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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the application 18/838,413, filed on 07/16/2018. The application has a Domestic Priority date of 08/14/2024.
Claims 1-11 filed on 08/26/2026 were examined. Claims 1-20 received on 02/26/2026 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 2, and 11 are currently amended. Claims 3-10 are presented as previous. Claims 12-20 are newly added.
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, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jaipaul (20160272471).
Regarding claim 1, Jaipaul discloses a control device (lift control module 24, see Fig. 5) of a lifting device configured to set up a lifting assembly (FIG. 2 shows Lift assembly, ¶0031, “he lift 22 can include a base 30, a post 32, a carriage assembly 34, a lift actuator 36, and a main housing 30”) that comprises a plurality of lifting devices (FIG. 1 shows four Lifting devices i.e. LIFT 1, 2, 3, 4), which are connected to one another in the lifting assembly at least by means of a radio communication connection for wireless data transmission (¶0041, “The communications network 66 may be wired or wireless and may include servers, routers, switches, wireless receivers and transmitters, and the like… Each of the lifts 22, the remote computing devices 62, and the server device 64 may be connected via the communications network 66”), the control device comprising having at least
a first storage device (¶0033, “memory”), which is configured set up to store data, wherein the data comprise at least one identification code for identifying the lifting device (¶0049, “verification code… for identifying the lifting device (22)”)
a second storage device, which is configured set up to store data, wherein the data comprise at least one or more identification codes of one or more other lifting devices (¶0049, “for identifying the lifting device (22) from one or more other lifting devices”)
a transmitter/receiver device that which is configured set up to send the identification code, which is stored in the first storage device, to a mobile storage unit and to receive one or more identification codes, which are stored in the mobile storage unit (¶0039, “data transceivers, and/or transmitters, to enable the user and/or other computing devices to remotely interface with the remote computing device 62”, FIG. 4 shows mobile device 62 communicating with server and Lifts 22, ¶0049, “the remote computing device 62 will request for the user to enter a verification code”), and
a control device, which is configured to trigger a transmission of identification codes between the mobile storage unit and the transmitter/receiver device of the control device in the event of a predetermined event, and which is further configured to transmit identification codes which are stored in the first storage device and the second storage device (¶0048, “ lift control module's 24 GUI requesting confirmation as to whether the user wants to pair a remote computing device 62with the lift control module 24.. the lift control module 24 may display a verification code on the lift control module's 24”, ¶0049, “FIG. 7,… Pair Lift Control” on the GUI of the user's remote computing device 62. Once the user has selected the “Pair Lift Control” button/icon, the remote computing device 62 will request for the user to enter a verification code”).
Regarding claim 7, Jaipaul teaches wherein the control device has an input device at which a user of the lifting device can input control commands, and the control commands input at the input device are transmitted via the selected radio channel to other control devices, which are integrated into a lifting network (¶0029).
Regarding claim 8, Jaipaul teaches wherein the control device is implemented in a lifting (FIG. 3a, FIG. 3b, ¶0040).
Regarding claim 9, Jaipaul teaches control device is implemented in a system comprising System having at least two lifting devices and a least one mobile storage unit (FIG. 3a, FIG. 3b, ¶0040).
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 2, 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaipaul (20160272471) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Abdelmonem (20180295633).
Regarding claim 2, Jaipaul does not explicitly disclose but, Abdelmonem teaches wherein the transmitter/receiver device is further configured to scan radio frequency bands of a radio communication network and to select a radio channel on the basis of predefined criteria in order to exchange data wirelessly with one or more transmitter/receiver devices of other lifting devices via the selected radio channel, and configured to transmit an identifier of the selected radio channel to the mobile storage unit (¶0093, “The adaptive front end controller may store the signal strength of a particular channel along with any information, such as a numeric identifier, identifying the location of that particular channel within the DSSS signal.”, ¶0139, “ a determination can be made as to the traffic utilization of resource blocks affected by the interference and other resource blocks of the first base station that may be unaffected by interference or experiencing interference less impactful to communications. In this step a determination can be made as to the availability of unused bandwidth for redirecting data traffic of the mobile communication device affected by the interference”).
Accordingly, 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 lifting system disclosed in Jaipaul with the radio frequency bands taught in Abdelmonem with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in interference and noise suppression enhancement in signal quality with plurality of signals.
Regarding claim 3, Abdelmonem further teaches wherein the predefined criteria comprise an interference level of the radio frequency bands and the transmitter/receiver device is configured set up to select the radio frequency band with a lowest interference level as radio channel (¶0146).
Accordingly, 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 lifting system disclosed in Jaipaul with the radio frequency bands taught in Abdelmonem with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in interference and noise suppression enhancement in signal quality with plurality of signals.
Regarding claim 6, Abdelmonem teaches wherein the control device is further configured to exchange data with other lifting devices via a selected radio channel in the using a time slot method (¶0146).
Accordingly, 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 lifting system disclosed in Jaipaul with the radio frequency bands taught in Abdelmonem with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in interference and noise suppression enhancement in signal quality with plurality of signals.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaipaul (20160272471) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of AHN (20220311479).
Regarding claim 4, Jaipaul does not explicitly disclose but, AHN teaches wherein the predetermined event for the transmission of the identification code is a prior activation of a coupling mode of the control device and/or a wireless or wired connection of the mobile storage unit to the control device (abstract).
Accordingly, 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 lifting system disclosed in Jaipaul with the different modes taught in AHN with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted enablement of the reduction of interferences, especially reflections of signals that could simulate the presence signal.
Regarding claim 5, AHN teaches wherein the control device is further configured to send the identification codes from the first and second storage device when the coupling mode has been deactivated (abstract).
Accordingly, 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 lifting system disclosed in Jaipaul with the different modes taught in AHN with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted enablement of the reduction of interferences, especially reflections of signals that could simulate the presence signal.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaipaul (20160272471) as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Kobayashi (20080132280).
Regarding claim 10, Jaipaul does not explicitly disclose but, Kobayashi teaches wherein an operator can couple the at least two lifting devices are in a lifting assembly by means of a radio connection between the at least two lifting devices, wherein the operator connects the mobile storage unit is configured to communicate with for communication to a first lifting device, the control device of the first lifting device is configured set up to then transmit the identification code from the first storage device to the mobile storage unit, to select a radio channel and to transmit an identifier thereof to the mobile storage unit, an operator can then disconnect the data connection of the mobile storage unit to the first lifting device and sets up a data connection between the mobile storage unit and a further one of the at least two the second lifting device devices, wherein the control device of the further second lifting device is configured set up to transmit the identification code from the first storage device to the mobile storage unit and to receive the identification code of the first lifting device and the identifier of the radio channel from the mobile storage unit and to store them in the second storage device and the operator can disconnect the data connection to the further second lifting device after a reception, whereupon the control device of the further second lifting device transmits the identification codes stored in the first and second storage device via the selected radio channel (abstact,¶0010).
Accordingly, 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 lifting system disclosed in Jaipaul with the disconnect of other machines taught in Kobayashi with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted improve the communication quality, and improve the maintenance requirements.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaipaul (20160272471) in view of Kobayashi (20080132280) and further in view of AHN (20220311479).
Regarding claim 11, claim 1 is rejected using the same art and rejection to reject claim 1. Furthermore, Kobayashi teaches disconnecting one machine and connecting another machine (abstract, ¶0010).
Accordingly, 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 lifting system disclosed in Jaipaul with the disconnect of other machines taught in Kobayashi with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted improve the communication quality, and improve the maintenance requirements.
AHN teaches wherein the predetermined event for the transmission of the identification code is a prior activation of a coupling mode of the control device and/or a wireless or wired connection of the mobile storage unit to the control device (abstract).
Accordingly, 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 lifting system disclosed in Jaipaul with the different modes taught in AHN with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted enablement of the reduction of interferences, especially reflections of signals that could simulate the presence signal.
Claim 12-16 are rejected using the same art and rejection used to reject claims 1-6.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaipaul (20160272471) in view of Kobayashi (20080132280) and further in view of SHIBATA (JP H11-136754 A).
Regarding claim 17, Jaipaul does not explicitly disclose but, SHIBATA teaches wherein the transmitter/receiver device is configured to transmit an identifier of a selected radio channel to the mobile storage unit (page 04, lines 1-3).
Accordingly, 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 lifting system disclosed in Jaipaul with the different channel allocation taught in SHIBATA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in a control unit for a wireless mobile lift system with intercommunication frequencies which can be user selected in the field to avoid interference from other lift systems or from unknown sources.
Regarding claim 18, SHIBATA further teaches wherein the second storage device is further configured to store an identifier of a radio channel received from the mobile storage unit (page 06, lines 1-5).
Accordingly, 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 lifting system disclosed in Jaipaul with the different channel allocation taught in SHIBATA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in a control unit for a wireless mobile lift system with intercommunication frequencies which can be user selected in the field to avoid interference from other lift systems or from unknown sources.
Regarding claim 19, SHIBATA teaches wherein the control device is configured to transmit the identification codes stored in the first and second storage device via a selected radio channel page 06, lines 6-14).
Accordingly, 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 lifting system disclosed in Jaipaul with the different channel allocation taught in SHIBATA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in a control unit for a wireless mobile lift system with intercommunication frequencies which can be user selected in the field to avoid interference from other lift systems or from unknown sources.
Regarding claim 20, Jaipaul discloses wherein the predetermined event for the transmission of the identification code is a wireless or wired connection of the mobile storage unit to the control device (abstract),
SHIBATA teaches wherein the control device of a first lifting device is configured to select a radio channel and to transmit an identifier of the selected radio channel to the mobile storage unit for transfer to a second lifting device, and wherein the control device is configured to receive an identifier of a radio channel from the mobile storage unit and to establish radio communication with other lifting devices via the radio channel identified by the identifier (page 6, lines 10).
Accordingly, 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 lifting system disclosed in Jaipaul with the different channel allocation taught in SHIBATA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in a control unit for a wireless mobile lift system with intercommunication frequencies which can be user selected in the field to avoid interference from other lift systems or from unknown sources.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 17-20 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.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In particular the applicant argues:
the verification code described in Jaipaul serves only to couple a mobile terminal 62 with the lift control module 24 of the lift device 22. Such a verification code is usually generated a new each time and is therefore not stored in the lift control device 24 and is not uniquely assigned to it. Jaipaul does not disclose a second storage device storing identification codes of other lifting devices. Jaipaul teaches that when a user pairs the remote computing device with the lift control module, the user may be permitted to control each of the lifts that were included in the lift system associated with the lift control module.
The claimed invention uses a mobile storage unit as an intermediary to collect identification codes from multiple lifting devices and distribute them to form a coordinated lifting assembly. This is distinct from Jaipaul's system where a remote computing device pairs with a lift control module to remotely control lifts. Claim 1 also requires transmitting identification codes stored in both the first storage device and the second storage device, which necessitates storing and transmitting identification codes of both the lifting device itself and other lifting devices. Jaipaul does not disclose this feature because Jaipaul's system does not involve storing or transmitting identification codes of other lifting devices.
The combination of Jaipaul with Abdelmonem is improper because Abdelmonem is non-analogous art that provides no motivation to combine with Jaipaul's vehicle lift pairing system. Abdelmonem describes embodiments for detecting and mitigating interference signals in the context of a telecommunication system that includes mobile units, base stations, and a switching station forming network infrastructure.
AHN does not teach collecting and distributing identification codes via a mobile storage unit to form a synchronized lifting assembly. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to combine AHN's wireless AV system standby and connection modes with Jaipaul's vehicle lift system to arrive at the claimed invention.
In response to A) examiner respectively disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Given the broadest interpretation, as claimed it is the examiner’s position, the reference of record teaches what he is argued. As noted in paragraph [0008], it is clear to the examiner that this passage supports storing information in the storage devices and specifically identification codes as recited in claim 1 and other independent claims. More specifically, Jaipaul in at least ¶0027 discloses memory elements capable of storing data such as binary data, text, audio, etc. wherein the storage elements can be RAM, ROM, memory cards, etc. Furthermore, Jaipaul in at least ¶0049 GUI requesting confirmation as to whether the user intends to pair the user's remote computing device 62 with a lift control module 24… graphically present the phrase “Pair Lift Control” on the GUI of the user's remote computing device 62. Once the user has selected the “Pair Lift Control” button/icon, the remote computing device 62 will request for the user to enter a verification code…the user can use the optical device (e.g., the camera) of the user's remote computing device 62 to capture the image/information from the displayed verification code. In addition, Jaipaul in at least ¶0038 discloses (GUI) that is displayed via the graphic display of the remote computing device 62. The GUI enables the user to interact with the remote computing device 62 by touching or pointing at display areas to provide information and commands to the remote computing device 62. The fact that information “code” is being entered and displayed on the GUI, that information is also stored in one of the storage devices cited in ¶0027.
In response to B) examiner respectively disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Given the broadest interpretation, as claimed it is the examiner’s position, the reference of record teaches what he is argued. As noted in paragraph [0008], it is clear to the examiner that this passage supports storing information in the storage devices and specifically identification codes as recited in claim 1 and other independent claims. More specifically, Jaipaul in at least ¶0050 discloses user entering the verification code., and for as mentioned in above, the processor must retrieve the code from the memory in order to process the information. Furthermore, Jaipaul discloses user attempting to pair a second remote computing device 62. Examiner construes this as following the same process as pairing with the first computing device i.e. user entering the verification code... and processor retrieves code from the memory etc. Also as mentioned above, Jaipaul in at least ¶0027 discloses memory elements capable of storing data such as binary data, text, audio, etc. wherein the storage elements can be RAM, ROM, memory cards, i.e. more than one storage device.
In response to C) applicant's argument that Abdelmonem’s cited reference is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Abdelmonem describes embodiments for detecting and mitigating interference signals in the context of a telecommunication system that includes mobile units, base stations, and a switching station forming network infrastructure. Furthermore, Jaipaul discloses controlling lift devices using wireless communication i.e. via communication network; wherein the wireless communication network includes servers, routers, switches, wireless receivers and transmitters, and the like, as well as … cellular or mobile phone networks… Thus, both cited references are related to communication between wireless devices, wherein Abdelmonem’s reference i.e. minimizing interferences between wireless communication devices can be applied to automotive applications, or industrial applications because the issue in both applications still exists. Thus, It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art that the cited references were within the field of the inventor’s endeavor and hence were analogous art because both are similar in terms of addressing the problem of effectively communicating between devices.
In response to D, see response to argument D.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baker (US 6634461 B1) discloses A lift system that coordinates the raising and lowering of a vehicle relative to a surface by using wireless communications is provided. The lift system includes at least two lift mechanisms each having a post, a carriage, an actuating device and a control device. The carriage is slidably coupled to the post and is adapted to support a portion of the vehicle. The actuating device is coupled with the carriage and is capable of moving the carriage relative to the post. The control device is coupled with the actuating device and is capable of communicating by wireless signals with the other control device. The control devices communicate by wireless signals to coordinate the movement of the carriages relative to the posts to raise or lower the vehicle. Further, a rechargeable battery may provide power to the control device to allow for increased mobility of the lift system (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at 571-272-4896. 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.
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667