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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the amendment, filed 9/4/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-21 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant has amended claims 1 and 11 to include directly coupled. This is not defined in the specification nor clearly shown in the drawings.
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, 2, 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moriya (JP 2001315511 A).
Regarding claim 1, the Moriya reference discloses a railroad car moving vehicle (1) comprising: a chassis (2 and 4; base 4 is being construed as part of the chassis), the chassis including at least two ground wheels (3) and at least two track wheels (83f and 83r); a platform (8, 9; vertical post 8 is being construed as part of the platform) moveably mounted on the chassis; a platform lifting apparatus (defined by booms 6a – c) configured to move the platform between a raised position and a lowered position relative to the chassis, the platform lifting apparatus including a platform lifting cylinder (booms 6a – c) directly coupled, via structures 4 and 8, to the chassis and to the platform; and
at least one locking leg (i.e., cylinder 42; absent further defined structure of a locking leg), the locking leg positionable between an extended position (i.e., up position) and a stowed position (i.e., down position; Figure 1), the locking leg preventing lowering of the platform when in the extended position.
Further, inasmuch that is defined by “directly coupled” and absent criticality, the structure of Moriya (defined above) meets the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the platform lifting cylinder is a hydraulic cylinder and wherein the platform lifting apparatus further comprises a hydraulic system including a pump, reservoir, and a control valve. The defined structure is inherent to lifting booms.
Regarding claim 4, wherein the raised position of the platform is at least
18" higher than the lowered position of the platform. Raised platform (9) would be much higher than 18”.
Regarding claim 10, wherein the platform lifting cylinder is electrically actuated. See boom operating device (10) in Figure 1 of Moriya.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya in view of Davis (10377288).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, the Moriya reference doesn’t disclose wherein the hydraulic system further includes a counterbalance valve. However, the Davis reference discloses another hydraulic lifting platform (Fig. 46) having hydraulic cylinders with dual counterbalance valve assemblies (204, 206) to prevent over-running or load runaway (col. 10, lines 35 – 44). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Moriya device to have counterbalance valves as, for example, taught by the Davis reference in order to prevent over-running or load runaway.
Regarding claim 15, the method would be inherent during normal use and operation of the modified Moriya device.
Claim(s) 5 – 7, 11, 12, 14 and 19 - 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya in view of Brown (WO 2004026754).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, the Moriya reference discloses the invention (discussed supra) but doesn’t disclose wherein the platform lifting apparatus includes at least two locking legs and wherein the locking legs are coupled such that movement of one locking leg causes a corresponding movement of a locking leg that is coupled to the one locking leg. However, the Brown et al. reference discloses another hydraulic lift having automatic telescopic locking legs (50, Fig. 9; para. [0038] and [0043]) to prevent downward movement and will disengage when air cylinder (90) is actuated. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Moriya device to have automatic locking legs as, for
example, taught by the Brown et al. reference in order to prevent downward movement
and will disengage automatically.
Regarding claim 6, wherein each locking leg is pivotably coupled to the chassis.
This would be inherent to the modified Moriya device.
Regarding claim 7, modified Moriya doesn't disclose wherein the locking legs
are manually pivotable. The Examiner takes Official Notice that broadly providing
manual activity to replace mechanical or automatic means which has accomplished the
same result involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the method would be inherent during normal use and operation of the modified Moriya device.
Regarding claim 14, the Moriya system is hydraulic.
Regarding claim 19, the locking leg would inherently be pivotably coupled to the chassis.
Regarding claim 20, see cab (2a) of the Moriya device.
Regarding claim 21, see ground wheels (3) of the Moriya device.
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya.
Regarding claim 9, the Moriya reference doesn’t disclose having one or more mechanical stops, the mechanical stops positioned such that the platform abuts the mechanical stops when in a lowered position. The Examiner takes Official Notice that mechanical stops are well known, conventional in the art and would be obvious to try on the Moriya device to keep structures from moving beyond their intended range.
Regarding claim 13, the method would be inherent during normal use and operation of the Moriya device.
See newly cited art to the Schwaegerle reference (5461965), the Hosseine et al. reference (5189940) and Chill et al. reference (3013506) disclosing mechanical stops.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 - 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya, as applied to claim 2, and further in view of O'Shea (2014/0041963).
Regarding claim 8, modified Moriya discloses the invention (discussed supra), but doesn't disclose the platform lifting apparatus includes a pump on/off control and an electronic safety lockout system coupled between at least one locking leg and the pump on/off control, wherein the safety lockout system is configured such [that] once a locking leg has been moved into the extended position and subsequently moved into the stowed position, lowering of the platform is prevented until the safety lockout system is manually re-set. However, the O'Shea reference discloses another platform lifting apparatus (Fig. 1) having a mechanical lock out leg (53) and pump (51) to provide safety for operator while elevated and emergency ingress from the platform in an emergency (see paragraphs [0007-0008] and [0014]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Moriya device to have an electronic safety lockout as, for example, taught by the O'Shea reference in order to provide safety for operator while elevated and emergency ingress from the platform in an emergency.
Regarding claims 16 - 18, the method would be inherent during normal use and operation of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Kanazawa et al. reference (JP 2013023664) discloses another railroad car moving vehicle (Figs. 1, 2 and 9) having road wheels (20), rail wheels (30) and platform lifting system (105).
The Schwaegerle reference (5461965), the Hosseine et al. reference (5189940) and Chill et al. reference (3013506) discloses hydraulic lifting devices having mechanical stops.
The McCullagh reference (GB 2476277) discloses another hydraulic lift directly connected to a chassis (15) and platform (40) via hydraulic cylinders (44). See Figure 1.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY LEWIS MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-4891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/TIMOTHY L MAUST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
