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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frye (US 6,368,034).
With respect to claim 13, Frye discloses an adjustable deck system for a cargo container (24), the adjustable deck system comprising: a deck (54) comprising a forward end (58) oriented towards a front of the cargo container and a rearward end (60) oriented towards a rear of the cargo container; a deck lift system (74) that adjusts a vertical position of the rearward end to convert the deck between a horizontal orientation (Figs 2-3) and a ramped orientation (Figs 1 and 4); a deck lift support (22) that is coupled to the deck near the forward end (Figs 4-7) and that, via the deck lift system, vertically traverses along a wall of the cargo container (Figs 4-8); and a lift support brace (132) that is aligned directly underneath the deck lift support (Fig 8) and that supportively engages the deck lift support (at 130) when the vertical position of the rearward end is adjusted (column 11, lines 24-41).
Claim(s) 21 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuenzli (US 7,625,163).
With respect to claim 21, Kuenzli discloses a cargo-loading deck comprising: a deck (36) comprising a forward end oriented towards a front of a cargo container and a rearward end oriented towards a rear of the cargo container (Figs 3-4); a deck lift system (34) that adjusts a vertical position of the rearward end to convert the deck between a horizontal orientation (Fig 4) and a ramped orientation (Fig 3); and one or more ramp assist members (42) rotatably attached to the rearward end (Figs 3-4), wherein the one or more ramp assist members adjust between a stowed position (Fig 4) and a deployed position (Fig 3).
With respect to claim 26, wherein the one or more rear assist members operate, when in a stowed position, as a stop to impede objects from moving beyond the rearward end (Fig 4).
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 1-7, 10, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frye (US 6,368,034) in view of Schwartz et al. (USPub 2021/0070592).
With respect to claims 1 and 16, Frye discloses an adjustable deck system for a cargo container (24), the adjustable deck system comprising: a deck (54) comprising a forward end (58) oriented towards a front of the cargo container and a rearward end (60) oriented towards a rear of the cargo container; a deck lift system (74) that adjusts a vertical position of the rearward end to convert the deck between a horizontal orientation (Figs 2-3) and a ramped orientation (Figs 1 and 4); and a deck support (40, 42) comprising: a support (40, 42) that is rotatably coupled to a wall (34) of the cargo container (column 12, lines 23-67); wherein the deck support may be rotated between a stowed position (Fig 2), which is vertically offset from the deck (42 in Fig 2), and a deployed position (Fig 3) which is vertically aligned with the deck (42 in Fig 3). Frye do not disclose that the deck support is automatic via an actuator. Schwartz et al., however, disclose an actuator (168) that allows a deck support (160) to engage a side wall to hold a deck in a desired position (Figs 8A-8B and [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify the invention of Frye in view of the teachings of Schwartz et al. to automatically deploy the deck supports via an actuator when the deck is in a proper position in order to save time and operator energy, and it eliminates the need for a ladder if the deck support is out of reach.
With respect to claim 2, further comprising the deck lift system that adjusts a vertical position of the forward end and adjusts the vertical position of the rearward end to lower the deck between a raised horizontal orientation (Fig 3) and a lowered horizontal orientation (Fig 2).
With respect to claims 3-5 and 17, the combination of Frye and Schwartz et al. disclose that the actuator comprises a solenoid ([0036] of Schwartz et al.) that operates to rotate the support of Frye between the stowed position and the deployed position but does not disclose wherein the actuator comprises an electric motor or a pneumatic drive unit. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to substitute an electric motor or pneumatic drive unit for the solenoid of Schwartz et al., since the substitution would yield nothing more than predictable results, namely, that the deck support could be automatically and reliably deployed without manual interaction.
With respect to claim 6, wherein the automatic deck support comprises a control unit configured to programmatically control operations of the motor ([0039] of Schwartz et al.).
With respect to claim 7, wherein: the support comprises a first support (42); the actuator comprises a first actuator; and the automatic deck support further comprises: a second support (40) that is rotatably coupled to the wall of the cargo container; and a second actuator that, independently of operations associated with the support, rotates the second support between a stowed position and a deployed position (separate actuators of Schwartz et al. would be at the different heights of the sidewall of Frye at the respective supports 40 and 42).
With respect to claim 10, further comprising: a deck lift support (22) that vertically traverses along the wall and that supports the deck (54)(Figs 4-8); and a lift support brace (132) that is fixedly positioned directly underneath the deck lift support (Fig 8) and that supportively engages the deck lift support (at 130) when the vertical position of the rearward end is adjusted.
Claims 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frye (US 6,368,034) in view of Schwartz et al. (USPub 2021/0070592), as applied to claim 1 discussed above, and further in view of Hanada et al. (US 4,801,229).
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Frye and Schwartz et al. discloses the claimed invention discussed above but does not disclose wherein the second support is configured to support a second deck, which is positioned forward of the deck. Miller, however, disclose multiple decks arrange one in front of the other (Fig 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to further modify the invention of Frye to have other supports under a second deck in order to optimize the space within the storage container.
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Frye and Schwartz et al. discloses the claimed invention discussed above but does not disclose wherein: the deck lift system comprises a lift motor; and the actuator is controllable independently of the lift motor. Hanada et al., however, disclose a motor-driven lift system (column 10, lines 14-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to further modify the invention of Frye to have a motorized lift system that operates independently from the actuator in order to save time and operator energy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 12, 14, 15, and 22-25 are 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 18-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 11 and 14, the prior art, as modified, does not disclose an upper surface of the second deck that is vertically aligned with the deck lift support is lower than an upper surface of the first deck.
With respect to claim 18, Hanada et al. (US 4,801,229) disclose the claimed invention but does not disclose vertically lowering the rearward end below the position of the forward end, while the vertical movement of the forward end is stopped, such that a forward edge of the second deck rotates upward; and stopping vertical lowering of the rearward end such that the forward edge is horizontally aligned with the upper surface of the first deck because the second deck hinges at the forwardmost end (24).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW J BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-1362. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
DREW BROWN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/DREW J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights