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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3 “fist” should be “first.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 7,300,239 to Benedikt.
Regarding claim 1 Benedikt discloses a self-loading assembly for a vehicle, the self-loading assembly including: a base frame (14) operatively secured to the vehicle; a cargo body (12) operatively adapted to be located on the base frame to be transported by the vehicle; a loading arm (19) operatively associated with the base frame, the loading arm operatively adapted to move relative to the base frame between (i) a transport position in which the cargo body is located on to the base frame (figure 4), and (ii) an offload position wherein the cargo body is offloaded from the base frame (figure 3); an actuator assembly (see figure 1) operatively adapted to move the loading arm between the transport position and the offload position, the actuator assembly including (i) an arm pivot member (17) on which the loading arm is mounted and about which the loading arm pivots as it moves between the transport position and the offload position, and (ii) a linkage assembly connecting the loading arm with an actuator (24), the linkage assembly adapted to move the loading arm between the transport position and the offload position when the actuator is caused to move between a first position and a second position (see figure 1 30/32 etc.).
Regarding claim 2 Benedikt discloses the vehicle is a utility vehicle or a light commercial vehicle (2 and figure 8 showing system installed in vehicle).
Regarding claim 3 Benedikt discloses the linkage assembly includes an (i) arm linkage member (32) coupled to the loading arm, and (ii) a frame linkage member (30) coupled to the base frame at a base end and to the arm linkage member at an arm linkage member end (see figures 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 4 Benedikt discloses the frame linkage member is pivotally mounted about a frame pivot member coupled to the base frame (33).
Regarding claim 17 Benedikt discloses a self-loading assembly according to claim 1, wherein the linkage assembly includes an (i) arm linkage member (32) coupled to the loading arm, and (ii) a frame linkage member (30) coupled to the base frame at a base end (33) and to the arm linkage member at an arm linkage member end (39).
Regarding claim 19 Benedikt discloses a vehicle (2) including a self-loading assembly according to claim 1 (figure 8 showing system installed in vehicle).
Regarding claim 20 Benedikt discloses a vehicle (2) including a self-loading assembly according to claim 2 (figure 8 showing system installed in vehicle).
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) 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedikt in view of US 9,789,802 to Bartelt.
Regarding claim 5 Benedikt discloses all the limitations of the claim except
the frame linkage member defines a recess operatively adapted to receive the arm pivot member therein when the loading arm is located in the offload position.
Bartelt teaches a similar loading system including the frame linkage member (50a/b) defines a recess (54) operatively adapted to receive the arm pivot member (42) therein when the loading arm is located in the offload position (see figure 7d) in order to provide additional support to the arm (col. 3 lines 61-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicant’s claim to have modified Benedikt to include the frame linkage member defines a recess operatively adapted to receive the arm pivot member therein when the loading arm is located in the offload position, as taught by Bartelt, in order to provide additional support to the arm.
Regarding claim 6 Benedict discloses the arm linkage member is (i) coupled to the loading arm via a linkage pivot member (36) located at an arm end of the arm linkage member, and (ii) coupled to the actuator via an actuator pivot member (39) at an actuator end of the arm linkage member (see figure 1)
Regarding claim 7 Benedict discloses the frame linkage member is a first frame linkage member and the linkage assembly includes a second frame linkage member opposing the first frame linkage member and laterally spaced apart from the first frame linkage member (see figure 9 showing two instances side by side).
Regarding claim 8 Benedict discloses the actuator includes an actuator rod (26) moveable between a retracted position (see figure 4) and an extended position (see figure 3), wherein the actuator is moved from the first position to the second position as the actuator rod is moved from retracted position to the extended position.
Regarding claim 9 Benedict discloses the loading arm includes a first loading arm member (19a/b) and a transverse second loading arm member (19c), the first loading arm member being mounted to the arm pivot member (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 10 Benedict discloses the first loading arm member defines an actuator space for holding the actuator when the loading arm is located in the transport position (see figure 4 showing actuator tucked below arm 19).
Regarding claim 11 Benedict discloses the second loading arm member includes a gripping assembly operatively adapted to grip a portion of the cargo body (connection between 19c and 12).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedikt and Bartelt in view of US 5,102,284 to Raisio.
Regarding the claims the combination of Benedikt and Bartelt teaches all the limitations except the gripping assembly includes a gripping actuator operatively adapted to locate the gripping assembly in (i) a gripping position for gripping the cargo body, and (ii) a release position to release the cargo body and the second loading arm member includes a secondary actuator operatively adapted to move the second loading arm member between a rest position and an active position, movement of the second loading arm member to the active position causing the cargo body to be tilted.
Raisio teaches a system including the gripping assembly includes a gripping actuator (see col. 4 lines 35-40 and lines 65-66) operatively adapted to locate the gripping assembly in (i) a gripping position for gripping the cargo body, and (ii) a release position to release the cargo body (see figure 3) and the second loading arm member includes a secondary actuator (9) operatively adapted to move the second loading arm member between a rest position and an active position, movement of the second loading arm member to the active position causing the cargo body to be tilted (see figure 1) in order to ensure the hook stays engaged and properly releases (col. 4 lines 32-34 and lines 63-65) and to facilitate loading and unloading (see figure 1 and col. 3 lines 20-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicant’s claim to have modified Benedikt and Bartelt to include the gripping assembly includes a gripping actuator operatively adapted to locate the gripping assembly in (i) a gripping position for gripping the cargo body, and (ii) a release position to release the cargo body and the second loading arm member includes a secondary actuator operatively adapted to move the second loading arm member between a rest position and an active position, movement of the second loading arm member to the active position causing the cargo body to be tilted, as taught by Raisio, in order to ensure the hook stays engaged and properly releases and to facilitate loading and unloading.
Claim(s) 14-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedikt and Bartelt and Raisio in view of GB 1327928 to Societe Nouvelle.
Regarding the claims the combination of Benedikt and Bartelt teaches all the limitations except the base frame includes a frame body and a subframe assembly to move relative to the frame body and the base frame includes a frame actuator to effect movement of the subframe assembly.
Societe Nouvelle teaches a system including the base frame includes a frame body (slides 2) and a subframe assembly (skip 7) to move relative to the frame body and the base frame includes a frame actuator (jack 5) to effect movement of the subframe assembly (compare figures 1 and 2) in order provide both loading/unloading as well as tipping actions (page 1 lines 34-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicant’s claim to have modified Benedikt and Bartelt and Raisio to include the base frame includes a frame body and a subframe assembly to move relative to the frame body and the base frame includes a frame actuator to effect movement of the subframe assembly, as taught by Societe Nouvelle, in order provide both loading/unloading as well as tipping actions.
The combination teaches a vehicle including a self-loading assembly according to any one of the preceding claims claim 15 (see discussion above and vehicle 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional cited references show other similar hook hoist systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST).
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.
/MARK C HAGEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights