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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “electric winch” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 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.
Claim 1 is 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 anchor” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, the “anchor” is not mentioned previously in the claim.
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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russo (US10981487B1) in view of Glickman et al. (US 6454338 B1) and further in view of Ludewigt et al. (US10625652B2).
Regarding claim 1, Russo discloses a portable apparatus for lifting and lowering items to and from pickup truck cargo bed (FIG. 1) that is mounted stationary assembly (See attached annotated FIG. 1) with two rigid framing members at cross distance wider than lifted items (It can be seen they are cross distance wider than lifted item in Fig. 1), starting near ground (It can be seen in FIG. 1), projecting above the open truck tailgate (It can be seen in FIG. 3),
a loading platform assembly (See attached annotated FIG. 1) with supporting rigid framing that mounts on the stationary assembly two framing members (See attached annotated FIG. 1) and moving up and down these two members on wheels fixed in the supporting rigid framing (See attached annotated FIG. 1) while maintaining the loading platform parallel to the truck cargo bed (It can be seen in FIG. 1 and FIG. 3, while the platform assembly moving up or down platform being parallel to the truck cargo bed );
a winch (8), manual or electric (Column 13, lines 7-10), attached to one of the stationary assembly rigid framing members (It can be seen, It is attached to the member of the stationary assembly) for lifting and lowering loading platform assembly (Column 2, lines 48-50) by retracting or extending steel rope (38) that runs from the winch, around loading platform assembly rigid framing bottom to the anchor on the other stationary assembly framing member (It can be seen in Fig. 9).
It does not disclose portable apparatus for lifting and lowering items to and from pickup truck cargo bed that is mounted (However it discloses the mounting bracket 58) on the open truck tailgate and is secured in place by attachment to anchor points in the truck cargo bed.
Glickman et al. teaches portable apparatus of bed extender (8, which can be replace by ordinary skill person in art by apparatus for lifting and lowering items to and from pickup truck cargo bed) that is mounted on the open truck tailgate tail gate (It can be seen in Fig. 2 to 4) and is secured in place by attachment to anchor points in the truck cargo bed (See Fig. 1, Column 2, lines 45-46).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling date of the claimed invention to modify Russo by replacing the bed extender structure with the portable apparatus for lifting and lowering items from a stationary frame member to the open truck tailgate (In other words, mount the stationary assembly with the help of bracket 58, of Russo in such a way that it is supported on the open truck tailgate of Glickman et al. instead of bed extender) and tail gate is secured in place by attachment to anchor points in the truck cargo bed in view of Glickman et al. in order to achieve the installation of the elevator mechanism without requiring the permanent removal of tail gate.
Russo and Glickman et al. both fails to teach a stationary assembly secured from overturning or sliding by tension members connected to the anchor points in the truck cargo bed.
Ludewigt et al. teaches the stationary assembly (25) secured from overturning or sliding by tension members (24) connected to the anchor points (20) in the truck cargo bed (it can be seen in Fig.1 it is inside the cargo bad).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to modify the combination of Russo and Glickman et al. by incorporation the stationary assembly secured from overturning or sliding by tension members connected to the anchor points in the truck cargo bed further in view of Ludewigt et al in order to improve the stability of the frame structure. (Use of the cable for balancing the structure is well known in art).
PNG
media_image1.png
895
907
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additionally cited prior art shows other portable apparatus for lifting and lowering the items and use of cable or rope and winch mechanism as well.
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