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 .
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges the filing and approval of the terminal disclaimer. Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed during the Applicant initiated interview held on January 15, 2026, Examiner still does not believe the amendments have overcome the 112 rejections previously recited, in fact upon review with Examiner’s SPE present the amendments raise additional 112 issues. Examiner has reviewed the specification, arguments, and drawings, but Examiner still does not see appropriate support for the amended limitations. Examiner still does not see support for the limitation of two spools valves that are each configured to operate the first and second lifting arms as currently claimed. Figure 2 and Paragraph [0032] discuss a first arm cylinder and second arm cylinder 110 that as shown in Figure 2 is controlled by an electronic servomechanism 70 and valve 170. However, there is no support for a second hydraulic spool valve hydraulically connected to operate the first lifting arm and the second lifting arm. Furthermore, from the claim it appears the second hydraulic spool valve which presumably has the second electronic servomechanism is not associated with the operationg of the first lifting arm and the second lifting arm, but with the rotational movement of the first and second lifting arm. Examiner notes that this distinction of having the second spool valve, presumably valve 180 responsible for rotating the first and second lifting arm by adjusting the main cylinder 111 of Figure 2 is both supported by the claim language and Figure 2. However, it remains unclear to the Examiner if that is what Applicant is attempting to claim because as currently constructed the claim requires that the first and second valve control both lifting arms. Examiner also suggest adding a limitation to designate the orientation of rotation (z-axis), because the previous prior art of record can be considered to rotate to meet the claim despite the presence of the term transverse axis across a rear end of the vehicle bed. The limitation of a transverse axis without setting a point of orientation allows for said rotational axis to be along any of the axis as long as it within the rear end of the vehicle. In addition, Examiner notes that Applicant has not positively recited the vehicle bed and therefore using such a limitation for establishing a axis does not assist in establishing an orientation.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a second hydraulic spool valve operably hydraulically connected to operate the first lifting arm and the second lifting arm” as recited by claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Examiner notes the new claim 21 suffer from the same 112(a) issues as recited above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim recites the following limitation “a second hydraulic spool valve operably hydraulically connected to operate the first lifting arm and the second lifting arm” there has been no previous written description to support such limitation. Neither the drawings nor the specification discuss a second hydraulic spool valve which is able to operate the first and second lifting arms. The specification does discuss that the apparatus is rotated by use of the second spool valve and such feature is supported by Figure 2 wherein actuator 111 and valve 180 are responsible for creating a rotation of the lifting arms (109 and 110). Examiner believes such rotation is what Applicant is attempting to claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2,4,5, and 21 are rejected based off their dependency.
Claim 21 also recites “wherein movement of the first lifting arm and the second lifting arm toward and away from one another is for gripping and releasing about an axis perpendicular to a transverse axis across a rear end of a vehicle bed.” Examiner has reviewed the specification and the drawings but Examiner could not find support for the newly amended limitation in either source. The drawings do not support the first and second lifting arm being for gripping and releasing as recited. In fact, the spec suggests that there is accessory actuators not shown which are responsible for such feature. As such, the claim seems to contradict the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11-15, 17-20, and 23 is 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 11 as amended recites “ wherein the first electronic servomechanism is configured to proportionally control a rotational movement of the vehicle-mounted first lifting arm and the second lifting arm about an axis perpendicular to a transverse axis across a rear end of a vehicle bed in response to a first control signal.” Examiner has reviewed the specification and the drawings but it is unclear to the Examiner how Applicant is accomplishing this. It is well documented in the specification that the first electronic servomechanism which as also documented in the claim is hydraulically connected to operate a first and second lifting arm (to provide lifting and pivoting between the two arms) via actuators 109 and 110. As such, it is unclear to the Examiner how said first electronic servomechanism is creating a rotational movement about an axis perpendicular to the transverse axis across a rear end of a vehicle bed. Examiner notes it appears actuator 111 would be responsible for such motion and is controlled by a different valve from the one recited by the claim.
Claim 12-15, 17-20, and 23 are rejected based off their dependency.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 6, 21 and 23 recites the limitation “For gripping and releasing about an axis perpendicular to a transverse axis...”. Examiner notes that these limitations are merely an intended use and therefore are not given patentable weight beyond the necessary structure required to give such limitations the capability. As such, the prior art does not need to be used for gripping and releasing about the perpendicular axis, the mere presence of an actuator capable of rotational movement is sufficient.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the first electronic servomechanism is configured to control movement of the first lifting arm and the second lifting arm toward and away from one another”. This limitation is not positively recited and as the claim is constructed is merely intended use. As such the first servomechanism merely needs to have said capability.
For purposes of Examination and pursuant to Applicants arguments and claim language, Examiner has interpreted “a second hydraulic spool valve hydraulically connected to operating the first lifting arm and the second lifting arm” as not meaning operationally connected to the hydraulic actuators for purposes of operating said actuators, but operational in the sense that they are capable of rotating the first and second mast arms as supported by the later limitation in the claim discussing rotational movement imposed by controlling a second electronic servomechanism.
Claim 11 recites “ wherein the first hydraulic spool valve is configured to be operated proportionally by the first electronic servomechanism and by manual operation”. This limitation is not positively recited and as the claim is constructed is merely intended use of the valve. As such the valve would merely need the capability of being able to operate in such fashion. Examiner notes that a joystick which operates the solenoid as the claim is currently constructed is broad enough to meet this language.
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.
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) 1,2, 4-8,10, 11-15, 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henikl et al., U.S. Patent 10,626,990 (hereinafter “Henikl”) in view of Knight, U.S. Patent 4,767,256 (hereinafter “Knight”).
In Reference to Claim 1:
In so far as the claim is defined (See, 112 rejections above), Henikl discloses a lifting work vehicle comprising a controller (17) with a first hydraulic spool valve (21d) connected to operate a first lifting arm (8) ; a first electronic servomechanism (not labeled but shown in Figure 3 as a solenoid valve wherein the controller 17 sends a voltage signal to operate the valve mechanicallly) mechanically connected to the first hydraulic spool valve ( See, Figure 3), wherein the first electronic servomechanism (Solenoid actuator) is configured to control movement of the first lifting arm and the second lifting arm toward and away from one another (intended use, Examiner notes that the first and second lift arm are pivoted away from each other as shown in Figure 3 when the servomechanism operates the first hydraulic spool valve) in response to a first control signal that is proportional (Figure 3 illustrates the symbol that said valves are proportional; See Also List of Reference Designations which refers to valves 21 as being hydraulic proportional valves for drive of articulated joints 22); a second hydraulic spool valve (20) hydraulically connected to operate the first lifting arm and the second lifting arm ( See, Examiner’s Interpretation of said claim language in light of the 112 issue, which seems to conform with Applicant’s arguments and intended design); a second electronic servomechanism (See, Figure 3 which illustrates the valve being of solenoid type) mechanically connected to the second hydraulic spool valve (solenoid – mechanically moves valve) wherein the second electronic servomechanism is configured to control a rotational movement of the first lifting arm and the second lifting arm (See, Figure 3) about a transverse axis across a rear end of the vehicle bed.
Henikl fails to explicitly disclose a first spool valve hydraulically connected to operate a first lifting arm and a second lifting arm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Knight discloses a jib crane wherein two actuators are in master slave configuration and therefore actuation of the spool valve hydraulically connects the pump to operate a first and second lifting arm. See, Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Henikl such that the first spool valve is responsible for hydraulically actuating the first and second lifting arms, as taught by King because such a hydraulic configuration is well known in the field of lifting apparatus utilizing a master and slave actuator. In addition, such a modification would allow for a reduced cost of production by eliminating the need for individual valving for each hydraulic actuator.
In Reference to Claim 2:
Henikl further discloses a proportional controller (17) configured to generate a first control signal (via the lines connecting to the valves) that is proportional.
In Reference to Claim 4:
Henikl further discloses wherein the first lifting am and the second lifting arm move about the transverse axis (via rotation by movement of proportional valve 20 directing fluid to motor) across the rear end of the vehicle bed in response to a second control signal that is proportional.
In Reference to Claim 5:
Henikl further disclose a first mechanical linkage operably connected to the first electronic servomechanism to control the first hydraulic spool valve and a second mechanical linkage operably connected to the second electronic servomechanism to control the second hydraulic spool valve. See, Figure 3. The spool valves of Henikl are of the solenoid actuation type and therefore feature a mechanical linkage that upon receiving a voltage signal causes the movement of the valve and therefore meets the claim.
In Reference to Claim 6:
Henikl discloses a first hydraulic spool valve (21) connected to operate a lifting arm; a first electronic servomechanism mechanically connected to the first hydraulic spool valve (See, Figure 3 soleniod actuator mechanically actuates valve); and wherein the first electronic servomechanism is configured to control rotational movement of the first lifting arm and the second lifting arm toward and way from one another for gripping and releasing about an axis perpendicular to a transverse axis across a rear end of a vehicle bed in response to a first control signal that is proportional (via controller 17). Examiner notes that the recitation of the following language: “ configured to control rotational movement of the first lifting arm and the second lifting arm toward and way from one another for gripping and releasing about an axis perpendicular to a transverse axis across a rear end of a vehicle bed” is not being positively recited and therefore servomechanism merely needs to be capable of accomplishing such language. Examiner notes the presence of a solenoid actuator to manipulate the valve in both directions via a control signal would allow for rotational movement.
Henikl fails to explicitly disclose a first spool valve hydraulically connected to operate a first lifting arm and a second lifting arm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Knight discloses a jib crane wherein two actuators are in master slave configuration and therefore actuation of the spool valve hydraulically connects the pump to operate a first and second lifting arm. See, Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Henikl such that the first spool valve is responsible for hydraulically actuating the first and second lifting arms, as taught by King because such a hydraulic configuration is well known in the field of lifting apparatus utilizing a master and slave actuator. In addition, such a modification would allow for a reduced cost of production by eliminating the need for individual valving for each hydraulic actuator.
In Reference to Claim 7:
Henikl further discloses a second electronic servomechanism (See, Figure 3 which illustrates the valve being of solenoid type) mechanically connected to the second hydraulic spool valve (solenoid – mechanically moves valve) wherein the second electronic servomechanism is configured to control a rotational movement of the first lifting arm and the second lifting arm (See, Figure 3) about a transverse axis across a rear end of the vehicle bed. Examiner notes “to control a rotational movement of the first lifting arm and the second lifting arm (See, Figure 3) about a transverse axis across a rear end of the vehicle bed” is not positively recited and therefore Henikl merely needs to be capable of accomplishing such feature (although as shown it does meet the claimif positively recited).
In Reference to Claim 8:
Henikl further disclose a proportional controller (17) configured to generate the first control signal that is proportional.
In Reference to Claim 10:
Henikl as modified further discloses a first hydraulic circuit that controls rotational movement of the first lifting arm and the second lifting arm proportional to the first control signal. See, Valve 21 which create a pivot between the first and second lifting arm as shown thereby rotating them.
In Reference to Claim 11:
In so far as the claim is defined, Henikl as modifed discloses a controller comprising: a first hydraulic spool valve (21) hydraulically connected to operate a first lifting; a first electronic servo mechanism mechanically connected to the first hydraulic spool valve (See, Figure 3: valve 21 is a solenoid valve and therefore is actuated by the signal moving the solenoid pushing the spool valve); wherein the first hydraulic spool valve is configured to be operated proportionally by the first electronic servomechanism and by manual operation (As discussed above the limitatiosn are not positively recited, however Henikl discloses the use of a joysticks for mast movement, said joystick would be a manual operation responsible for moving the valve via the controller sending a signal in response to the electronic servomechanism meeting the claim as currently constructed); wherein the first electronic servomechanism is configured to proportionally control a rotational movement of the vehicle-mounted first lifting arm and the second lifting arm about an axis perpendicular to a transverse axis across a rear end of a vehicle bed in response to a first control signal (in so far as applicants valve 21 would act the same way).
Henikl fails to explicitly disclose a first spool valve hydraulically connected to operate a first lifting arm and a second lifting arm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Knight discloses a jib crane wherein two actuators are in master slave configuration and therefore actuation of the spool valve hydraulically connects the pump to operate a first and second lifting arm. See, Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Henikl such that the first spool valve is responsible for hydraulically actuating the first and second lifting arms, as taught by King because such a hydraulic configuration is well known in the field of lifting apparatus utilizing a master and slave actuator. In addition, such a modification would allow for a reduced cost of production by eliminating the need for individual valving for each hydraulic actuator.
In Reference to Claim 12:
In so far as the claim is defined, Henikl as modified further discloses wherein the first electronic servomechanism (solenoid of valve 21 associated with a master and slave cylinder as disclosed by Knight) is configured to control the rotational movement of the first lifting arm and the second lifting arm toward and away from one another in response to a second the first control signal.
In Reference to Claim 13:
In so far as the claim is defined, Henikl further discloses a proportional controller (17) configured to generate the first control signal that is proportional ( to send a signal to the solenoid of the proportional valves).
In Reference to Claim 14:
In so far as the claim is defined, Henikl as modified further discloses wherein the proportional controller (17) is configured to proportionally decrease a pressing force by the vehicle-mounted the first lifting arm and the second lifting arm as the vehicle-mounted the first lifting arm and the second lifting arm near[[s]] a resting position. Examiner notes that the term configured to in an apparatus claim places the limitations that follow as an intended use and therefore are not positively recited, merely requiring the structure that would make it capable of accomplishing such use. Therefore, Examiner notes Henkil discloses proportional valves and a controller which therefore sends a proportional signal, during periods of inoperation, idling the valve would have a decrease in pressing force and meet the configuration claimed.
In Reference to Claim 15:
In so far as the claim is defined, Henikl as modified further disclose where herein the controller is configured to allow proportional control over a speed of the rotational-movement of the the first lifting arm and the second lifting arm. Examiner notes that the term configured to in an apparatus claim places the limitations that follow as an intended use and therefore are not positively recited, merely requiring the structure that would make it capable of accomplishing such use. Therefore, Examiner notes Henkil discloses proportional valves and a controller which therefore sends a proportional signal, as such it would be capable of controlling the speed of the rotational motion (pivoting) of the first and second lifting arm using proportional control.
In Reference to Claim 21 and 23:
In so far as the claim is defined, Henikl as modified further discloses wherein movement of the first lifting arm and the second lifting arm toward and away from one another is for gripping and releasing about an axis perpendicular to a transverse axis across a rear end of a vehicle bed. Examiner notes that this claim limitation is entirely intended use as discussed in the claim interpretation section above. However, not withstanding it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Henikl such that the attachment is a gripper, as such attachments are common on jib cranes and would be a simple substitution of one known attachment to the mast of the crane for another.
In Reference to Claim 22:
In so far as the claim is defined, Henikl discloses wherein the first hydraulic spool valve is configured to be operated proportionally by the first electronic servomechanism and by manual operation.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henikl et al., U.S. Patent 10,626,990 (hereinafter “Henikl”) In view of Knight, U.S. Patent 4,767,256 (hereinafter “Knight”) in further view of Song, Chinese Patent Publication CN 103375632 (hereinafter “Song”).
In Reference to Claim 17:
Henikl discloses all the limitations set forth in claim 11, but fails to explicitly disclose a first valve handle that operates the first hydraulic spool valve.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Song discloses a electromagnetic servo valve wherein the valve has a backup source of operation for potential controller and/or power failures via manual handle. As shown in Figure 2.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the electromagnetic proportional valves of Henikl with the teachings of Song, namely to include a manual handle to allow for a backup operational source should there be a power outage or controller failure because such modification would allow for a essential safety feature for a crane allowing for lowering of the crane when the controller fails or there is a power outage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18, 19 and 20 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.
The prior art fails to discloses a first lever arm that moves upon activation of the first electronic servomechanism; and a first a first mechanical linkage that transfers motion of the first lever arm to the first valve handle and using such control system as the means of activating the valve. Examiner also notes the filing of the terminal disclaimer which eliminates the double patenting issue associated with these claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S. COLLINS whose telephone number is (313)446-6535. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-4648. 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.
/DANIEL S COLLINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights