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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Renger (WO 2018/134312; see English language equivalent US 11,225,184 B2).
Consider claim 1. Renger teaches a deployable supply elevator system for a transport vehicle, said elevator system comprising: an elongate upright support (24) for coupling to an upright portion of the vehicle; an actuation frame (13) movably coupled to said elongate upright support; and an actuation mechanism (hydraulic telescoping push arms; see column 7, lines 39-41) coupled to said elongate upright support and said actuation frame; wherein said actuation mechanism is configured to raise and lower said actuation frame between an elevated position and a lowered position along the upright portion of the vehicle (see figs. 3 and 4); and wherein said actuation mechanism is configured to pivotably reposition said actuation frame, about a substantially horizontal axis (19 or 21), from along the upright portion of the vehicle to above the upright portion of the vehicle (see figs. 1 and 3).
Consider claim 2. Renger teaches that said elongate upright support comprises a tube (24).
Consider claim 5. Renger teaches a deployable supply elevator system for a transport trailer, said elevator system comprising: a rotatable supply handling platform (13, see figs. 1 and 3); and a vertical raising and lowering element (24) coupled to a portion of the trailer and defining a vertical travel path alongside and parallel to an upright wall of the trailer, said vertical path extending from a lower region of the wall to an upper region of the wall; wherein said vertical raising and lowering element is coupled to said platform and configured to raise and lower said platform along said vertical travel path (see figs. 3 and 4); wherein said vertical raising and lowering element is selectively operable to raise and lower said platform along said vertical travel path (hydraulic telescoping push arms; see column 7, lines 39-41); wherein when said elevator system is in a deployed configuration said platform is positioned proximate the lower region of the wall (see fig. 4), and when said elevator system is in a stowed configuration said platform is positioned above the upper region of the wall (see fig. 1); wherein said platform is rotatable (about 19 or 21) above the upper region of the wall when said platform has reached an upper portion of said vertical travel path (see figs. 1 and 3).
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renger (WO 2018/134312; see English language equivalent US 11,225,184 B2) in view of Warthan (US 2007/0166140 A1).
Consider claim 3. Renger does not explicitly teach that the actuation frame comprises a plurality of wheels. Warthan teaches a sliding frame (29) comprising a plurality of wheels (45) that roll along a rail (21) during movement of the sliding frame. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Renger’s actuation frame with a plurality of wheels as taught by Warthan in order to reduce friction to reduce the force needed to move the actuation frame and to improve the durability of the actuation frame.
Consider claim 4. Renger teaches that said actuation frame comprises a pivot (21) that translates along said tube during raising and lowering of said actuation frame (see figs. 3 and 4), and that remains at a substantially fixed location at said elevated position during pivotable repositioning of said actuation frame (see figs. 1 and 3). Renger does not explicitly teach that the pivot rolls along the tube. Warthan teaches that adding wheels (45) to a carriage (29) so that the carriage can roll is well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the pivot of Renger to roll as taught by Warthan in order to reduce friction to reduce the force needed to move the actuation frame and to improve the durability of the actuation frame.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renger (WO 2018/134312; see English language equivalent US 11,225,184 B2) in view of Niemela et al. (US 2018/0055001 A1), hereafter referred to as Niemela.
Consider claim 6. Renger teaches a deployable elevator system for a transport trailer, said elevator system comprising: a vertical raising and lowering element (24) coupled to a portion of the trailer and defining a vertical travel path alongside and parallel to an upright wall of the trailer, said vertical travel path extending from an upper region of the wall to a lower region of the wall; and a deployable supply mount (13) coupled to said vertical raising and lowering element and movable along said vertical travel path; wherein said vertical raising and lowering element is selectively operable to raise and lower said mount along said vertical travel path (see figs. 3 and 4); wherein when said elevator system is in a deployed configuration said mount is positioned proximate the lower region of the wall (see fig. 4) and when said elevator system is in a stowed configuration said mount is positioned above the upper region of the wall (see fig. 1).
Renger does not explicitly teach a deployable corral as specifically recited in the claims. Niemela teaches a deployable corral (14) having a plurality of corral panels (18) extendably coupled to a mount (see figs. 12 and 13); and wherein when said corral is in a deployed configuration said corral defines a fenced-in corral space adjacent a trailer (see fig. 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Renger’s supply mount with a deployable corral as taught by Niemela in order to adapt the trailer for use with livestock.
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 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, 8-10, 12, 15, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,713,089 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims use equivalent claim language and the instant claims encompass the patented claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D SNELTING whose telephone number is (571)270-7015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:30 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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.
/JONATHAN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights