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 § 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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boucher (US5,186,596)
With respect to claim 1, 3, 6 & 7, Boucher discloses a loading carriage for a loading system of a transport unit, comprising
a group of carriage parts 12a, 12b,
integrated rollers 58, 58 in carriage parts, and
a connection mechanism 33, 48, 49, 50 between carriage parts,
which carriage parts are configured to establish a roller bed,
which connection mechanism is configured to connect carriage parts so that each carriage part is configured pivot (PV) by means of the connection mechanism with respect to at least one adjacent carriage part to cause the roller bed flexible in a longitudinal direction,
wherein carriage parts, which are parallel (RO) in a longitudinal direction and belong to a group of carriage parts, are connected by means of stabilizers 34, 38 connected between parallel carriage parts (see FIG. 2 reproduced below), which are adjacent sideways to stabilize, parallel carriage parts vertically with respect to each other so that a roller bed is sufficiently rigid laterally.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Adjacent conveyor parts connected to adjacent conveyor parts by stabilizers 34, 38.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
386
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Boucher discloses adjacent conveyor parts arranged in a side-by-side formation. Each part is defined by rollers 58 supported by support members 42 (FIG. 4.) which equates to three(3) conveyor parts abreast. And, all of the members 42 are rigidly connected via welds to stabilizers 34, 38. With respect to a connection member rod 33 is disclosed as hinging conveyor parts one after another to pivot respectively about an axis that is perpendicular to the direction of travel of the loading carriage.
With respect to claim 5, Boucher discloses that a front part of a roller bed comprises first parallel carriage parts 12a in a forward direction, which are adjacent sideways, belong to a group of carriage parts, and comprise a ramp 14, e.g. vertically lowered profile, to facilitate a retraction of a roller bed from under a load or a uniform single carriage part, which belongs to a group of carriage parts and comprises a vertically lowered profile, to facilitate retraction of a roller bed from below a load.
With respect to claim 9, Boucher discloses a roller bed mounted on a chassis 44.
With respect to claims 12, 13 & 15, Boucher discloses that pusher 20 remains stationary relative to conveyor parts beam. (FIGS. 13-15)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher in view of Thornton (US 5,054,987).
Boucher does not disclose that part of the load rollers roll only forwards or a controller. Thornton discloses that each carriage part comprises integrated load rollers 573, which are configured to move a load with respect to a roller bed, wherein rollers 573 roll only forwards during loading of a roller bed and subsequent removal of a roller bed from beneath a load during retraction of a roller bed. Thornton also discloses that power unit 101 is reversible, providing the control over the movement of the loading carriage. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Boucher to include wherein each carriage part comprises integrated load rollers, which are configured to move a load with respect to a roller bed, wherein rollers roll only forwards during loading of a roller bed and subsequent removal of a roller bed from beneath a load during retraction of a roller bed, as taught by Thornton, which functions to provide solutions in loading carriages which can be used to load vehicles with unitized loads on pallets, slipsheets, skids, racks, containers and bins and that also will interface with overhead carrier systems.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher in view of Hayashi (US 5,082,415) and Bastian (US 9,950,881). Boucher does not disclose a light sensor configured to sense a height of a floor of a transport unit and at least one height adjustment actuator.
Hayashi discloses "level adjustment can also be done automatically by detecting the platform lift 501 and cargo bed N height difference with a level sensor and regulating the vertical position of the platform lift 501 to that of the cargo bed N. In this case the level sensor detects the level difference between the platform lift 501 and the cargo bed N, and the platform lift 501 is raised or lowered according to the signal from the level sensor to adjust the vertical position of the platform lift 501 with that of the cargo bed N." Hayashi further discloses a height adjustment actuator 28, 111, 109 configured to adjust a height of a bed 101, 105 (501, 505) vertically with respect to a mounting platform to level heights of a floor 103 of a transport unit and a bed on grounds of height information from a sensor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Boucher to include a height adjustment actuator that adjusts a heigh of a bed-supported load relative to a floor of a transport unit, as taught by Hayashi, thereby reducing loading and unloading time.
And, Bastian discloses sensors 612 which sense the position of a transport unit 602 which includes the floor of the unit 602. Bastian teaches that a skilled artisan may choose from any of a variety of sensors that perform equally well including "proximity sensors, ultrasonic type sensors, and laser type sensors." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Boucher to include a light sensor, e.g. laser sensor, as taught by Bastian, which are well known to skilled artisans in the art of loading transport units for helping to level a loading carriage relative to the floor of a transport unit and eliminate otherwise dangerous gaps.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 & 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed Aug. 10, 2026 with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objection(s) has been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and dependents have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. As noted above, Boucher's element 34, 38 is a stabilizer insomuch as it prevents relative movement between laterally adjacent conveyor parts.
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 GREGORY W ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8101. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8am-5pm.
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 (571)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.
/GREGORY W ADAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights