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 § 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, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US6149372) in view of Anderson et al (US3971484).
Referring to claims 1, 3. Lee et al (herein “Lee”) discloses a “Cargo Loader”. See Figs. 1-19 and respective portions of the specification. Lee further discloses an apparatus, in combination, a winch for loading a push/pull cart onto a raise platform comprising: said winch (14) mounted on forward portion of said platform. More specifically, the winch (14) is secured to a support plate at a first portion of the frame, disposed on a forward interior of the vehicle’s cargo bay, thereby teaching a winch mounted on a forward portion of a raised platform (See at least Col. 3 L. 27-32, Col. 4 L. 26-34); said cart being in an initial position spaced from a rear end of said platform and below said platform (See Col. 5 L. 53-60); an exit ramp (55) extending down from said rear end of said platform terminating forward of said cart (See Col. 4 L. 48-58); a cable (56) extending rearwardly from said winch terminating with a cable hook (58) removably engaging said cart (See Col. 5 L. 1-22); means for powering (316, 318) said winch to wind up said cable and pull said cart up said exit ramp onto said platform (See Col.5 L. 53-67, Col. 9 L. 1-35); whereby said cable hook is released from said cart thereby allowing stacking of said cart with other carts; and whereby said cart along with other carts are able to be moved onto said platform without use of weighty storage transport pallets and without the need of heavy machinery to move a cargo of said carts onto said platform (See at least Col. 1 L. 12-20, Col. 5 L. 34-38, Col. 10 L. 18-28). It should be noted that the stacking of carts after hook release is the natural and expected result of a system that loads multiple carts onto a platform via releasable hook. Anderson et al (herein “Anderson”) discloses a “Truck Mounted Carpet Handling Equipment”. See Figs. 1-7 and respective portions of the specification. Anderson further discloses a truck mounted loading equipment in which the winch shaft and motor are mounted at the front wall a truck trailer (See at least Col. 1 L. 22-26, Col. 2 L. 8-16), thus teaching that the raised platform of such a loading system comprises the bed of a transport vehicle. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Lee’s winch and ramp cart loading system to a conventional truck bed as taught by Anderson, as both address the same problem of loading heavy cargo into a vehicle using a forward mounted winch and rear ramp and using the truck bed as the platform would provide an available and stable platform that would additionally allow for the system to be transportable.
Referring to claim 2. Lee discloses a cart (16) comprising a plurality of wheels (84) for moving along a flat surface (See Col. 5 L. 38-42).
Claim(s) 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US6149372) in view of Anderson et al (US3971484) and in further view of Maier (DE3622061).
Referring to claim 4. Lee in view of Anderson disclose the combination as described above in detail as applied to claim 1. Lee discloses a cable attaches to a hook (58) fixed on a front wall of the cart body. Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein each cart has a tow loop on a front end thereof for engagement with said cable hook. Maier discloses a “Cart With a Tippable Hand Cart (barrow)”. See Figs. 1-6 and respective portions of the specification. Maier further discloses a handcart (26, 28) having a rope eyelet (58) located in a central arrangement at the flower front edge of the handcart body, to which a pull rope (6) is attached for winch loading onto a truck platform. Thus, Maier teaches a two loop on a front end of the cart for engagement with the loading cable. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s cart to include a dedicated front tow loop/eyelet as taught by Maier, because providing a discrete loop/eyelet on the front of the cart for cable attachment provides a simpler and more secure engagement point than a fixed hook.
Referring to claim 5. Lee in view of Anderson disclose the combination as described above in detail as applied to claim 1. Lee does not disclose wherein each said cart has a tow loop on a rear end thereof for engagement with a hitch connected to another of said other carts. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s cargo (cart) loader system to provide a rear tow loop and front hitch on wheeled carts to link multiple carts in a train for sequential movement, as it would allow for the ability to move multiple carts in sequence and simultaneously. Moreover, these variations (tow loop on rear end) are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143. Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications would be well within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Lee as is well known in the art to provide a two loop to a cart and a hitch connection as this is straightforward application of the cart-train concept.
Referring to claim 6. Lee in view of Anderson disclose the combination as described above in detail as applied to claim 1. Lee discloses discloses wherein the cart is collapsible. More specifically, Lee discloses that the cargo holder (116) includes a front wall (128) that is pivotably mounted to the base (118) via hinge rod (130) and movable between a ground engaging (ramp) position and an upright position, and that the handle (142) has collapsible, telescoping arm sections (See at least Col. 6 L. 39-52, Col. 7 L. 9-20), thus teaching a collapsible cart structure.
Referring to claim 7. Lee in view of Anderson disclose the combination as described above in detail as applied to claim 1. Lee does not disclose a pulley mounted on the floor of the truck for guiding said cable extending rearwardly from said winch terminating with a cable hook removably engaging said cart. Anderson discloses a floor mounted pulley assemblies (46, 48) located on the floor of the truck, used for guiding the cable from the front mounted winch shaft rearward to the cargo being loading, providing both a change in cable direction and smooth guidance (See Col. 3 L. 42-56). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Anderson’s floor mounted cable guiding pulley into Lee’s system to provide smoother cable guidance and reduce friction and wear on the cable.
Referring to claims 8-13. Lee in view of Anderson and Maier disclose the combination as described above in detail as applied to claims 1, 4. Each method step of claims 8-13 corresponds directly to the operative steps of the Lee, Anderson, and Maier apparatus combination as set forth above. As such with respect to claims 8-13, the methods described in these claims would inherently result from the use of Anderson’s “Cargo Loader” in view of Anderson’s “Truck Mounted Handling Equipment” and Maier’s “Cart With a Tippable Hand Cart”.
Claim(s) 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al (US3971484) in view of Lee et al (US6149372).
Referring to claim 14. Anderson et al (herein “Anderson”) discloses a “Truck Mounted Carpet Handling Equipment”. See Figs. 1-7 and respective portions of the specification. Anderson further discloses a truck mounted loading equipment in which the winch shaft and motor are mounted at the front wall a truck trailer (See at least Col. 1 L. 22-26, Col. 2 L. 8-16), an electrically driven winch shaft (16) mounted on the front wall of the truck (Col. 1 L. 22-26, Col. 2 L. 8-16), cable (34) wound on the shaft, a pulley assembly (36) mounted above the rear door of the truck, a ramp (44) at the rear of the truck for loading (Col. 3 L. 30-35), and a cable terminating in an attachment (slip noose) for engaging cargo. Anderson further discloses floor mounted pulleys (46, 48), through which the cable is routed to provide a substantially horizontal pulling force to urge pallets up the ramp and toward the front of the truck (Col. 3 L. 42-56). Thus, teaching a first pulley inside the truck cargo area and a second pully through which the cable extends horizontally rearward, with both pulleys smoothly guiding the cable. Anderson does not disclose the winch mounted on the outside of the truck in a protective weatherproof housing or loading a push/pull cart. Lee et al (herein “Lee”) discloses a “Cargo Loader”. See Figs. 1-19 and respective portions of the specification. Lee further discloses an apparatus, in combination, a winch for loading a push/pull cart onto a raise platform comprising: said winch (14) mounted on forward portion of said platform. More specifically, the winch (14) is secured to a support plate at a first portion of the frame, disposed on a forward interior of the vehicle’s cargo bay, thereby teaching a winch mounted on a forward portion of a raised platform (See at least Col. 3 L. 27-32, Col. 4 L. 26-34); said cart being in an initial position spaced from a rear end of said platform and below said platform (See Col. 5 L. 53-60); an exit ramp (55) extending down from said rear end of said platform terminating forward of said cart (See Col. 4 L. 48-58); a cable (56) extending rearwardly from said winch terminating with a cable hook (58) removably engaging said cart (See Col. 5 L. 1-22); means for powering (316, 318) said winch to wind up said cable and pull said cart up said exit ramp onto said platform (See Col.5 L. 53-67, Col. 9 L. 1-35); whereby said cable hook is released from said cart thereby allowing stacking of said cart with other carts; and whereby said cart along with other carts are able to be moved onto said platform without use of weighty storage transport pallets and without the need of heavy machinery to move a cargo of said carts onto said platform (See at least Col. 1 L. 12-20, Col. 5 L. 34-38, Col. 10 L. 18-28). It should be noted that the stacking of carts after hook release is the natural and expected result of a system that loads multiple carts onto a platform via releasable hook. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Lee’s wheel push/pull cart for Anderson’s roll/pallet as the cargo being loaded, since they address the same problem of loading heavy cargo into a vehicle using a winch and ramp system and using a wheeled cart would have been incorporated as a means for easier maneuvering on flat surfaces, while mounting a winch or motor in a weatherproof housing when installed on the exterior of a vehicle
is a variation predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143. Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications would be well within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Anderson to provide a weatherproof protective housing to protect the winch/motor from the elements and to free up interior cargo space.
Referring to claim 15. Anderson in view of Lee disclose the combination as described above in detail. Lee discloses a cart (16) comprising a plurality of wheels (84) for moving along a flat surface (See Col. 5 L. 38-42). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wheels so that the cart could be easily moved on flat surface and up ramps.
Referring to claim 16. Anderson in view of Lee disclose the combination as described above in detail. Anderson discloses that the loading system is mounted in a conventional truck trailer (See Col. 1 L. 22-26, Col. 2 L. 8-16). It is understood that the platform is the bed of transport truck.
Claim(s) 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al (US3971484) in view of Lee et al (US6149372) and in further view of Maier (DE3622061).
Referring to claim 17. Anderson in view of Lee disclose the combination as described above in detail. Anderson does not disclose wherein each cart has a tow loop on a front end thereof for engagement with said cable hook. Maier discloses a rope eyelet (58) at the lower front end of the handcart body for engagement with the loading cable. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the two loop/eyelet on a front end for engagement with a cable hook, as it would provide simple and more secure engagement point than a fixed hook.
Referring to claim 18. Anderson in view of Lee disclose the combination as described above in detail. Anderson does not disclose wherein each cart has tow loop on a rear end thereof for engagement with a hitch connected to another of said carts. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s cargo (cart) loader system to provide a rear tow loop and front hitch on wheeled carts to link multiple carts in a train for sequential movement, as it would allow for the ability to move multiple carts in sequence and simultaneously. Moreover, these variations (tow loop on rear end) are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143. Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications would be well within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Lee as is well known in the art to provide a two loop to a cart and a hitch connection as this is straightforward application of the cart-train concept.
Referring to claim 19. Anderson in view of Lee disclose the combination as described above in detail. Anderson doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the cart is collapsible. Lee discloses wherein the cart is collapsible. More specifically, Lee discloses that the cargo holder (116) includes a front wall (128) that is pivotably mounted to the base (118) via hinge rod (130) and movable between a ground engaging (ramp) position and an upright position, and that the handle (142) has collapsible, telescoping arm sections (See at least Col. 6 L. 39-52, Col. 7 L. 9-20), thus teaching a collapsible cart structure. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee wherein the cart was collapsible so that multiple carts could be stacked and collapsed to take up less space and be nested together.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRELL HOWARD MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-5929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571)272-7805. 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.
/TERRELL H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights