an alignment means with a reduced weight thereby reducing the overall weight of the system and therefore stress on the sling and preventing damage to the alignment means by allowing for give in the system.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen et al. (NO 338011 B1) in view of Prager et al. (US 20190193856 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Jacobsen does not teach:
the movable frame comprises wheels.
Prager teaches:
a system for handling containers (508), comprising:
a movable frame (700) configured to be movable on a flat surface (ground) [0158 & 0159 & 0160 & 0161 & 0162 & 0163 & 0164 & 0165 & 0166];
a engagement element (606 & 612 & 706 & 712) configured to be engaged to a container (Fig. 8D & Fig. 8E) [0156 & 0157 & 0158 & 0167]; and
a sling (502), wherein the engagement element is located on said movable frame (Fig. 6A & Fig. 6B & Fig. 6C & Fig. 7A & Fig. 7B & Fig. 8D), said movable frame being connected to a connecting end of said sling (Fig. 8C & Fig. 8D) [0145 & 0146 & 0147 & 0148 & 0149].
the movable frame comprises wheels (604 & 704) (Fig. 6A & Fig. 6B & Fig. 6C & Fig. 7A & Fig. 7B & Fig. 8D) [0156 & 0157 & 0158 & 0159 & 0160 & 0161 & 0162 & 0163 & 0164 & 0165 & 0166].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container handling latching system having a guide cone for aligning the engagement element with the lifting ring taught by Jacobsen with the modify the container handling latching system having a movable frame comprises wheels taught by Matre in order to provide an alignment means capable of self-adjustment to allow correcting for misalignment.
Regarding Claim 5, Jacobsen does not teach:
the wheels are omnidirectional.
Prager teaches:
the wheels are omnidirectional [0157].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container handling latching system having a guide cone for aligning the engagement element with the lifting ring taught by Jacobsen with the modify the container handling latching system having a movable frame comprises omnidirectional wheels taught by Matre in order to provide an alignment means capable of self-adjustment to allow correcting for misalignment.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen et al. (NO 338011 B1).
Regarding Claim 7, Jacobsen does not teach:
position of the head is adjustable on the movable frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the position head adjustable in order to allow the head to accommodate lifting rings of different sizes thereby increasing the versatility of the head, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954) (referred to in MPEP 2144.04(V)(D))
Regarding Claim 8, Jacobsen does not explicitly teach:
the head comprises torsion springs to maintain a position of the engagement element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide torsion springs to maintain a position of the engagement element in order to prevent unintended disengagement of the engagement element thereby preventing unintentional disengagement of the engagement element since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that torsion springs for biasing a locking element into an engaged position were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Patent publications US 9422137 B2, US 8746766 B2, NO 201300508 A, NO 347255 B1, NO 324006 B1, WO 2014168487 A1, WO 2014166945 A1, and US 10689113 B2 have been cited by the examiner as pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure because they teach: article engaging means for hoisting articles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN P TIGHE whose telephone number is 571-272-4872. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 7:00-5:30 EST
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SAUL RODRIGUEZ can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENDAN P TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652