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 1-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3070190 A (Rogers et al.) in view of US 5586620 A (Dammeyer et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Rogers et al. teach:
A trolley (figure 1) with vertical sliding for a lifting device configured for lifting a load (P), the trolley comprising:
a rolling mechanism (50, 52) configured to engage in respective separate vertical sliding tracks (32, 26) made on said lifting device,
wherein said rolling mechanism includes, for each of the vertical sliding tracks, at least two rollers (rollers 56 for track 26, rollers 42 for track 32) configured to support said load acting on said trolley, said rollers being positioned symmetrically relative to a respective central pivot (54 for rollers 56, 34 for rollers 42);
a lower first portion (portion connected to brackets 18) operative with a first one of the vertical sliding tracks (32) via a first pair of the rollers (42) and an upper second portion (portion connected to brackets 16) operative with a second one (26) of the vertical sliding tracks via a second pair of the rollers (56).
Rogers et al. do note teach a lattice structure connecting the first portion and second portion.
However, Dammeyer et al. teach:
A trolley with vertical sliding for a lifting device, and
a connecting structure (60) connecting said lower first portion (where arms 208 connect to 70, figure 7) and said upper second portion (where arms 206 connect to 70),
wherein said connecting structure is configured as a lattice structure (the crossing arms of 60 constitute a lattice structure) including tie rods and struts (206, 208) connected respectively to said lower first portion and said upper second portion with respective hinges (pivot points of 208 and 206, respectively), said hinges having at least one degree of freedom.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the upper and lower portions of the trolley of Rogers et al. with lattice structure as taught by Dammeyer et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow horizontal movement of the load beyond the static range of the forks. Dammeyer et al. provides means for extension of the forks creating a greater range of motion to move the load.
Regarding claim 2, Rogers et al. further teach:
wherein said rolling mechanism comprises two pairs of said rollers positioned at a same first vertical height with respect to each other on said trolley (col. 1, lines 65-68, 20 is one of a pair of upright mast sections, the mechanisms 50, 52 are mirrored on the second section 20).
Regarding claim 3, Rogers et al. further teach:
wherein said rolling mechanism comprises two further pairs of said rollers positioned at a same second vertical height with respect to each other on said trolley (col. 1, lines 65-68, 20 is one of a pair of upright mast sections, the mechanisms 50, 52 are mirrored on the second section 20).
Regarding claim 4, Rogers et al. further teach:
and further comprising an end surface (12) configured to engage said load (P) to be lifted.
Regarding claim 5, Rogers et al. further teach:
wherein said rollers (56, 42) each comprise respective pins (44 for rollers 42, unlabeled for rollers 56) shaped to match an interior of said rollers, and said pins and said central pivots (34, 54) have a same diameter as each other (figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Rogers et al. further teach:
wherein said rollers (42, 56) have the same dimensions (figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Rogers et al. further teach:
wherein said at least two rollers oscillate freely relative to a horizontal axis passing through said respective central pivot (rollers 56 oscillate freely about their respective pins relative to the axis passing through pivot 54 and rollers 42 oscillate freely about their respective pivots 44 relative to the axis passing through pivot 34).
Regarding claim 13, Rogers et al. further teach:
A lifting device comprising:
a base support (body of the “industrial lift truck” not shown) configured to be arranged on a horizontal plane (floor) and a column (pair of upright members 20) fixed on said base support and arranged perpendicular to said horizontal plane,
a trolley according to claim 1 slidably vertically engaging said column and configured to engage the load to be lifted.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3070190 A (Rogers et al.) in view of US 5586620 A (Dammeyer et al.) and further in view of US 3586192 A (Goodacre, Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 11, Rogers et al. and Dammeyer et al. teach:
The trolley according to claim 1.
Dammeyer do not teach:
wherein said hinges comprise spherical joints.
However, Goodacre teaches:
A trolley (10) for lifting a load and connecting means (figure 3) connecting the upper and lower portions 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 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that claim 1 as amended requires the limitations distinguishing distinct and separate tracks of the trolley. Neither Stedman nor Dammeyer were relied upon in the current rejection for the limitations regarding the separate tracks, Rogers et al. teaches separate tracks for the upper rollers and lower rollers as referenced in the current rejection.
Regarding the argument on page 7 that Dammeyer teaches a reach mechanism while the lattice structure of the invention does not have an extension function but structurally connects the lower and upper portions, this argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The reach mechanism of Dammeyer meets the limitation in the claims of a connecting structure connecting the lower first portion and second upper portion and is configured as a lattice structure including tie rods and struts and hinged to the first and second portions.
Applicant argues on page 7 the Goodacre, while disclosing spherical joints, applies them in a different structural context. The spherical joints of Goodacre serve to connect a fork mechanism to a sliding trolley of a lift truck, similar to the forks and trolleys of Rogers et al. and Dammeyer et al. The spherical joints increase the degrees of freedom allowing additional movement and manipulation of the load.
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