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 lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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) 1, 3, 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 206108136) in view of Yoshinaga (US 2012/0189411).
Zhang et al. show in Figures 4 and 5 a vertical reciprocating conveyor having a platform 530 which receives and supports one or more tires 12, a vertical lift assembly 533 which moves the platform between floors, a pusher assembly 542 which moves the tires from the platform 530 to a surface 52 of a second floor and the shown conveyor system is modular in nature which enhances portability. Not disclosed are one or more sensors for sensing a condition of the vertical conveyor 533. However, disclosed by Yoshinaga in paragraphs [0041] and [0050] is the use of an encoder which serves as a sensor for sensing a condition of a vertical reciprocating lift conveyor. To use such a system on Zhang et al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as it would keep track of the location of the lift and determine if it could be unloaded or unloaded at a certain floor.
Re claim 3, the shown beams can be considered split I-beams as is broadly recited.
Re claim 8 shown are a pair of driven arms which move between compressed and extended positions via a drive.
Re claim 11, inherently obvious is the inclusion of doors on a lift if so desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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.
Claims 2, 4-7 and 12-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R BIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6910. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 to 4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gene Crawford, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-6911. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/JAMES R BIDWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651 08/06/2026
Prosecution Insights