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, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 14, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being Anticipated by Wang (US 20210252910 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang discloses:
a system for handling containers, comprising:
a sling (1 & 2)
a movable frame (4) comprising omnidirectional wheels (3), the movable frame configured to be movable on a flat surface via the omnidirectional wheels [0206] while the sling is in a relaxed state; and
an engagement element (5 & 6 & 8) configured to be engaged to a container [0371 & 0374 & 0375]; and
wherein the engagement element is located on the movable frame, and the movable frame is connected to a connecting end of the sling (Fig. 4A & Fig. 4B) [0349 & 0350 & 0352 & 0353 & 0354].
Regarding Claim 2, Wang discloses:
a pole (12 & 22) configured to guide a portion of the sling closest to the connecting end of the sling (Fig. 4C & Fig. 4D).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang discloses:
the pole is elastic [0356].
Regarding Claim 6, Wang discloses:
a head (61) to which the engagement element and the connecting end of the sling are connected (Fig. 4A) [0350 & 0352].
Regarding Claim 7, Wang discloses:
a position of the head is adjustable on the movable frame [0365].
Regarding Claim 10, Wang discloses:
the movable frame comprises a battery pack [0003 & 0203 & 0361 & 0386].
Regarding Claim 14, Wang discloses:
a displacement of the movable frame is motorized and remotely controlled.[0003 & 0203 & 0361 & 0386].
Regarding Claim 16, Wang discloses:
the container is positioned on the flat surface, and the engagement element is configured to be engaged to the container at a lateral side of the container (Fig. 4A).
Regarding Claim 18, Wang discloses:
the sling is configured to be connected to a crane at an end opposite to the connecting end [0365].
Claim(s) 11, 12, 15, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being Anticipated by Wang et al. (CN 109179245 A).
Regarding Claim 11, Wang discloses:
a method for handling containers (7), comprising:
placing a movable frame (6) connected to a connecting end of a sling (9) [0017 & 0020] on a surface (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2) [0017 & 0020];
the movable frame comprising omnidirectional wheels (1) [0007 & 0020];
moving, via the omnidirectional wheels [0007 & 0020 & 0025] and with the sling relaxed (Fig. 1),
moving the movable frame next to a container having a lifting ring (“lifting hole”) [0004];
engaging a engagement element (16) on the movable frame with the lifting ring of the container [0004]; and
handling the container by lifting the container via the sling (Fig. 2) [0020].
Regarding Claim 12, Wang 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 [0004 & 0020].
Regarding Claim 15, Wang discloses:
a displacement of the movable frame is motorized and remotely controlled [0009 & 0023 & 0027].
Regarding Claim 17, Wang discloses:
the container is positioned on the surface, and wherein the method further comprises engaging the engagement element at a lateral side of the container (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Wang discloses:
handling the container comprises lifting the container in an upright orientation thereof (Fig. 2).
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) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20210252910 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang 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.
Regarding Claim 9, Wang does not teach:
the engagement element comprises a magnet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a magnet on the engagement element in order to provide an active means of assisting in aligning the engagement element since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that magnets for actively aligning engagement elements were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 109179245 A).
Regarding Claim 13, Wang does not teach:
engaging the engagement element with the lifting ring of the container using a magnet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a magnet on the engagement element for engaging the engagement element with the lifting ring of the container in order to provide an active means of assisting in aligning the engagement element since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that magnets for actively aligning engagement elements were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-3, and 6-19 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights