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 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: “vehicle” should be “method” in each claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “configured such once” should be “configured such that once”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 11 – 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,116,024 in view of Lang et al. (10,696,113).
Regarding claims 11 – 19, U.S. Patent No. 12,116,024 claims the invention, but doesn’t claim a cab mounted on the platform. However, the Lang et al. reference discloses another railroad car moving vehicle (10) having a cab (14) on platform (16, 18) in order to provide an area to operate the vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Patent No. 12,116,024 to have a cab as, for example, taught by the Lang et al. reference in order to provide a user an area to operate the vehicle.
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) 1 – 7, 9 – 15 and 19 - 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krauspe et al. (EP 0624500 B1) in view of Lang et al. (10696113) and further in view of Brown et al (WO 2004/026754).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, the Kraupse et al. reference discloses a railroad car moving vehicle (Fig. 1) comprising: a chassis (G), and at least two track wheels (unlabeled, see Figures 1, 2 and 4); a platform (A and R) moveably mounted on the chassis; a platform lifting apparatus (i.e., scissor lift; see Figure 2) configured to move the platform between a raised position and a lowered position relative to the chassis (Figure 2), and the platform lifting apparatus including a platform lifting cylinder (Z1, Z2) operatively coupled between the chassis and the platform (Figure 2); but doesn’t disclose at least two ground wheels and at least one locking leg, the locking leg positionable between an extended position and a stowed position, the locking leg preventing lowering of the platform when in the extended position.
The Lang et al. reference discloses another railroad car moving vehicle having both rail bogies (28, 30) and rubber drive tires (22, 24, 26) to widely distribute weight of the operational equipment (col. 4, line 52 – col. 5, line4). 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 Kraupse et al. device to have ground wheels as, for example, taught by the Lang et al. reference in order to distribute weight of operational equipment.
Further, 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 Krauspe et al. 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 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 (inherent to hydraulic systems).
“The necessary extension length is additional reduced by the off-center arrangement of the fluid cylinders, for example a hydraulic cylinder or compressed air cylinder, which can be driven by the hydraulic motor of the vehicle for slow travel and / or an on-board compressed air system.”
Regarding claim 3, wherein the hydraulic system further includes a counterbalance valve. Examiner takes Official Notice that counter balance valves are well known in hydraulic systems.
Regarding claim 4, wherein the raised position of the platform is at least
18" higher than the lowered position of the platform. See Figure 2.
Regard claim 6, wherein each locking leg is pivotably coupled to the chassis. This would be inherent to a scissor lift system.
Regarding claim 7, modified Krauspe 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 claim 9, the Kraupse et al. reference further discloses one or more mechanical stops (slides Q), the mechanical stops positioned such that the platform abuts the mechanical stops when in a lowered position. This function would be inherent.
Regarding claim 10, wherein the platform lifting cylinder is electrically actuated. “On platform X, the operating personnel has a switch panel - not shown - from which both the functions of the work platform and the drive 16 of the vehicle can be switched. In addition, connections for electrical and hydraulic devices are arranged on the platform. The platform is designed for a load capacity of approximately 500 kg and can be swiveled +/- 180 ° and telescoped relative to the scissor platform, so that the platform X can be positioned both lengthways and transversely to the center of the track.”
Regarding claims 11 – 15 and 19, the method would be inherent during normal use and operation of the device.
Regarding claim 20, inasmuch structure that is defined by a cab, the rails (C) meet the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 21, the Lang et al. reference further teaches ground wheels (22, 24, 26).
Claim(s) 8 and 16 - 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krauspe et al. (EP 0624500 B1), as applied to claim 2, and further in view of O’Shea (2014/0041963).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kraupse et al. 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 Krauspe et al. 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 McCullagh (GB 2476277) reference disclose a vehicle (10) with a lifting platform (28) and cab (12).
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
Prosecution Insights