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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the numeral 26 refers to multiple elements.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-9 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 1 recites the limitations "each pair of scissor legs" in the third line, “the deck” in the seventh line, and “an other of the lower legs” in the seventh line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For the third limitation “an other of the lower legs” in the seventh line, said limitation is repetitive. The applicant must mean “upper legs” here, not lower legs. Moreover, in the same phrase, the applicant may intend to mean “platform” instead of base, as is in line with explanation above.
Claims 4 and 9 are indefinite, because of the word “optional”, as it is unclear whether the element is a required limitation.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the lower sliding assembly " in the first and second lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All claims 2-9 depending from a rejected claim (such as claim 1 for example) are also rejected as being dependent from the rejected claim.
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.
(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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barlow et al. (US Pub. App. 20220371868).
Regarding Claim 1, Barlow discloses a portable loading dock comprising: a base and a platform; a plurality of scissor legs, each pair of scissor legs comprising lower legs attached to the base and upper legs attached to the platform, one of the lower legs being pivotably connected to the base, an other of the lower legs is slidably attached to the base via a slider assembly, one of the upper legs being pivotably connected to the deck, an other of the lower legs is slidably attached to the base via a slider assembly; and a drive (127 with 113) attached to at least one of the scissor legs to raise and lower the platform relative to the base wherein the portable loading dock functions to move a payload from floor level onto the portable loading dock to a raised unloading position level (refer to Fig. 2 for all other recited elements above.).
Re Claim 2, Barlow discloses the portable loading dock in accordance with claim 1 wherein the platform includes a tongue (136) for facilitating roll-on loading and roll-off unloading of the payload.
Re Claim 3, Barlow discloses the portable loading dock in accordance with claim 1 wherein extendible hand rails (see 138; [0007]) are provided for operator safety while moving the payload, the handrails are extendable to provide additional safety.
Re Claim 4, Barlow discloses the portable loading dock in accordance with claim 1 wherein the portable loading dock has an optional power drive (122).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentableover Stone (US Pub. App. 20220410952) in view of Schwalbach et al. (US Pub. App. 20200048058).
Stone discloses a portable loading dock (102) comprising: a base (108) and a platform (112); a plurality of scissor legs (152), each pair (154, 156) of scissor legs comprising a lower leg [portion] (166) attached to the base and an upper leg [portion](162) attached to the platform (see Fig. 11), one of the lower legs [portion] being pivotably connected to the base ([0046]), an other of the lower legs [portion] is slidably attached to the base via a slider assembly (160), one of the upper legs [portion] being pivotably connected to the deck (understood as “dock”, due to lack of clarity in turn due to lack of antecedent basis; [0046]), an other of the lower legs [portion] (182; interpreted as best understood considering the 112b rejection above that this is repetitive) is slidably attached to the base via a slider assembly (the elements that allow the jack 180 to slide back and forth; this is being interpreted as best understood in light of what appears to be improper repetition of this limitation.); and a drive (180) attached to at least one of the scissor legs to raise and lower the platform relative to the base wherein the portable loading dock functions to move a payload ([0006], [0025]) from floor level ([0027], [0030], [0037], [0052]) onto the portable loading dock to a raised unloading position level ([0041], [0048]).
Stone does not clearly teach wherein each pair of scissor legs comprising lower legs attached to a base and upper legs attached to a platform, one of the lower legs being pivotably connected to the base, another of the lower legs is slidably attached to the base via a slider assembly, one of the upper legs being pivotably connected to a deck, and another of the lower legs is slidably attached to the base via a slider assembly.
Schwalbach teaches a portable loading dock (500), wherein each pair of scissor legs (see 534; see annotated Fig. 26 below; both sets of legs are conjoined to each other by pin members.) comprising lower legs (Both pairs have 2 lower legs each.) attached to a base (508; see fig. 26) and upper legs (Each pair is shown with 2 upper legs in Fig. 26.) attached to a platform (502 with 552; see Fig. 26), one of the lower legs being pivotably connected to the base ([0008-0010]; as is understood in the scissor lift arts and shown in the spec., a leg is capable of pivotably collapsing and rising (D2), relative to said base, to a maximum range of motion corresponding to the lift’s maximum height.), another of the lower legs is slidably attached to the base (as [0009-0010], [0086], [0102-3], and [109] disclose, said dock is capable of expanding and collapsing to a stored/compact position for loading or transport, which is enabled by the sliding movement of lower legs relative said base.), one of the upper legs being pivotably connected to a deck (Deck is being interpreted as dock due to lack of antecedent basis; as said upper legs can hingedly collapse and expand, they are being interpreted as being pivotably connected to said dock.)), another of the lower legs is slidably attached to the base (as [0009-0010], [0086], [0102-3], and [109] disclose, said dock is capable of expanding and collapsing to a stored/compact position for loading or transport, which is enabled by the sliding movement of lower legs relative said base.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stone’s dock, in view of Schwalbach, in order to duplicate the four legs of both pairs of scissor legs so that there may be at least eight total, comprising of two upper and two lower legs in a given pair, as it would predictably allow for a greater maximum height of such scissor lift vehicles for transporting goods and people.
PNG
media_image1.png
643
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 2, the combination of Stone in view of Schwalbach, based on Stone, discloses the portable loading dock in accordance with claim 1 wherein the platform includes a tongue (see section of platform denoted in annotated Fig. 11 below.) for facilitating roll-on loading and roll-off unloading of the payload.
PNG
media_image2.png
490
940
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 3, the combination of Stone in view of Schwalbach, based on Stone, discloses the portable loading dock in accordance with claim 1 wherein extendible hand rails (see annotated figure below) are provided for operator safety while moving the payload (They provide safer operation as they separate user from direct contact with a heavy or dangerous payload and allow more secure and sturdier handling.), the handrails are extendable to provide additional safety ([0033]; for example, 120 is shown as extendible/-able, as it “extends outwardly therefrom” (last line).).
PNG
media_image3.png
618
913
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 4, the combination of Stone in view of Schwalbach, based on Stone, discloses the portable loading dock in accordance with claim 1 wherein the portable loading dock has an optional power drive (180).
Re Claim 5, the combination of Stone in view of Schwalbach, based on Stone, discloses the portable loading dock in accordance with claim 1 wherein the lower sliding assembly ([0043]; it is being interpreted as the track assembly 160 shown in the annotated figure below, due to lack of antecedent basis.) comprises a track ([0044]) having a slot ([0044]) located on a leg of the base (Any of the rolling legs 106 support a track and slot above and on themselves; in an alternative interpretation, the cross-section of the track is formed by three legs and is generally C-shaped, as can be understood by Fig. 11.) and a roller (168) is attached to one end (158; see Fig. 11) of the lower legs which coacts with the track and slot of the slider assembly (understood as “lower sliding assembly” due to lack of antecedent basis stated above; refer to the annotated picture of Fig. 11 below.).
PNG
media_image4.png
389
734
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 6, the combination of Stone in view of Schwalbach, based on Stone, discloses wherein the portable loading dock in accordance with claim 5 wherein the drive is an hydraulic actuator (180) having one end (refer to annotated fig. below) attached to the base and an other end (see annotated fig. below) attached to one of the scissor legs.
PNG
media_image5.png
480
945
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 7, the combination of Stone in view of Schwalbach, based on Stone, discloses the portable loading dock in accordance with claim 6 wherein the platform includes a tongue (see Fig. 11 below) for facilitating roll-on loading and roll-off unloading of the payload.
PNG
media_image2.png
490
940
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 8, the combination of Stone in view of Schwalbach, based on Stone, discloses the portable loading dock in accordance with claim 7 wherein extendible hand rails (see annotated picture below.) are provided for operator safety while moving the payload (They provide safer operation as they separate user from direct contact with a heavy or dangerous payload and allow more secure and sturdier handling.), the handrails are extendable to provide additional safety ([0033]; for example, 120 is interpreted as extendible/-able, as it “extends outwardly therefrom” (last line).).
PNG
media_image3.png
618
913
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 9, the combination of Stone in view of Schwalbach, based on Stone, discloses the portable loading dock in accordance with claim 8 wherein the portable loading dock has an optional power drive ([0027]: “…powered by a hydraulic pump…”).
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 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patent 7448470 Brown et al.
It is readily apparent via the figures that all the limitations of claims 1-9 are taught by Brown. Please see fig. 1, 6, 9 and 10-11B for all claimed limitations. Also keep in mind that a first element can be coupled to a second element by way of elements in between.
PNG
media_image6.png
709
487
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
344
625
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
697
446
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brown et al. (US Patent #7448470).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROHAN O PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 - 5 EST.
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, Daniel Cahn, can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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.
/R.O.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights