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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5586620 A (Dammeyer et al.) in view of US 3070190 A (Rogers et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Dammeyer et al. teach:
A lifting device comprising:
- a base support (20) configured to be arranged on a horizontal plane (ground shown in figure 3) and a column (40) fixed on said base support and arranged perpendicular to said horizontal plane,
- a trolley (70) slidably vertically engaging said column and configured which can slide vertically on said column designed to engage with a load to be lifted (on 50), said trolley comprising:
a first lower first portion (where arms 208 connect to 70) and an upper second portion (where arms 206 connect to 70),
a reticular structure (60) for connecting said first lower portion and said second upper second portion, said reticular structure comprising tie rods and struts;
said tie rods and struts being connected to said first lower first portion and said upper second portion by respective hinges, said hinges having at least one degree of freedom;
wherein said reticular structure is a lattice structure.
Dammeyer et al. do not teach:
first and second separate vertical sliding tracks attached to the column, at least one of the first and second vertical tracks being made of a material different than a material of the column,
said lower first portion comprising a first pair of rollers engaging the first vertical sliding track,
said upper second portion comprising a second pair of rollers engaging the second vertical sliding track.
However, Rogers et al. teach:
first (32) and second (26) separate vertical sliding tracks attached to the column (20),
said lower first portion comprising a first pair of rollers (42) engaging the first vertical sliding track,
said upper second portion comprising a second pair of rollers (56) engaging the second vertical sliding track.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the rollers of the trolley of Dammeyer et al. on separate tracks as taught by Rogers et al. with a reasonable expectation of success to redistribute the load to avoid overstress of any particular point on the trolley when under an excessive load. As noted by Rogers et al. “In carrying out our invention we have provided a deflectable beam construction which normally is in abutment with a resistance member at certain spaced locations along the beam construction, and which deflects toward the resistance member to increase the number of positions of abutment therewith following the imposition thereon of an excessive load, whereby the excessive load is redistributed along the beam construction such that it does not overstress any portion thereof.” Col. 1, lines 40-48.
Dammeyer et al. and Rogers et al. are silent to the materials of the column and tracks.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for at least one of the vertical tracks to be made of a material different than a material of the column itself since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416, MPEP 2144.07. In this case, it would be an obvious design choice to select material with a desirable coefficient of friction for the tracks and a material with high strength for the column.
Regarding claim 5, Dammeyer et al. further teach:
wherein said trolley comprises on one end thereof an engagement surface (50) configured to engage with said load to be lifted.
Regarding claim 7, Dammeyer et al. further teach:
wherein said base support comprises wheels (24) configured to allow the movement of said lifting device on said plane.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5586620 A (Dammeyer et al.) in view of US 3070190 A (Rogers et al.) and further in view of US 3586192 A (Goodacre, Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 2, Dammeyer et al. and Rogers et al. teach:
The lifting device according to claim 1.
Dammeyer et al. and Rogers et al. do not teach:
wherein said hinges comprise spherical joints.
However, Goodacre teaches:
A lifting device (figure 3) and a trolley with hinges (33, 34), and
wherein said hinges (33, 34) comprise spherical joints.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use spherical joints in the hinges of Dammeyer et al., as taught by Goodacre, with a reasonable expectation for success to allow movement in more than one degree of freedom. The spherical joints of Goodacre allow the forks of the lifting device to tilt to prevent slipping of the load off of the forks, “These forks will thus move with the front part and may thus by tilted so that a load thereon will tend to be maintained in the heel of the forks.” Col. 2 of Goodacre, lines 12-15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 5 of the Remarks Applicant argues that Goodacre does not disclose the amended limitation requiring separate first and second tracks. Rogers et al. is relied upon in the current rejection to teach the first and second tracks. Regarding the argument on pages 5-6 that Goodacre does not disclose the reticular structure claimed. While the Examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that the identified structure of Goodacre constitutes tie rods and struts under broadest reasonable interpretation, Dammeyer et al. are relied upon in the current rejection to teach the reticular structure. Regarding the argument on page 6 that the limitation “a reticular structure connecting said lower first portion and said upper second portion” defines a “single, integrated and flexible, assembly” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. There are no limitations in claim 1 that suggest or require the reticular structure to be a singular, flexible assembly.
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 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, VICTORIA AUGUSTINE can be reached at (313)446-4858. 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
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights