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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 15, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 8, “rotationally fixing the base frame restraint body with a base frame” should read “rotationally fixing the base frame restraint body with the base frame” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 1156009 A1 (Babise).
Regarding claim 19, Babise discloses:
A method of inhibiting rotation of a vehicle lift arm (18) of a vehicle lift (figure 1) using a vehicle engagement assembly (38, 33), the vehicle lift comprising a base frame (2) and a pin (36), the base frame comprising a pair of flanges (11, 45, figure 2) connected to each other via a web (8), the vehicle engagement assembly comprising a base frame restraint body (38) and an arm restraint body (33), wherein the base frame (2), vehicle lift arm (18), base frame restraint body and the arm restraint body are coaxially positioned about the pin (36), the method comprising:
(a) rotationally fixing the arm restraint body (when 33 contacts 38) with the vehicle lift arm,
(b) rotationally fixing the base frame restraint body (38) with a base frame (2) via direct engagement between the base frame restraint body and the web (8) of the base frame (38 is angularly blocked by 7, 8, figure 3),
(c) selectively coupling the arm restraint body with the base frame restraint body to thereby inhibit rotation of the vehicle lift arm (pulling up on 40 uncouples 33 and 38, releasing 40 couples 33 and 38 by the bias force of 37), wherein at least one of the base frame restraint body or the arm restraint body is located between the pair of flanges of the base frame (33 and 38 are both between lower flange 11 and upper flange 45), and
(d) moving the base frame restraint body (38) relative to the base frame and the arm restraint body to selectively allow or inhibit rotation of the vehicle arm (lifting 40 moves the base frame restraint body 38 to allow rotation of the arm 18 and releasing 40 moves the base frame restraint body to inhibit rotation of arm 18).
Regarding claim 20, Babise further discloses:
the method further comprising biasing (with spring 37) the base frame restraint body toward the arm restraint body to thereby inhibit rotation of the vehicle lift arm relative to the base frame (spring 37 biases 38 toward 33 to inhibit relative rotation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 16.
Regarding claim 1, Fijnvandraat et al. teach a vehicle engagement assembly with a base frame, a lift arm, and restraint bodies that selectively inhibit rotation of the lift arm. Claim 1 requires that the base frame restraint body be both rotationally fixed relative to the base frame and configured to move relative to the base frame. The base frame restraint body (69) of Fijnvandraat et al. meets the limitation of being configured to move (vertically) relative to the base frame, however, the base frame restraint body is contained within the end of the lift arm and rotates with the arm relative to the base frame. Therefore, the base frame restraint body of Fijnvandraat et al. is not rotationally fixed relative to the base frame. Similarly, the base frame restraint body (38) of Babise is movable vertically relative to the base frame as well as being rotatable about the pivot axis (through center of 36). The remaining prior art of record fails to meet all of the limitations of claim 1 as presently amended. Claims 3-15 are allowable based on their dependency from claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Babise teaches a vehicle engagement assembly with a base frame comprising flanges with base pin holes, a lift arm, and a pivot restraint mechanism. Babise does not teach the lift arm being pivotally attached to the base frame by a pin about a pivot axis and an arm pin hole wherein the pin extends through the arm restraint body. The pin (36) that translates vertically to connect and release the restraint bodies is offset from the arm restraint body and pivot axis of the arm. The arm is connected to the base frame by pivots (13-16) that allow for a retracted position of the arm shown in figure 1 that would be inhibited by a pin extending through the pivot axis of the arm as claimed in Applicant’s claim 16. Fijnvandraat et al. teach a vehicle engagement assembly with a base frame comprising a pair of flanges and a web coupled to and extending between the flanges as well as a pivot restraint mechanism. Fijnvandraat et al. do not teach either of the restraint bodies being in direct contact with the web that connects the flanges of the base frame. Claim 16 requires that the base frame restraint body be in contact with the web. The restraint bodies of Fijnvandraat et al. are contained within the lift arm and do not contact the base frame components, including the web. The remaining prior art of record fails to meet all of the limitations of claim 16. Claims 17-18 are allowable based on their dependency from claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see, filed January 15, 2026, with respect to independent claims 1 and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 and 3-18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding claims 19-20 on pages 7-8 of the Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that the added limitation “selectively coupling the arm restraint body with the base frame restraint body to thereby inhibit rotation of the vehicle lift arm, wherein at least one of the base frame restraint body or the arm restraint body is located between the pair of flanges of the base frame,” in claim 19 defines over Babise. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as 45 can be considered a flange of the base frame that is connected to flange 11 by web 8 and both the arm restraint body and the base frame restraint body are located between flanges 11 and 45.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE M MUDWILDER whose telephone number is (571)272-6068. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 am - 7:30 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, ROBERT HODGE can be reached at (571)272-2097. 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.
/M.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights