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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figures 1 & 9, the leftmost instance of reference number “13” should be changed to --13a--, and the rightmost instance of reference number “13” should be changed to --13b--; furthermore, in Figures 2 & 16, reference number “13” should be changed to --13a,b--. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional
replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in line 4 of the abstract, the phrase --one or more-- should be inserted before the term “hinge”, and the term “arrangement” should be changed to --arrangements--. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
1) On page 2, in paragraph 0006, line 5: The phrase --one or more--should be inserted before the term “hinge”, and the term “arrangement” should be changed to --arrangements--.
2) In the first line of page 3: The term “tails” should be changed to the phrase --one or more slide rails--.
3) In the last line of page 3: The term “guiding” should be changed to --guide--.
4) On page 4, in paragraph 0018, line 2: The term “plate” should be changed to
--plates--.
5) On page 5, in paragraph 0026, line 3: The term “plates” should be changed to
--plate--.
6) On page 5, in paragraph 0026, line 4: The phrase --one or more-- should be inserted before the term “first”, and the term “hole” should be changed to
--holes--.
7) In the last line of page 5: The phrase --one or more-- should be inserted before the term “first”.
8) On page 17, in paragraph 0115, line 1: The term “a” should be deleted.
9) On page 20, in paragraph 0128, line 3: The term --support-- should be inserted before “frame”.
10) On page 30, in paragraph 0174, line 1: The number “48” should be changed to
--42--.
11) On page 31, in paragraph 0179 line 1: The term “side” should be changed to
--slide--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 14-16, 18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
1) In claim 1, line 6: The phrase --one or more--should be inserted before the term “hinge”, and the term “arrangement” should be changed to --arrangements--.
2) In the last line of claim 2: The term “tails” should be changed to the phrase --one or more slide rails--.
3) In the last line of claim 4: The term “plate” should be changed to --plates--.
4) In claim 6, line 3: The term “guiding” should be changed to --guide--.
5) In claim 10, line 4: The term “plates” should be changed to --plate--.
6) In claim 10, line 5 and in claim 14, line 2: The phrase --one or more-- should be inserted before the term “first”, and the first instance of the term “holes” should be deleted.
7) In claim 11, line 2: The first instance of the term “the” should be changed to
--a--.
8) In the last line of claim 11: The term “side” should be changed to --slide--.
9) In the last line of claim 14: The term “configuration” should be changed to
--position--.
10) In the first line of claim 15: The first instance of the term “the” should be deleted.
11) In claim 16, line 4: The term “each” should be deleted.
12) In the last line of claim 18: The term “members” should be changed to --pins--.
13) In the last line of claim 20: The number “9” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Applicant), regards as the invention. The limitation of “the retaining member” as recited in claim 15, lines 1 & 2 lacks proper antecedent basis (since claim 15 is dependent upon claims 1 and 9), thereby rendering claims 15-19 indefinite. (The examiner respectfully suggests changing the number “9” in the first line of claim 15 to the number --14-- in order to provide proper antecedent basis for the limitations of “the retaining member” as recited in claim 15, lines 1 & 2 and “the retaining pin” as recited in claim 16, lines 3 & 4.)
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 4,579,500 to Hamilton. With respect to claim 1, Hamilton shows the claimed limitations of a lifting apparatus (10) comprising: a platform (21) extending substantially horizontally between a first end and a second end (as shown in Figures 1-4 and as described in column 2, lines 22-31); a support frame (15, 16) at the first end of the platform (as shown in Figures 1-4 and as described in column 2, lines 21-24); one or more hinge or bearing arrangements (17, 18) coupling the platform (21) to the support frame (15, 16), the one or more hinge or bearing arrangements configured to rotate about an axis parallel to the first end of the platform (21) (as shown in Figures 1 & 4 and as described in column 2, lines 22-24); one or more slide rails (11, 12) extending vertically (as shown in Figure 1 and as described in column 2, lines 16-18); one or more runners (13, 14) fixed to the support frame (15, 16), each of the one or more runners arranged to slide along one of the one or more slide rails (11, 12) (as shown in Figure 1 and as described in column 2, lines 18-20); means (40-49) arranged to urge the support frame (15, 16) upwards along the one or more slide rails (11, 12) as shown in Figure
1 and as described in column 2, lines 42-50); and holding means (30-33) to hold the platform (21) at an elevation at the first end only (as shown in Figures 1 & 4 and as described in column 2, lines 34-41 and in column 3, lines 1-17).
With respect to claims 2 and 3, the reference discloses the claimed limitations wherein the means (40-49) arranged to urge the support frame (15, 16) upwards is arranged so that the upwards force on the support frame is substantially equal to or greater than the weight of the platform (21), or wherein the means (40-49) arranged to urge the support frame is arranged such that the force from the means arranged to urge the support frame is less than the weight of the platform (21), allowing it to slide downwards along the one or more slide rails (11, 12) with a dampened motion (also as described in column 2, lines 42-50); and further comprising a suspension arrangement (24) arranged to hold one end of the platform (21) from above, wherein the suspension arrangement is provided such that it suppresses cantilever effects (as shown in Figure 2 and as described in column 2, lines 31-33).
With respect to claims 7 and 9, the reference discloses the claimed limitations wherein the suspension arrangement (24) is arranged to exert a downwards force on the support frame (15, 16) (i.e., since elements 15 and 16 are carried by elements 13 and 14 as shown in Figures 1-3 and as described in column 2, lines 21-22) and an upwards force on the platform (21) (also as shown in Figure 2); and wherein the holding means (30-33) is actuable between an engaged position where it holds the platform (21) in place along the vertical extent of the one or more slide rails (11, 12) (as shown in Figures 1 & 4 and as described in column 2, lines 34-38 and in column 3, lines 1-17), and an unengaged position in which the platform (21) is free to slide with
respect to the one or more slide rails (11, 12) (i.e., platform 21 is free to slide independently from elements 30-33 due to the actuation of elements 40-49, and also as described in column 2, lines 38-41).
With respect to claims 12 and 20, the reference discloses the claimed limitations wherein one end of the platform (21) comprises retainer latches (17, 18) latching into the support frame (15, 16) (as shown in Figures 1 & 4 and as described in column 2, lines 22-24); and wherein the means to urge (40-49) the support frame upwards is a resiliently deformable member (as described in column 2, lines 42-45).
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.
Claims 4, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton ‘500. With respect to claim 4, Hamilton discloses the limitation wherein the suspension arrangement (24) includes linking means extending between the second end of the platform (21) and the support frame (15, 16) (as shown in Figure 2), but does not specifically disclose a condition wherein optionally the linking means is fixed to the platform by wrap-around plates with high tensile bolts. The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lifting apparatus of Hamilton with suspension means including linking means which is fixed to the platform by wrap-around plates with high tensile bolts, since connecting the suspension means and linking means to the platform via wrap-around plates with high tensile bolts or with other types of conventional fastening arrangements would have been generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. With respect to claim 5, Hamilton further teaches a condition wherein the suspension arrangement (24) includes a guide mechanism to guide the linking means above the platform (21) (i.e., the respective connections of element 24 to elements 13 and 14 at positions located above platform 21 as shown in Figure 2).
With respect to claim 8, Hamilton does not specifically disclose a condition wherein the suspension arrangement (24) and the means (40-49) of urging the support frame (15, 16) upwards are chosen such that the upwards force from the means of urging the support frame upwards is substantially equal to the weight of the platform (21) such that the platform is substantially weightless. The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lifting apparatus of Hamilton with a suspension arrangement and means of urging the support frame upwards which are chosen such that the upwards force from the means of urging the support frame upwards is substantially equal to the weight of the platform such that the platform is substantially weightless, since repositioning the suspension arrangement and reconfiguring the means of urging the support frame upwards such that the upwards force from the means of urging the support frame upwards is substantially equal to the weight of the platform such that the platform is substantially weightless would have been generally considered as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 10, 11, 13 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim and as indicated above in paragraph 6 of this Office action, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the aforementioned informalities and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The examiner respectfully asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lifting apparatus of Hamilton ‘500 to include the particular structural arrangements of the guide mechanism as recited in claim 6 and the holding means as recited in claims 10, 11, 13 and 14.
Claims 15-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The examiner
respectfully asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional structural features of the retaining member and the connecting member extending from the first end of the platform to the second end of the platform as recited in dependent claims 15-19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: Valintine ‘314, Russo ‘487, Russo et al. ‘796, Russo et al. ‘559, Gardner ‘076, Gardner ‘021, Wilson ‘971, Robinson ‘948, MacRae et al. ‘170 and Krasno ‘565.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT G SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-7048. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-11:30am and 2pm-7:30pm.
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, Justin C Mikowski can be reached at 571-272-8525. 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.
/ROBERT G SANTOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673