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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because, in Figures 3, 5 and 6, the image is oriented at a different angle (rotated 90 degrees) relative to the Figure number. 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, the 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 26, 28, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ES1232734 to Lopez Valera.
Regarding claim 26, Lopez Valera teaches a cycle for carrying cargo comprising: a cycle frame 1 having a front section at 2 (see Figure 1) mounting a steerable front wheel 6 and a U-shaped rear section (rear half of chassis, se seen in Figures 1 and 7) having a first head member (at forward end of rear frame) and first side members (rear arms of rear frame, seen in Figures 1 and 6), with at least one rear wheel 6 being mounted to each side member; a space 11 (figure 7; page 2, “11. Handling space”, in translation) disposed between the first side members and rear wheels (Figures 7-9); and powered lifting means 7, 10 (page 2 of translation: “10. A lifting device formed by a commercial elevator system. In both cases it can be operated manually or electrically by means of a motor. When operated, raise or lower the load collection frame [7]”) provided along the first side members (arms see Figures 2 and 7) and including a movable lifting apparatus 7, the powered lifting means being configured to move the movable lifting apparatus upwardly and/or downwardly with respect to the U-shaped rear section for engaging with and lifting cargo positioned in the space (first paragraph of “Explanation of the Invention”, pages 1-2 of the translation).
Regarding claim 28, Lopez Valera teaches that the movable lifting apparatus 7 includes a pair of side bars disposed substantially below the U-shaped rear section (rear half of chassis).
Regarding claim 38, Lopez Valera teaches that the powered lifting means is driven by a motor (page 2 of translation, lifting device 10 can be operated :electrically by means of a motor”).
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.
Claim(s) 27, 29-32, 34, and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez Valera in view of Kalinowski (PGPub 2021/0053602).
Regarding claim 27, Lopez Valera shows side bars of the movable lifting apparatus 7 to be positioned below, rather than above, the U-shaped rear section.
Kalinowski shows a pallet vehicle 10 having a movable lifting apparatus (upper frame 14) movable relative to a U-shaped rear frame (lower frame 12, seen in Figure 2, for example). The movable lifting apparatus includes side bars (vertically oriented portion of each arm 15, seen in Figure 6) and side supporting elements (horizontally oriented portion of each arm 15, shown in Figure 6) disposed above side members 12 of the U-shaped rear frame section 12.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the side bars above the side members of Lopez Valera, in view of Kalinowki, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to support the side bars on the members of the frame when the side bars are at their lowest position, thereby preventing the lifting apparatus from contacting the ground and preventing movement of the vehicle.
Regarding claims 29 and 30, Lopez Valera shows a power lifting apparatus 7 having a supporting surface that comprises a lower U-shaped frame 8 having a second head member (portion of fork 8 connecting longitudinally extending arms of fork) and second side members (longitudinally extending arms of fork 8). Lopez Valera does not show a pair of side supporting elements in addition to the side members. Kalinowki does teach a U-shaped frame 14 having pair of side supporting elements in addition to the side members that support a pallet 50 from below and from the lateral sides to prevent the pallet from slipping off of the lifting apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide supporting elements connected to respective side elements, in view of Kalinowski, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to support cargo from below and from the sides to prevent the cargo from slipping off of the lifting apparatus.
Regarding claim 30, Kalinowski teaches that each side supporting element (horizontal portions of arms 15) is connected to a respective second side member (vertical portion of arms 15) of lower U-shaped frame 14
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Lopez Valera and Kalinowki does not explicitly teach that an end of at least one of the side supporting elements is chamfered downwardly at an angle from front to rear forming a side ramp. Lopez Valera shows, in Figure 2, chamfered rear ends of the arms 8 that form the lower U-shaped frame 8. Kalisowski shows second side members (vertical elements of arms 15) having downwardly angled rear ends. Laisowski also shows, in Figure 12, the rear ends of supporting members (horizontal portions of arms 15) to angle downwardly slightly to form ramps for the pallet 50. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to chamfer the rear ends of the supporting members to form ramp surfaces, in view of the both references suggesting the use of ramp surfaces, in order to assist in guiding the pallet onto the vehicle.
Regarding claim 32, Kalinowski shows the supporting surface comprising a front supporting element, the front supporting element being connected to second head member 19 of the lower U-shaped frame 14 (in Figure 4, Kalinowski shows a horizontal plate extending transversely between the side supporting elements of the arms 15 and connecting to a head element 19 of the U-shaped frame.
Regarding claim 34, the combination includes a supporting surface (both references teach load supporting surfaces). Kalinowski also teaches a front supporting element ((see Figure 4, a transverse front support element connected between longitudinal support elements) and includes a platform (pallet 50), the platform being movable between an operative position and a folded position (function recitation, the pallet of Kalinowski is capable of assuming a folded position) and rests on the pair of side supporting elements and/or the front supporting element when in the operative position (see Figure 8 of Kalinowski). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a platform/pallet on the support surfaces of the combination, in view of Kalinowski, in order to support cargo in the cargo area of the cycle.
Regarding claim 45, Lopez Valera shows a cargo collection frame that forms a housing, as broadly recited, provided and disposed between each side bar 8 and each first side member of the U-shaped rear section (rear portions of frame 1).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez Valera in view of Starke (WO2018/194503).
Regarding claim 33, Lopez Valera lacks the supporting surface having a platform including a ramp, the ramp including a handle in a form of an aperture.
Starke shows a cycle (hybrid vehicle including pedal power having a frame 1, a steerable front wheel 4, rear wheels 7, and a powered lifting means for a movable lifting apparatus (cargo carrier 2) relative to the frame 1. The movable lifting apparatus has a supporting surface (top surface of cargo carrier 2) including a platform 2 and a ramp 18 (see Figure 2). Starke does not specify that the ramp includes an aperture that can be used as a handle. However, it is well known to provide apertures for a number of reasons, including to reduce weight or provide greppable structures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the Lopez Valera cycle with a platform having a ramp, in view of Starke, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to assist in loading cargo onto the cycle. It would further have been an obvious design feature to provide an aperture in the ramp, as is well known, in order to reduce the weight of the ramp and provide a greppable structure for deploying and storing the ramp.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez Valera in view of Klapwijk (PGPub 2008/0093829).
Regarding claim 35, Lopez Valera lacks the supporting surface having a first platform section and a second platform section pivotally connected to each other.
Klapwijk teaches a wheeled cargo carrier having a U-shaped rear frame 1, a movable lifting apparatus 2 having a supporting surface. The supporting surface includes a platform 2, 17, 19, comprising a first platform section 17 and a second platform section 19, the first platform section and second platform section being pivotally connected to each other (para [0020], last three lines; Figure 1 shows the second platform section 19 stored in a vertical position while Figure 2 shows the second platform section 19 folded down to its operative position, to simplify loading and unloading of the frame).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a folding platform on the cargo carrier of Lopez Valera, in view of Klapwijk, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate loading and unloading of the cargo area.
Claim(s) 39, 40, 42, and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez Valera in view of Sobina (USPN 5,630,693).
Lopez Valera teaches a powered lifting means 10, but lacks details regarding its arrangement and does not suggest the use of plural jacks.
Regarding claim 39, Sobina teaches a vehicle having cargo carrying area formed by frame 2 having a U-shaped rear section, formed by first head member (formed by rails 8, 11, and 12) and first side members 7, 9, 10, and a power lifting means extending along the cycle frame. The power lifting means includes a movable lifting apparatus (drop tray 3 with decking) that moves up and down relative to the U-shaped rear section of frame 2 where the movement is controlled by a motorized lifting means (four lifting means/jacks 21 that can each be a “motor driven tread”, commonly known as screw jack; col. 4, lines 1-2; Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide four screw jacks driven by a motor for lifting the movable lifting apparatus of Lopez Valera, in view of Sobina, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to effectively control the position of the movable lifting apparatus.
Regarding claim 40, the plurality of jacks 21 of Sobina are screw jacks (“motor driven thread”; col. 4, lines 1-2) with rods 22 extending above and below the first side members of the U-shaped rear section (rod 22 extends above and below U-shaped rear frame section 10, 11, seen in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 42, Sobina teaches that the plurality of jacks is synchronized to move the movable lifting apparatus upwardly and/or downwardly with respect to the U- shaped rear section (“cylinders are activated simultaneously raising and lowering the tray 2 parallel to the place of the chassis”, col. 4 lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 43, each of the plurality of jacks 21 on one first side member of the U-shaped rear section 2 of Sobina is aligned with a respective one of the plurality of jacks on the other first side member (see jacks 21 in Figure 1).
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez Valera and Sobina as applied to claims 39, 40, 42, and 43 above, and further in view of Zaharie (PGPub 2022/0048744).
Regarding claim 44, the combination includes a motor that is provided for each of the plurality of jacks for separately driving each of the plurality of jacks (Sobina teaches each jack 21 can include a motor driven thread; col. 4, lines 1-2) but fails to teach a processor connected to each of the motors, and an encoder or other feedback means configured to provide feedback from one or more of the motors to the processor for the processor to coordinate a movement of the plurality of jacks based on the feedback.
Zaharie teaches a power lifting means including multiple motors 124, one motor 124 provided for each of a plurality of jacks 106, 108, for separately driving each of the plurality of jacks (jacks/stanchions 106, 108, each include a screw drive 110 within the stanchion and an electric motor 124; para [0046]), a processor connected to each of the motors (microprocessor; para [0045], lines19-21), and an encoder (para [0045], lines 9-11) or other feedback means configured to provide feedback from one or more of the motors to the processor for the processor to coordinate a movement of the plurality of jacks based on the feedback (para [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coordinate drive between the four screw jacks of the combination using a microprocessor and encoder that provides feedback, in view of Zaharie, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to effectively control the position of the movable lifting apparatus and position the lift platform at a desired orientation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 36, 37, and 41 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choi, Hans-Georg, Wagner, Kahle, Juwet, and Courtens teach cycles with cargo carriers.
Knapp shows pallet carrier arms with downwardly chamfered ends.
Ellis shows a fork lift with folding platform arms.
Clark teaches a vehicle frame with movable bed.
Stringer teaches a movable cargo carrier with upper and lower side arms.
Blomgren shows lift truck with a U-shaped chassis structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at 571-272-6265. 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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ab/
Prosecution Insights