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
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, 3, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uttech et al. (US 20130022434 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Uttech et al. teaches a towable lift system (100 in Fig.1) for lifting and transporting a mobility device and/or cargo (¶ 004, lines 47-51), the system comprising (100):
a frame (210 in fig.4) having a front end, a rear end, and a top side positioned between the front end and the rear end (see attached annotated fig.4).
a plurality of wheels (440 in Fig.1) rotatably coupled to the frame (210, in Fig. 1) such that the towable lift system may be towed by a vehicle (¶0039, lines 45-51);
a platform (see attached annotated fig. 4) configured to hold the mobility device and/or the cargo (¶ 004, lines 47-51) and having:
a stowed position for transporting the mobility device and/or the cargo, the platform being positioned above the top side of the frame when in the stowed position (it can be seen in Fig. 1, 4 or 8), and
a deployed position for loading or unloading the mobility device and/or the cargo from the platform (It can be seen in Fig. 16A-B), the platform being in contact with a surface on a left side (520 in Fig.1.) or a right side (520 in Fig.2) of the towable lift system when in the deployed position (it can be seen in Fig. 16A-16B);
a lift (see attached annotated fig. 4) having a proximal end coupled to the frame (see attached annotated fig. 4) and a distal end coupled to the platform (see attached annotated fig. 4) and configured to move the platform between the stowed position (it can be seen in Fig.1, 4 and 8) and the deployed position (it can be seen in Fig.16A-16B); and
one or more actuators (510 in Fig. 10 and 1512 in fig. 16A and 19) coupled to the lift (It can be seen in fig. 10 and 16A and 19) and configured to actuate the lift to move the platform between the stowed position and the deployed position (¶0055, lines 13-15 and ¶0056, lines 3-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
912
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Uttech et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Uttech et al. also teaches the one or more actuators (510 in Fig. 10 and 1512 in fig. 16A and 19) include one or more hydraulic cylinders, one or more pneumatic cylinders, and/or one or more electric actuators (¶0055, line 4).
Regarding claim 5, Uttech et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Uttech et al. also teaches a battery configured to provide electrical energy for moving the platform between the stowed position and the deployed position (¶0050, lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 7, Uttech et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Uttech et al. also teaches a wiring connector (Fig. 4, element 580) configured to electrically connect to a connector of the vehicle and receive electrical energy from the vehicle for moving the platform between the stowed position and the deployed position (¶0050, lines 4-6).
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 4, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uttech et al. (US 20130022434 A1) in view of Guertler et al. (US 9937088 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Uttech et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Uttech et al. does not explicitly teach one or more actuators include a motor configured to horizontally rotate the lift relative to the frame such that the platform may be moved between the stowed position and the left side or the right side of the towable lift system.
Guertler et al. teaches one or more actuators include a motor (Fig.7, element 80) configured to horizontally rotate the lift (Fig.1, 12) relative to the frame such that the platform may be moved between the stowed position and the left side or the right side of the towable lift system (it can be seen in fig 1, and 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Uttech et al. by incorporating one or more actuators include a motor configured to horizontally rotate the lift relative to the frame such that the platform may be moved between the stowed position and the left side or the right side of the towable lift system in view of Guertler et al. in order to provide rotational movement to lift (as it can be seen in fig. 1, 4 to 6).
Regarding claim 10, Uttech et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Uttech et al. does not explicitly teach at least one of the one or more actuators is configured to horizontally rotate the platform 90 degrees, 180 degrees, or 360 degrees relative to the frame.
Guertler et al. teaches one of the one or more actuators (80) is configured to horizontally rotate the platform 90 degrees relative to the frame (it can be seen in fig 1, and 4-6).
For combining and motivation purpose see rejection of claim 4 above.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uttech et al. (US 20130022434 A1) in view of Hadley et al. (US 9718390 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Uttech et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Uttech et al. does not explicitly teach one or more solar panels coupled to the top side of the frame and configured to recharge the battery.
Hadley et al. teaches one or more solar panels (Fig.8, element 905, column 8, lines 59-60) coupled to the top side of the frame (it can be seen in fig. 8D) and configured to recharge the battery (Fig. 11, element 220C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Uttech et al. by incorporating one or more solar panels coupled to the top side of the frame and configured to recharge the battery in view of Hadley et al. in order to provide good charge on battery (column 8, line 61).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uttech et al. (US 20130022434 A1) in view of Catford (US 20120181760 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Uttech et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Uttech et al. also teaches one or more axles coupled to the plurality of wheels (see above attached annotated fig. 4); and a suspension system (Fig. 13, element 460, ¶0047, lines 64-1) coupled to the one or more axles and the frame (it can be seen in fig. 13).
Uttech et al. does not explicitly teach that suspension system including a plurality of springs and a plurality of dampers for isolating the mobility device and/or the cargo from irregularities on a road surface or a trail surface when the towable lift system is being towed across the road surface or the trail surface.
Catford teaches suspension system (it can be seen in fig. 6) including a plurality of springs (80 in fig. 6) and a plurality of dampers (82 in fig. 6) for isolating the mobility device and/or the cargo from irregularities on a road surface or a trail surface when the towable lift system is being towed across the road surface or the trail surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Uttech et al. by incorporating including a plurality of springs and a plurality of dampers for isolating the mobility device and/or the cargo from irregularities on a road surface or a trail surface when the towable lift system is being towed across the road surface or the trail surface in view of Catford in order to isolate any vertical movement of platform or trailer (¶0063).
Regarding claim 9, Uttech et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Uttech et al. does not explicitly teach also teaches a suspension system coupled to the platform and including one or more springs and one or more dampers for isolating the mobility device and/or the cargo from irregularities on a road surface or a trail surface when the towable lift system is being towed across the road surface or the trail surface.
Catford teaches a suspension system (80 and 82 in fig. 6) coupled to the platform (it can be seen in fig. 2, 80 and 82 coupled to the platform 8) and including one or more springs (80 in fig. 6) and one or more dampers (82 in fig. 6) for isolating the mobility device and/or the cargo from irregularities on a road surface or a trail surface when the towable lift system is being towed across the road surface or the trail surface.
For combination and motivation purpose see rejection of claim 8 above.
Claim(s) 2, 11-13, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uttech et al. (US 20130022434 A1) in view of Chumley et al. (US 5501481 A).
Regarding claim 2, Uttech et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Uttech et al. also teaches a hitch connector positioned at the front end of the frame and configured to removably attach to a trailer hitch of the vehicle (¶0039, lines 55-59).
Uttech et al. does not explicitly teach a trailer hitch positioned at the rear end of the frame and configured to removably attach to a hitch-mounted accessory or a trailer.
Chumley et al. teaches a trailer hitch (Fig. 1, element E) positioned at the rear end of the frame (it can be seen in fig. 1) and configured to removably attach to a hitch-mounted accessory or a trailer (column 4, lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Uttech et al. by incorporating a trailer hitch positioned at the rear end of the frame and configured to removably attach to a hitch-mounted accessory or a trailer in view of Chumley et al. in order to provide securement of the automobile for towing (column 3, lines 38-40).
Regarding claim 11, Uttech et al. teaches a towable mobility device lift system (100 in Fig.1) for lifting and transporting a mobility device (¶004, lines 47-51), the system comprising:
a frame (210) having a front end, a rear end, and a top side positioned between the front end and the rear end (see attached annotated fig. 4);
a hitch connector positioned at the front end of the frame and configured to removably attach to a trailer hitch of a vehicle (¶0039, lines 55-59);
a plurality of wheels (440 in Fig.1) rotatably coupled to the frame (210 in Fig.1) such that the towable mobility device lift system may be towed by the vehicle (¶0039, lines 45-51);
a platform (see attached annotated fig. 4) configured to hold the mobility device and having:
a stowed position for transporting the mobility device, the platform being positioned above the top side of the frame when in the stowed position (it can be seen in Fig. 1, 4 or 8), and
a deployed position for loading or unloading the mobility device from the platform (It can be seen in Fig. 16A-B), the platform being in contact with a ground surface on a left side (520 in Fig.1.) or a right side (520 in Fig.1.) of the towable mobility device lift system when in the deployed position (It can be seen in Fig. 16A-B); and
a multi-linkage lift arm (see attached annotated fig. 4) having a proximal end coupled to the frame (see attached annotated fig. 4) and a distal end coupled to the platform (see attached annotated fig. 4) and configured to move the platform between the stowed position (it can be seen in Fig.1, 4 and 8) and the deployed position (it can be seen in Fig.16A-16B).
Uttech et al. does not explicitly teach a frame having a front end, a rear end, and a top side positioned between the front end and the rear end; a trailer hitch positioned at the rear end of the frame and configured to removably attach to a hitch-mounted accessory or a trailer.
Chumley et al. teaches a trailer hitch positioned at the rear end of the frame and configured to removably attach to a hitch-mounted accessory or a trailer (for citation purpose see rejection of claim 2 above).
For combination and motivation purpose see rejection of 2 above.
Regarding claim 12, combination of Uttech et al. and Chumley et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 11. Uttech et al. also teaches one or more actuators (510 in Fig. 10 and 1512 in fig. 16A and 19) coupled to the multi- linkage lift arm (It can be seen in fig. 10 and 16A and 19) and configured to actuate the multi-linkage lift arm to move the platform between the stowed position and the deployed position (¶0055, lines 13-15 and ¶0056, lines 3-7).
Regarding claim 13, combination of Uttech et al. and Chumley et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 11. Uttech et al. also teaches the one or more actuators (510 in Fig. 10 and 1512 in fig. 16A and 19) include one or more hydraulic cylinders, one or more pneumatic cylinders, and/or one or more electric actuators (¶0055, line 4).
Regarding claim 15, combination of Uttech et al. and Chumley et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 11. Uttech et al. also teaches a battery configured to provide electrical energy for moving the platform between the stowed position and the deployed position (¶0050, lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 20, combination of Uttech et al. and Chumley et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 11. Uttech et al. also teaches the plurality of wheels (440) are configured to turn relative to the frame to follow a direction of the vehicle (¶0047, each tire 440 is able to swivel fully using a swivel mounting apparatus 410. Which reads as follow a direction of vehicle.).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uttech et al. (US 20130022434 A1) in view of Chumley et al. (US 5501481 A) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Guertler et al. (US 9937088 B2).
Regarding claim 14, combination of Uttech et al. and Chumley et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Combination of Uttech et al. and Chumley et al. does not explicitly teach one or more actuators include a motor configured to horizontally rotate the multi linkage lift arm such that the platform may be moved between the stowed position and the left side or the right side of the towable lift system.
Guertler et al. teaches one or more actuators include a motor (Fig.7, element 80) configured to horizontally rotate the multi linkage lift arm (Fig.1, 12) such that the platform may be moved between the stowed position and the left side or the right side of the towable lift system (it can be seen in fig 1, and 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified combination of Uttech et al. and Chumley et al. by incorporating one or more actuators include a motor configured to horizontally rotate the lift relative to the frame such that the platform may be moved between the stowed position and the left side or the right side of the towable lift system in view of Guertler et al. in order to provide rotational movement to lift (as it can be seen in fig. 1, 4 to 6).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uttech et al. (US 20130022434 A1) in view of Chumley et al. (US 5501481 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hadley et al. (US 9718390 B1).
Regarding claim 16, combination of Uttech et al. and Chumley et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 11. Combination of Uttech et al. and Chumley et al. does not explicitly teach one or more solar panels coupled to the top side of the frame and configured to recharge the battery.
Hadley et al. teaches one or more solar panels (Fig.8, element 905, column 8, lines 59-60) coupled to the top side of the frame (it can be seen in fig. 8D) and configured to recharge the battery (Fig. 11, element 220C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified combination of Uttech et al. and Chumley et al. by incorporating one or more solar panels coupled to the top side of the frame and configured to recharge the battery in view of Hadley et al. in order to provide good charge on battery (column 8, line 61).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uttech et al. (US 20130022434 A1) in view of Chumley et al. (US 5501481 A) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Vangalis et al. (US 3897979 A).
Regarding claim 17, combination of Uttech et al. and Chumley et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 11. Uttech et al. also teaches a wiring connector (Fig. 4, element 580) configured to electrically connect to a connector of the vehicle and receive electrical energy from the vehicle for moving the platform between the stowed position and the deployed position (¶0050, lines 4-6).
Combination of Uttech et al. and Chumley et al. does not explicitly teach one or more turn signals; one or more brake lights and a wiring connector configured to electrically connect to a connector of the vehicle powering the one or more turn signals, and/or powering the one or more brake lights.
Vangalis et al. teaches one or more turn signals; one or more brake lights and a wiring connector configured to electrically connect to a connector (Fig.2, elements 64, 70) of the vehicle powering the one or more turn signals, and/or powering the one or more brake lights (See column 5, lines 50-64, electrical energy is supplied from the vehicle battery 114 through a pair of switches 150, 152 of the turn signal control 122 and thence over a pair of leads 154, 156 to the right and left brake lights 128, 130 of the vehicle respectively, and through the input and output connectors of the brake control housing 28 and over leads 154', 156' running to the right and left brake lights 132, 134 respectively of the trailer. A ground connection runs from the vehicle to the trailer through the input and output connectors of the brake control housing over electrical leads 158, 158'.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified combination of Uttech et al. and Chumley et al. by incorporating one or more turn signals; one or more brake lights and a wiring connector configured to electrically connect to a connector of the vehicle powering the one or more turn signals, and/or powering the one or more brake lights in view of Vangalis et al. in order to provide electric power to turn signal and break lights. (column 5, lines 50-64).
Claim(s) 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uttech et al. (US 20130022434 A1) in view of Chumley et al. (US 5501481 A) as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Catford (US 20120181760 A1).
Regarding claim 18, combination of Uttech et al. and Chumley et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 11. Uttech et al. also teaches one or more axles coupled to the plurality of wheels (see above attached annotated fig. 4); and a suspension system (Fig. 13, element 460, ¶0047, lines 64-1) coupled to the one or more axles and the frame (it can be seen in fig. 13).
Combination of Uttech et al. and Chumley et al. does not explicitly teach that suspension system including a plurality of springs and a plurality of dampers for isolating the mobility device and/or the cargo from irregularities on a road surface or a trail surface when the towable lift system is being towed across the road surface or the trail surface.
Catford teaches suspension system (it can be seen in fig. 6) including a plurality of springs (80) and a plurality of dampers (80) for isolating the mobility device and/or the cargo from irregularities on a road surface or a trail surface when the towable lift system is being towed across the road surface or the trail surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified combination of Uttech et al. and Chumley et al. by incorporating including a plurality of springs and a plurality of dampers for isolating the mobility device and/or the cargo from irregularities on a road surface or a trail surface when the towable lift system is being towed across the road surface or the trail surface in view of Catford in order to isolate any vertical movement of platform or trailer (¶0063).
Regarding claim 19, combination of Uttech et al. Chumley et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 11. Combination of Uttech et al. Chumley et al. does not explicitly teach also teaches a suspension system coupled to the platform and including one or more springs and one or more dampers for isolating the mobility device and/or the cargo from irregularities on a road surface or a trail surface when the towable lift system is being towed across the road surface or the trail surface.
Catford teaches a suspension system (80 and 82 in fig. 6) coupled to the platform (it can be seen in fig. 2, 80 and 82 coupled to the platform 8) and including one or more springs (80 in fig. 6) and one or more dampers (82 in fig. 6) for isolating the mobility device and/or the cargo from irregularities on a road surface or a trail surface when the towable lift system is being towed across the road surface or the trail surface.
For combination and motivation purpose see rejection of claim 18 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other references cited on PTO-892 form shows trailer and other claimed subject matter as well. Specially Hillberry et al. (US 6890137 B2) teaches loading platform having suspension system for reducing vibration from traveling vehicle on irregular surface (see Fig. 1 and 8, column 2 lines 26-52), Hadley et al. also teaches trailer has a battery 220C mounted to operate a hydraulic pump 206.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAIMIN G PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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 517-272-7097. 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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/JAIMIN G PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights