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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the species of Figs. 49-66 from Group 1, readable on claims 1-13, in the reply filed on Feb 20, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Applicant traverses the requirement for election of species because Species 3 (the species of Figs. 67-68) and Species 4 (the species of Figs 107 and 108) are not patentably distinct from Species 2 and therefore should not have been identified as separate species requiring election.”
This is not found persuasive because the Examiner clearly (see Office Action, mailed Dec 30, 2025) provides four different species having patentably unique structures of lifting forks, various scissors assembly both horizontally and/or vertically movable, diverse lifting devices such as crane or ring, and lifting power means as listed and shown in the species of Figures.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14 and 15 are withdrawn and cancelled from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on Feb 20, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14/15/2024, was filed and the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that in claim 6, line 7 (last line), the word – a – should be inserted before “lifting equipment.”
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sedlock (US 2019/0062124).
RE claims 1-4 and 10-13, Sedlock (US 2019/0062124) discloses a system (see Figs. 1-10) for delivering one or more items, shingles (14,14) onto one or more target surfaces, a roof, including: one or more portable supports (see Fig. 1) operationally configured to be installed on the one or more target surfaces (176) (see Fog. 10) and capture the one or more items; and an apparatus (10) operationally configured to carry the one or more items (14, 14) and remove the one or more items from the apparatus onto the one or more target surfaces in a manner effective to be captured by the one or more supports, the apparatus being operationally configured to communicate with a lifting equipment via a crane (see paragraph [0042]).
RE claims 3, 4, and 6-8, Note that Sedlock’s system (US 2019/0062124) (See Exhibit A) shows a device capable of moving vertically alignment (RE claim 4), a stack of shingles (14, 14), a pallet (112) (See Fig. 10), and lifting hooks (22, 24), lifting straps (16A, 16B), a support (20), and a crane (104) wherein one of elements could be considered as one or more portable supports as shown in Fig. 1 capable of being temporarily or permanently installed on the one or more target surfaces.
Exhibit A
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
RE claims 2 and 11, Fig. 10 of Sedlock’s system (US 2019/0062124) shows one or more pitched roof surfaces.
RE claims 9 and 12, Sedlock’s system (US 2019/0062124) provides one or more items include one or more bundles of shingles (14, 14).
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, 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.
Claims 3, 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sedlock (US 2019/0062124) in view of Bredijk (5,320,194).
Sedlock (US 2019/0062124), as presented above, does not specifically show one or more self-looping straps and stop members. However, Figs. 1-9 of Bredijk (5,320,194) teaches self-looping straps (36, 36) and stop members (Figs. 3, 7, or 9). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide and carry one or more self-looping straps and stop members on Sedlock (US 2019/0062124) as taught by Bredijk (5,320,194) so that a user can install shingles without delay.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nutter (3,709,547) in view of WIPO (2015/020817) (see IDS).
Nutter (3,709,547) discloses a system (see Figs. 1-4) for delivering one or more items (18, 18) onto one or more target surfaces including: an apparatus (40) (see Fig. 2) operationally configured to carry the one or more items (18, 18) and remove the one or more items from the apparatus onto the one or more target surfaces in a manner effective to be captured by the one or more supports. Note that the items (18, 18) to be installed could be considered as one or more supports. However, Fig. 2 of WIPO (2015/020817) also teaches self-looping straps (10510A, B) and stop members (10525), which also could be considered as “one or more supports,” as broadly as recited in the claims. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide and carry self-looping straps (10510A, B) and stop members (10525) on the Nutter’s system as taught by WIPO (2015/020817) so that a user can install shingles without delay. It is also pointed out that the modified Nutter’s system is capable of performing the functional limitations as recited in claims 4, 6-8, and 11-13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL T CHIN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6922. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:30 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 on (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 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.
/PAUL T CHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights