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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 – 2 and 12 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Callens (US 2007/0110550 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Callens teaches, A power mobility device (PMD) module coupling structure for a vehicle,
the structure comprising:
a coupling assembly (41) disposed on a PMD module;
and a lift assembly (38) disposed on a vehicle body facing an upper end of the PMD module so as to correspond to the coupling assembly,
wherein a part of the lift assembly is insertable (40) into the coupling assembly to mutually fix the PMD module and the lift assembly to each other ([0036] – direct supporting arms (40) connect to suspension points (41).
Regarding claim 2, The structure of claim 1,
wherein the lift assembly comprises:
coupling arms (40), each of the coupling arms being inserted into the coupling assembly at a location corresponding to the coupling assembly (fig. 1 – coupling arms being inserted into suspension points of container);
a frame (39) having the coupling arms respectively disposed at opposite ends thereof;
a connection link (13) configured to move the frame in an upward-and-downward direction;
a rack unit (10) located between the connection link and the frame;
and a cylinder (31) configured to perform movement in a height direction of the connection link ([0031] – pneumatic cylinders perform movement in vertical direction).
Regarding claim 12, Callens teaches A power mobility device (PMD) module coupling structure for a vehicle,
the structure comprising:
the vehicle (1) comprising a loading space between wheels (fig. 1 – shows opening for a load (8));
a PMD module (8) insertable into the loading space of the vehicle;
a coupling assembly (41) disposed on the PMD module ([0036] – suspension points (41) on load);
and a lift assembly (38) disposed on a vehicle body of the vehicle facing an upper end of the PMD module so as to correspond to the coupling assembly (fig. 2 – lift assembly (38) faces top of load (8),
wherein a part of the lift assembly is insertable (40) into the coupling assembly to mutually fix the PMD module and the lift assembly to each other ([0036] - directed supporting arms 40 with appropriate suspension points 41 pick up a load 8).
Regarding claim 13, Callens teaches, the structure of claim 12,
wherein the lift assembly comprises:
coupling arms (40), each of the coupling arms being inserted into the coupling assembly at a location corresponding to the coupling assembly ([0036] - directed supporting arms 40 with appropriate suspension points 41 pick up a load 8);
a frame (39) having the coupling arms respectively disposed at opposite ends thereof (fig. 3 – coupling arms (40) located at opposite sides of loads);
a connection link (13) configured to move the frame in an upward-and-downward direction (fig.1 – scissor links (13) move frame vertically);
a rack unit (10) located between the connection link and the frame;
and a cylinder (31) configured to perform movement in a height direction of the connection link.
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 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callens (US 2007/0110550 A1) in view of Lee (US 5919022 A) Callens discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Regarding claim 4, Callens fails to teach, the structure of claim 2,
further comprising magnetic units respectively disposed adjacent to the coupling arms,
the magnetic units being disposed on a surface facing the PMD module.
However, Lee teaches, the structure of claim 2,
further comprising magnetic units (13/14/15/16) respectively disposed adjacent to the coupling arms,
the magnetic units being disposed on a surface facing the PMD module (fig. 1 – magnets face top surface of load being handled).
Callens and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of container and load handling. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Callens lifting apparatus to include the magnetic units taught by lee. As disclosed by Lee, doing so allows for precision movement and alignment of modules for load handling purposes ([abstract]).
Regarding claim 15, Callens fails to teach, the structure of claim 13, further comprising magnetic units respectively disposed adjacent to the coupling arms,
the magnetic units being disposed on a surface facing the PMD module.
However, Lee teaches, the structure of claim 13,
further comprising magnetic units (13/14/15/16) respectively disposed adjacent to the coupling arms,
the magnetic units being disposed on a surface facing the PMD module (fig. 1 – magnets face top surface of load being handled).
Callens and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of container and load handling. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Callens lifting apparatus to include the magnetic units taught by lee. As disclosed by Lee, doing so allows for precision movement and alignment of modules for load handling purposes.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callens (US 2007/0110550 A1) in view of Lanigan (US 20150232015 A1). Callens discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Regarding claim 3, Callens fails to teach, the structure of claim 2,
further comprising elastic members respectively disposed between the coupling arms and the frame and configured to provide elastic force in a direction in which the respective coupling arm is moved away from the frame.
However, Lanigan teaches, the structure of claim 2,
further comprising elastic members (100 – latching arrangement) respectively disposed between the coupling arms and the frame and configured to provide elastic force in a direction in which the respective coupling arm is moved away from the frame ([0067] – spring biases lever link away from outer surface during latching and connection).
Callens and Lanigan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of container and load handling. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Callens lifting apparatus to include the elastic members in the coupling arms taught by Lanigan. Callens does not explicitly provide spring or elastic members in the coupling arms and coupling assembly however Lanigan’s latching mechanism provides spring tensioning to automatically secure coupling arms to coupling assembly on load (container) decreasing time required for loads to be handled.
Regarding claim 14, Callens fails to teach, the structure of claim 13,
further comprising elastic members respectively disposed between the coupling arms and the frame and configured to provide elastic force in a direction in which the respective coupling arm is moved away from the frame.
However, Lanigan teaches, the structure of claim 13,
further comprising elastic members (100 – latching arrangement) respectively disposed between the coupling arms and the frame and configured to provide elastic force in a direction in which the respective coupling arm is moved away from the frame ([0067] – spring biases lever link away from outer surface during latching and connection).
Callens and Lanigan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of container and load handling. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Callens lifting apparatus to include the elastic members in the coupling arms taught by Lanigan. Callens does not explicitly provide spring or elastic members in the coupling arms and coupling assembly however Lanigan’s latching mechanism provides spring tensioning to automatically secure coupling arms to coupling assembly on load (container) decreasing time required for loads to be handled.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-11 and 16-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 5 and 16, none of the cited prior art teaches, a rack bracket coupled to the connection link; a lift bar disposed on the frame and configured to penetrate a guide groove disposed in the rack bracket; and a wire disposed between the lift bar and the respective coupling arm.
Conclusion
The prior art made or record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Jang (US 2015/0139764 A1) – Discloses a vehicle lifter with lifting mechanism and coupling arms
Jansson (US 5114295) – Container handling wagon with scissor lifting mechanism
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN SALVADOR MOSCOSO whose telephone number is (571)272-8604. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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.
/Gerald McClain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights