DETAILED ACTION
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.
(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) 1-5, 7 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Odorizzi (6,848,879).
Odorizzi (6,848,879) disclose(s):
Harvesting assisting machine 1;
Frame comprising longitudinal axis, bisector, figure(s) 3;
first & second side frames, 9, figure(s) 3;
third frame portion 13;
containers 7;
container space 15;
a plurality of wheels 3.
Odorizzi (6,848,879) disclose(s) holding and lifting assemblies 48 & 19 comprising structural elements 53, inter alia, having prongs 51-52, figure(s) 13; two pairs of holding and lifting assemblies’ sub-assemblies, best seen figure(s) 3, each comprising lifting sub-assembly & prong actuating sub-assembly 54-55.
With regard to claim(s) 4-5, Odorizzi (6,848,879) disclose(s) mechanisms that both rotate and slide under.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odorizzi (6,848,879) in view of Fan (CN 110786140).
Odorizzi (6,848,879) disclose(s) an item(s) loader, figure(s) 11, comprising a transverse conveyor 58 having a holder and belt(s) comprising retaining member(s); best seen figure(s) 12. Odorizzi (6,848,879) lack(s) an item(s) loader that arranges item(s) into the container. Fan (CN 110786140) teach(es) an item(s) arranging assembly 301 in a wheeled harvesting assisting machine having a holding and lifting assembly.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Odorizzi (6,848,879) to substitute item(s) arrangement in order to increase efficiency as taught by Fan (CN 110786140).
Claims 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odorizzi (6,848,879) in view of Petoia (4,551,059).
Odorizzi (6,848,879) lack(s) a retractable & extendable third frame portion. Petoia (4,551,059) teach(es) a retractable & extendable third frame portion, figure(s) 3-4, in a wheeled harvesting assisting machine having a holding and lifting assembly.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Odorizzi (6,848,879) to provide a retractable & extendable third frame portion in order to accommodate varying size containers as taught by Petoia (4,551,059).
Conclusion
Claims 6, 8-10, 12-13 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 prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schults (6,939,098) and Dimick (2,316,938) both disclose(s) wheeled frame enclosures with holding and lifting assemblies comprising prongs.
Gove (3,348,711) disclose(s) longitudinally oriented holding and lifting assemblies with a retractable/extendable third frame portion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A DILLON JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6913. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday; 8AM-6:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike McCullough can be reached on (571)272-7805. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (703)305-7687 for regular communications and (703)308-0552 for After Final communications.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703)308-1134.
/JOSEPH A DILLON JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights