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
Claims 1 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 5, it appears that “the first occurrence of “and” should actually be --a-- for proper grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 73 and 76-80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 73 is rejected because it depends from a canceled claim (claim 1). For purposes of expediting examination, claim 73 will be interpreted as if it depended from claim 62.
In claim 76, “providing a flexible elongate member to couple the connectors” is a double recitation of “a flexible elongate member configured to connect the first and second connectors” as recited in claim 73.
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 62-66 and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lanigan, SR. et al. (hereafter, “Lanigan”, US 3,368,838).
With respect to claim 62, Lanigan discloses a connector for releasable securement to an opening 80 in a corner fitting 28 of a shipping container, the connector comprising:
a body 40 with an attachment portion 36 extending therefrom, the attachment portion 36 configured to be received in the opening 80 of the corner fitting 28 (as shown in Fig. 2 of Lanigan); and
a locking device 42 actuable between and locking position (as shown in Fig. 7B of Lanigan) and a retracted position (as shown in Fig. 6B of Lanigan), the locking device 42having a portion configured for insertion into the opening 80 alongside the attachment portion 36,
wherein the body 40 is movable between a first condition in which the attachment portion 36 can be inserted into the opening 80 (as shown in Fig. 5A of Lanigan) and a second condition in which the attachment portion 36 cannot be removed through the opening 80 (as shown in Fig. 7A of Lanigan) , and
wherein, when in the locking position, the locking device 42 is configured to prevent removal of the attachment portion 36 from the opening 80 once the locking device 42 has been received in the opening (Lanigan, paragraph [0036]; Figs. 7A-7C ).
With respect to claim 63, Lanigan discloses that the attachment portion 36 has a protrusion for insertion into the opening 80 (top tapered portion of 36 as shown in Fig. 2 of Lanigan), the protrusion being shaped such that it is longer in a major direction than in a minor direction (as shown in Fig. 2 of Lanigan).
With respect to claim 64, Lanigan discloses that the locking device 42 is actuable via sliding (rotation of latch 42 results in a sliding motion as shown in Figs. 5C and 6C of Lanigan).
With respect to claim 65, Lanigan discloses that the locking device 42 includes a tab, flange, cam or lobe that is configured to be inserted into the opening of the corner fitting as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 7B of Lanigan:
[AltContent: textbox (tab, flange, cam or lobe)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
279
184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 66, Lanigan discloses that the locking device 42 comprises a biasing member 50 that is configured to bias the locking device in a locked position (“The top latch 42 is spring loaded to a latched position by being mechanically coupled with large spring 50 ,” Lanigan, paragraph [0030]).
With respect to claim 68, Lanigan discloses that the body 40 of the connector comprises a locking device retaining portion which defines a hole through which the locking device extends (hole shown between notches 74 in Fig. 3 of Lanigan).
Claims 62 and 71-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rosaia (US 4,277,212).
With respect to claim 62, Rosaia discloses a connector for releasable securement to an opening 64 in a corner fitting 66 of a shipping container, the connector comprising:
a body 24 with an attachment portion 38 extending therefrom, the attachment portion 38 configured to be received in the opening 64 of the corner fitting 66 (as shown in Fig. 3A of Rosaia); and
a locking device 40 actuable between and locking position (as shown in Fig. 3A of Rosaia) and a retracted position (as shown in Fig. 2A of Rosaia), the locking device 40 having a portion 40a configured for insertion into the opening 64 alongside the attachment portion 38 (as shown in Fig. 5 of Rosaia),
wherein the body 24 is movable between a first condition in which the attachment portion can be inserted into the opening 64 (as shown in Fig.1B of Rosaia) and a second condition in which the attachment portion 38 cannot be removed through the opening (see Rosaia, col. 4, lines 26-32; Fig. 2B), and
wherein, when in the locking position, the locking device 40 is configured to prevent removal of the attachment portion 49 from the opening 64 once the locking device 40 has been received in the opening 64 (see Rosaia, col. 4, lines 26-32; Fig. 2B).
With respect to claim 71, Rosaia discloses that one or more of the body and the releasable attachment portion are made of steel (Rosaia, col. 7, lines 61-64).
With respect to claim 72, claim 72 is directed to an apparatus and therefore the claimed method of making holds no patentable weight if it does not result in any differing structure of the apparatus. In this case, the step of one[ice casting or forging does not appear to result in any different structure than that of the prior art. With that said, Rosaia disclose that the body 24 is made by one-piece casting, forging or fabrication (Rosaia, col 7, lines 61-64) and/or the releasable attachment portion is made by one- piece casting, forging or fabrication.
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 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanigan, SR. et al. (hereafter, “Lanigan”, US 3,368,838), as applied to claim 62 above, and further in view of Nijenhuis (US 5,318,400).
With respect to claim 70, Lanigan discloses the claimed connector except for the underside of the body being angled at an end remote from the corner fitting for engagement with a tilt tray to lift the container during loading. However, Nijenhuis teaches a similar connector including an underside of a body 6 (as shown on the left side of Fig. 4) that is angled at an end remote from the corner fitting 9 for engagement with a tilt tray to lift the container during loading (“which cable can exert a force in the direction of the arrow and engages on a which [not shown] on the loading platform or tipping bridge of a lorry,” Nijenhuis, col. 3, lines 50-52).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Nijenhuis with the connector disclosed by Lanigan for the advantage of facilitating the movement of the container and connector from a ground surface to a tilted truck tray.
Claim 69 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanigan, SR. et al. (hereafter, “Lanigan”, US 3,368,838), as applied to claim 62 above, and further in view of Cullum et al. (US 7,901,174).
With respect to claim 69, Lanigan discloses the claimed connector except for the tab extending from the body. However, Cullum et al. teach a similar connector 50 including
a tab 72 extending from a body 52f for receipt of an elongate member 70 capable of use for coupling like connectors disposed at opposite corners of the container.
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Cullum et al. with the connector disclosed by Lanigan for the advantage of facilitating pulling of a container 28a onto tilt tray 24 (Cullum et al., col. 4, lines 22-27; Figs. 8-10).
Claims 73-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chassis King (amazon.com website) in view of Lanigan, SR. et al. (hereafter, “Lanigan”, US 3,368,838).
With respect to claim 73, Chassis King discloses the claimed apparatus except for the first and second connectors being according to claim 1. Chassis King discloses first and second connectors (as shown in the first page of Chassis King); and
a flexible elongate member configured to connect the first and second connectors as shown in the figure below taken from the Chassis King website:
[AltContent: textbox (first connector)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (second connector)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (flexible elongate member)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
623
609
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lanigan teaches a connector for a shipping container as described in the above Lanigan rejection of claim 1.
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Lanigan (for both the first and second connectors) with the apparatus disclosed by Chassis King for the advantage of a locked connection to the container which would prevent accidental disconnection of the connector.
With respect to claim 74, Lanigan discloses that the flexible elongate member includes a cable or chain (as shown above), or a cable and chain combination.
With respect to claim 75, Lanigan discloses the first and second connectors 30/30 are each handed, such that the attachment portion of the first connector rotates in a first direction to connect the connector to the container, and the attachment portion of the second connector rotates in a second direction to connect the second connector to the container (Fig. 1 of Lanigan shows the first and second connectors 30/30 on the left and right sides of the front end of the container arranged in an opposite or mirroring arrangement. Fig. 7C shows that the latch 42 contacts inner wall 90, paragraph [0036] of Lanigan-–thus, the first connector would be required to rotate in a first direction in order for the latch 42 to contact inner wall 90 and the second connector would be required to rotate in a second direction in order for the latch 42 to contact the inner wall and thereby connect the container).
Claims 76-80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chassis King (amazon.com website) in view of Lanigan, SR. et al. (hereafter, “Lanigan”, US 3,368,838), and Reef Group (Youtube.com video).
With respect to claim 76, Chassis King in view of Lanigan disclose the claimed method except for the steps of providing a which cable connected between a winch of the vehicle and the flexible elongate member and inclining the flat-bed or tray at an angle such that a lower edge of the flat-bed or tray engages under the connectors and/or a lower end edge of the container; and drawing the container onto the flat-bed or tray by use of the winch. Chassis King in view of Lanigan disclose a method of loading a container onto a truck flat-bed or tray, including the steps of:
providing an apparatus according to providing an apparatus according to claim 73 (as outlined above in the prior art rejection of claim 73),
attaching the first connector to a first connection point at a respective lower corner of an end of a shipping container (as shown in the above image taken from Chassis King);
attaching the second connector to a second connection point at another lower corner of the end of the shipping container (as shown in the above image taken from Chassis King);
providing a flexible elongate member to couple the connectors (as shown in the above image taken from Chassis King);
Reef Group teaches a method of providing a winch cable connected between a winch of the vehicle and the flexible elongate member as shown in the below images taken from times 0:59 and 1:03 of the Reef Group video:
[AltContent: textbox (lower edge of flat-bed under connectors)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (inclined flat-bed)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (winch cable)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image3.png
457
713
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (winch)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image4.png
476
968
media_image4.png
Greyscale
inclining a flat-bed or tray at an angle such that a lower edge of the flat-bed or tray engages under the connectors (as shown above) and/or a lower end edge of the container; and
drawing the container onto the flat-bed or tray by use of the winch (as generally shown throughout the Reef Group video).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Reef Group with the method disclosed by Chassis King in view of Lanigan for the advantage of automating the loading of a container onto a flat-bed of a vehicle.
With respect to claim 77, Reef Group teaches that the inclination of the flat-bed or tray is reduced towards horizontal when the container is at least partly loaded onto the flat-bed or tray (as shown at time 1:25 of the Reef Group video).
With respect to claim 78, Lanigan discloses that the connectors are rotated for connection to the container (as shown in Figs. 5A-5C to 7A-7C of Lanigan).
With respect to claim 79, Lanigan discloses that the second connector is rotated in a different direction to the direction of the rotation of the first connector for releasable engagement with the container (Fig. 1 of Lanigan shows the first and second connectors 30/30 on the left and right sides of the front end of the container arranged in an opposite or mirroring arrangement. Fig. 7C shows that the latch 42 contacts inner wall 90, paragraph [0036] of Lanigan-–the latches 42 would be required to rotate in opposite directions to each contact the inner wall 90).
With respect to claim 80, Lanigan discloses including the step of actuating the locking device 42 to secure the attachment portion 36 in the opening 80 (as shown in Figs. 5C, 6C, and 7C of Lanigan).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 67 is 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 67 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the notch formed in the body for retaining the locking device in a retracted position.
.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/Daniel J Colilla/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights