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
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 1-4,6-8,11,12,14-19,21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNeeley (US 3,279,563).
Re claims 1,21, McNeeley teaches a lifting device (lift of 21, see figures) for supporting and lifting loads such as a dunnage conversion machine, the lifting device comprising: a base frame (not numbered, mentioned in claims 13,14); an upright support (generally 22,23) having a base portion 22 that is fixed relative to the base frame and a movable portion 23 that is axially movable relative the base portion between a lower position and an upper position vertically higher than the lower position; a lifting unit (generally 35-37) connected to the movable portion of the upright support to raise and lower the movable portion relative to the base frame between the lower position and the upper position; wherein the upright support is configured to be attached to the lifted load / dunnage conversion machine.
McNeeley teaches the upright support 22 includes a pair of parallel, spaced apart upright supports 22.
McNeeley teaches a machine interface bracket (44,27,28,39) at a distal end of each of the upright supports 23, and the machine interface bracket has an interface (27,28,39) for attaching to the lifted load (dunnage conversion machine). Broadly the interface (27,28,39) is capable of attaching to the lifted load / dunnage conversion machine as the specification and claim does not limit the type of attachment. Nonetheless, at least for sake of forestalling arguments, attaching removably is taught by McNeeley (column 4, line 17 and elsewhere see “fastened”) and making parts fastenably attachable / detachable as well as having multiple brackets is already known to be an obvious modification allowing extra control over connections and duplications for extra / redundant safety (MPEP 2144, In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961); In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954); In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified McNeeley as claimed allowing further control over connected items and extra / redundant safety.
Re claim 2, McNeeley does not mention whether the base frame is configured to be removably mounted to a portable cart (truck of 21). However, making items separable (removably mounted) is already known to be an obvious modification (MPEP 2144; n re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified McNeeley as claimed in order to allow for shipping in smaller / separate containers and easier maintenance (replace / repair only parts rather than the entire device).
Re claim 3, McNeeley teaches the base portion 22 of the upright support is fixed to the base frame and the movable portion 23 is telescopically movable relative to the base portion 22.
Re claim 4, McNeeley does not mention whether the base frame includes a pair of spaced apart feet with an upright support 22 attached to each of the feet, but does state that the upright supports 22 are attached to the base frame (claims 13,14) and braces 24-26 to support and strengthen the upright support. Duplication & rearrangement of parts are known obvious modifications (MPEP 2144; In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified McNeeley as claimed to have the feet / braces / gussets in order to strengthen the upright connections.
Re claim 6, McNeeley teaches the lifting unit (generally 35-37) is mounted to the base frame between the upright supports.
Re claim 7, McNeeley teaches a distal end of each of the upright supports 22,23 is connected by lifting cross member (42,37,26,39,27, figures 3,4) and the lifting unit is coupled to the pair of upright supports by the lifting cross member.
Re claim 8, McNeeley teaches the lifting unit is mounted between the base frame and the lifting cross member.
Re claim 11, McNeeley teaches the lifting unit is hydraulic.
Re claim 12, McNeeley teaches a cart (truck of 21) having a horizontal support platform (not numbered, horizontal section part of frame), and the base frame is mounted to the horizontal support platform.
Re claim 14, McNeeley teaches an apparatus and its inherent method for supporting and lifting a load such as a dunnage conversion machine (McNeeley does not limit the type of load lifted), comprising the steps of: preparing (assembling 21, etc.) the lifted load / dunnage conversion machine to interface with a lifting device (lift of 21, see figures); positioning the lifting device underneath the lifted load / dunnage conversion machine; connecting the lifted load / dunnage conversion machine to a machine interface bracket (44,27,28) of the lifting device; raising the machine interface bracket from a lower position to an upper position (see figures); and lowering the machine interface bracket (44,27,28) from the upper position to the lower position.
McNeeley teaches a machine interface bracket (44,27,28,39) at a distal end of each of the upright supports 23, and the machine interface bracket has an interface (27,28,39) for attaching to the lifted load (dunnage conversion machine). Broadly the interface (27,28,39) is capable of attaching to the lifted load / dunnage conversion machine as the specification and claim does not limit the type of attachment. Nonetheless, at least for sake of forestalling arguments, attaching removably is taught by McNeeley (column 4, line 17 and elsewhere see “fastened”) and making parts fastenably attachable / detachable as well as having multiple brackets is already known to be an obvious modification allowing extra control over connections and duplications for extra / redundant safety (MPEP 2144, In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961); In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954); In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified McNeeley as claimed allowing further control over connected items and extra / redundant safety.
Re claim 15, McNeeley teaches the preparing step includes mounting the lifting device (lift of 21, see figures) to a movable cart (truck of 21, see figures).
Re claim 16, McNeeley teaches the step of moving the lifted load / dunnage conversion machine to a preferred location by use of the movable cart (inherent purpose of wheeled lifted trucks (carts) 21 and mobile raisable lifts).
Re claims 17-19, McNeeley does not limit the sequence of the connecting, positioning, raising and lowering steps , etc. and accomplishes the same final result of transport regardless. Changes in sequence are known obvious modifications (MPEP 2144; In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930); Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified McNeeley as claimed in order to best meet the needs of varied given situational needs to best support, lift and transport the load.
Re claim 22, McNeeley teaches the machine interface brackets and the pair of uprights supports are coplanar as there is at least one common plane that passes through them.
Claims 10,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNeeley (US 3,279,563) in view of Wolford (US 4,844,701).
Re claims 10,20, McNeeley does not limit the type of load lifted or what may be on the load lifted or the preparation and movement. Wolford teaches a machine (figure 1, mobile pump) comprising one or more forklift brackets 262 (figure 5) having an interface for attaching to the dunnage conversion machine, wherein said one or more forklift brackets have an opening (opening in 262, figure 5) to receive a fork of a forklift which enable the machine to be lifted and transported by a conventional fork-lift or similar vehicle (column 7, 2nd paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified McNeeley as claimed in order to allow the load / machine to be more easily / securely lifted and transported by the device and/or a conventional fork-lift or similar vehicle to best meet the needs of varied given situations.
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNeeley (US 3,279,563) in view of McWilliams (US 3,157,301).
Re claim 13, McNeeley arguably broadly mounts the lifting device within a footprint defined by the horizontal support platform depending on how the footprint is interpreted. To speed prosecution and avoid unneeded arguments, it is noted that McWilliams teaches mounting a lifting device within a footprint defined by the horizontal support platform (figures 4-6) to protect the lift and lifted load from collisions with items outside its footprint as needed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified McNeeley as claimed in order to protect the lift and lifted load from collisions with items outside its footprint as needed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pastuch & Wilson teach (see figures) a mobile cart movably supporting and fastening the lifted item to a bracket.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/31/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the newly amended claims are not met by the cited references. However as shown above, the references still meet the claim limitations as currently written. Applicant argues that the type attaching is somehow different. However, applicant does not define a particular type attaching in the claims and the specification mentions numerous types of attaching followed by “etc.” or “as just a few examples” as well as “securely attached” in some places and “ may temporarily attach” in other places showing that attaching is not so limited as applicant argues. Further, the fork interface(s) 44,27,28 as well as the bracket(s) interface(s) 39 are capable of attaching as claimed. As far as the “distal ends of the uprights” argument, both bracket(s) 39 as well as the 27-28 forks brackets are at the distal ends of uprights 22,23 (see figure 6, etc.).
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 MICHAEL S LOWE whose telephone number is (571)272-6929. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling M,Th,F & alternating W 6:30am-6:30pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 5712727097. 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.
MICHAEL S. LOWE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/MICHAEL S LOWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
