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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “30” and “32” have been used to designate both hydraulic lines and bunks. 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 10, line 15, “hydraulic lines 30, 32” should be changed to “hydraulic lines 37, 38” for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 5 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, first line of the last paragraph, “form” should be changed to “from”.
In claim 3, line 2, “Inclinometer” should be changed to “inclinometer”.
In claim 5, first line of the last paragraph, “form” should be changed to “from”.
In claim 5, third line of last paragraph, “one one” should be changed to “one”.
In claim 6, line 2, “Inclinometer” should be changed to “inclinometer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 3, 4, 6 and 7 are 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.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear whether “said angle measuring sensor” in line 1 is the same as or different than, and in addition to, “a sensor for measuring lateral inclination” in claim 2 because of the similar but different terminology. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “said angle measuring sensor” to mean “said sensor for measuring lateral inclination”.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear which valve is meant by “said valve” in line 1 because a plurality of valves are previously recited. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “said valve” to mean “each of said valves”.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear whether “said angle measuring sensor” in line 1 is the same as or different than, and in addition to, “a sensor for measuring lateral inclination” in claim 5 because of the similar but different terminology. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “said angle measuring sensor” to mean “said sensor for measuring lateral inclination”.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear which valve is meant by “said valve” in line 1 because a plurality of valves are previously recited. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “said valve” to mean “each of said valves”.
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 1-9 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller (US 2012/0263534) in view of Kelpin (US 4,177,624).
Regarding claim 1, Heller discloses a motor driven boat lift for selectively lifting a boat out of and lowering the boat into a body of water (e.g. 100, Fig. 1), said boat lift comprising: spaced apart proximal and distal support structures (e.g. 140, Fig. 1) disposed on respective longitudinal sides of a lift platform (e.g. 130, Fig. 1), which lift platform is adapted for supporting the boat thereon (e.g. Fig. 1, paragraph 0022); proximal and distal motors respectively mounted to the proximal and distal support structures (e.g. 112, Fig. 1, paragraph 0022), said proximal and distal motors being operably connected to respective winder mechanisms (e.g. 114, Fig. 1, paragraph 0022); and a plurality of lift cable assemblies, each said lift cable assembly being operably interconnected between a respective winder mechanism and said lift platform (e.g. 118, Fig. 1, paragraph 0025); wherein said motors drive said respective winder mechanisms and operably interconnected cable assemblies to selectively lift and lower said lift platform (e.g. Fig. 1, paragraph 0025). Heller further discloses that hydraulic systems are known in the art (e.g. paragraph 0004) and that the motor is any type of motor capable of variable speed (e.g. paragraph 0039) but does not explicitly disclose that the motor is a hydraulic motor that receives hydraulic fluid from a hydraulic pump. Kelpin teaches a hydraulic motor driven lift for selectively lifting a device out of and lowering the device into a body of water (e.g. 1, Fig. 1, claim 11), said lift comprising: support structures (e.g. 23, Fig. 1) disposed on respective sides of a device (e.g. 36, Fig. 1); a hydraulic motor mounted to the support structures (e.g. 120, Fig. 1, col. 8, lines 36-44), said hydraulic motor being operably connected to a lift assembly (e.g. 77, Fig. 1, col. 8, lines 44-47), said lift assembly being operably connected to said device (e.g. Fig. 1, col. 8, lines 44-47); and a hydraulic pump (e.g. 125, Fig. 2, col. 7, lines 52-61), said hydraulic pump being communicably connected to said hydraulic motor for transmitting hydraulic fluid between said pump and said hydraulic motor such that said hydraulic pump operates said hydraulic motor and drives said lift assembly to selectively lift and lower said device (e.g. col. 7, lines 41-57). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a hydraulic motor supplied with hydraulic fluid by a hydraulic pump as taught by Kelpin for each motor of Heller because both the motor of Heller and the motor of Kelpin are known functional equivalents of one another for lifting and lowering devices into and out of the water and the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another is considered obvious. Further, inasmuch as the references disclose these elements as art recognized equivalents (e.g. Kelpin, col. 10, lines 39-47), the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another is considered obvious. Finally, a hydraulic motor as taught by Kelpin would provide the expected benefit of a safer option that is not as susceptible to water damage and storm surge.
Regarding claim 2, Heller discloses a self-leveling motor driven boat lift for selectively lifting a boat out of and lowering the boat into a body of water (e.g. 100, Fig. 1), the boat lift comprising: spaced apart proximal and distal support structures (e.g. 140, Fig. 1) disposed on respective proximal and distal longitudinal sides of a lift platform (e.g. 130, Fig. 1), which lift platform is adapted for supporting the boat thereon (e.g. Fig. 1, paragraph 0022); proximal and distal motors respectively mounted to the proximal and distal support structures (e.g. 112, Fig. 1, paragraph 0022), said proximal and distal motors being operably connected to respective winder mechanisms (e.g. 114, Fig. 1, paragraph 0022); a plurality of lift cable assemblies, each said lift cable assembly being operably interconnected between a respective winder mechanism and said lift platform (e.g. 118, Fig. 1, paragraph 0025); wherein said motors drive said respective winder mechanisms and operably interconnected cable assemblies to selectively lift and lower said lift platform (e.g. Fig. 1, paragraph 0025); a sensor for measuring lateral inclination between said proximal and distal longitudinal sides of said lift platform (e.g. 115, paragraphs 0029 and 0057); and a controller responsive to signals from said sensor for selectively adjusting an operating speed of one or more of said proximal and distal motors to lateral level said lift platform (e.g. 104, paragraph 0057). Heller further discloses that hydraulic systems are known in the art (e.g. paragraph 0004) and that the motor is any type of motor capable of variable speed (e.g. paragraph 0039) but does not explicitly disclose that the motor is a hydraulic motor that receives hydraulic fluid from a hydraulic pump through a hydraulic valve. Kelpin teaches a hydraulic motor driven lift for selectively lifting a device out of and lowering the device into a body of water (e.g. 1, Fig. 1, claim 11), the lift comprising: support structures (e.g. 23, Fig. 1) disposed on respective sides of a device (e.g. 36, Fig. 1); a hydraulic motor mounted to the support structures (e.g. 120, Fig. 1, col. 8, lines 36-44), said hydraulic motor being operably connected to a lift assembly (e.g. 77, Fig. 1, col. 8, lines 44-47), said lift assembly being operably connected to said device (e.g. Fig. 1, col. 8, lines 44-47); a hydraulic pump (e.g. 125, Fig. 2, col. 7, lines 52-61), said hydraulic pump being communicably connected to said hydraulic motor for transmitting hydraulic fluid between said pump and said hydraulic motor such that said hydraulic pump operates said hydraulic motor and drives said lift assembly to selectively lift and lower said device (e.g. col. 7, lines 41-57); a hydraulic valve (e.g. 115, Fig. 1, col. 7, lines 41-52), said hydraulic valve communicably interconnecting said hydraulic pump and said hydraulic motor connected to said pump (e.g. col. 7, lines 42-57); and a controller for selectively opening and closing said valve a selected amount for adjusting the transmission of hydraulic fluid between said hydraulic pump and said hydraulic motor communicably connected to said hydraulic pump, whereby an operating speed of said hydraulic motor is adjusted (e.g. col. 8, line 68 – col. 9, line 12). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a hydraulic motor supplied with hydraulic fluid by a hydraulic pump through a controlled hydraulic valve as taught by Kelpin for each motor of Heller because both the motor of Heller and the motor of Kelpin are known functional equivalents of one another for lifting and lowering devices into and out of the water and the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another is considered obvious. Further, inasmuch as the references disclose these elements as art recognized equivalents (e.g. Kelpin, col. 10, lines 39-47), the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another is considered obvious. Finally, a hydraulic motor as taught by Kelpin would provide the expected benefit of a safer option that is not as susceptible to water damage and storm surge.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Heller and Kelpin further discloses that the sensor can be a variety of devices placed in a variety of places (e.g. Heller, paragraphs 0040 and 0059) but the combination of Heller and Kelpin does not explicitly disclose that the sensor includes an inclinometer mounted on said lift platform. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to mount the sensor of the combination of Heller and Kelpin on the lift platform because it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The examiner takes official notice that inclinometers are notoriously well known inclination sensors in the art. It also would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an inclinometer for the inclination sensor of the combination of Heller and Kelpin because such is a known sensor that is specifically configured to determine inclination and levelness of an element as required by Heller (e.g. paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Heller and Kelpin further discloses that said valve includes a restrictor valve that is directed by said controller to constrict and reduce hydraulic fluid flow between said hydraulic pump and said connected hydraulic motor (e.g. Kelpin, col. 8, line 68 – col. 9, line 12) when a corresponding one of said proximal and distal longitudinal sides of said lift platform is laterally inclined at least a number of degrees relative to an opposite longitudinal side of said lift platform (e.g. Heller, claim 2, paragraph 0061), but the combination of Heller and Kelpin does not explicitly disclose that the number of degrees is two. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the inclination angle limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Finally, Applicant has not disclosed that this inclination angle provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem.
Regarding claim 5, Heller discloses a self-leveling system for a motor driven boat lift (e.g. 100, Fig. 1), which boat lift includes spaced apart proximal and distal support structures (e.g. 140, Fig. 1) disposed on respective proximal and distal longitudinal sides of a lift platform (e.g. 130, Fig. 1), which lift platform is adapted for supporting the boat thereon (e.g. Fig. 1, paragraph 0022), the boat lift further including proximal and distal motors respectively mounted to the proximal and distal support structures (e.g. 112, Fig. 1, paragraph 0022), the proximal and distal motors being operably connected to respective winder mechanisms (e.g. 114, Fig. 1, paragraph 0022), the boat lift further having a plurality of lift cable assemblies, each lift cable assembly being operably interconnected between a respective winder mechanism and the lift platform (e.g. 118, Fig. 1, paragraph 0025), wherein said motors drive said respective winder mechanisms and operably interconnected cable assemblies to selectively lift and lower said lift platform (e.g. Fig. 1, paragraph 0025); the self-leveling system comprising: a sensor for measuring lateral inclination between said proximal and distal longitudinal sides of said lift platform (e.g. 115, paragraphs 0029 and 0057); and a controller responsive to signals from said sensor for selectively adjusting an operating speed of one or more of said proximal and distal motors to lateral level said lift platform (e.g. 104, paragraph 0057). Heller further discloses that hydraulic systems are known in the art (e.g. paragraph 0004) and that the motor is any type of motor capable of variable speed (e.g. paragraph 0039) but does not explicitly disclose that the motor is a hydraulic motor that receives hydraulic fluid from a hydraulic pump through a hydraulic valve. Kelpin teaches a system for a hydraulic motor driven lift (e.g. 1, Fig. 1, claim 11), which lift includes support structures (e.g. 23, Fig. 1) disposed on respective sides of a device (e.g. 36, Fig. 1), the lift further including a hydraulic motor mounted to the support structures (e.g. 120, Fig. 1, col. 8, lines 36-44), said hydraulic motor being operably connected to a lift assembly (e.g. 77, Fig. 1, col. 8, lines 44-47), said lift assembly being operably connected to said device (e.g. Fig. 1, col. 8, lines 44-47); and the lift further having a hydraulic pump (e.g. 125, Fig. 2, col. 7, lines 52-61), said hydraulic pump being communicably connected to said hydraulic motor for transmitting hydraulic fluid between said pump and said hydraulic motor such that said hydraulic pump operates said hydraulic motor and drives said lift assembly to selectively lift and lower said device (e.g. col. 7, lines 41-57); the system comprising: a hydraulic valve (e.g. 115, Fig. 1, col. 7, lines 41-52), said hydraulic valve communicably interconnecting said hydraulic pump and said hydraulic motor connected to said pump (e.g. col. 7, lines 42-57); and a controller for selectively opening and closing said valve a selected amount for adjusting the transmission of hydraulic fluid between said hydraulic pump and said hydraulic motor communicably connected to said hydraulic pump, whereby an operating speed of said hydraulic motor is adjusted (e.g. col. 8, line 68 – col. 9, line 12). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a hydraulic motor supplied with hydraulic fluid by a hydraulic pump through a controlled hydraulic valve as taught by Kelpin for each motor of Heller because both the motor of Heller and the motor of Kelpin are known functional equivalents of one another for lifting and lowering devices into and out of the water and the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another is considered obvious. Further, inasmuch as the references disclose these elements as art recognized equivalents (e.g. Kelpin, col. 10, lines 39-47), the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another is considered obvious. Finally, a hydraulic motor as taught by Kelpin would provide the expected benefit of a safer option that is not as susceptible to water damage and storm surge.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Heller and Kelpin further discloses that the sensor can be a variety of devices placed in a variety of places (e.g. Heller, paragraphs 0040 and 0059) but the combination of Heller and Kelpin does not explicitly disclose that the sensor includes an inclinometer mounted on said lift platform. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to mount the sensor of the combination of Heller and Kelpin on the lift platform because it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The examiner takes official notice that inclinometers are notoriously well known inclination sensors in the art. It also would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an inclinometer for the inclination sensor of the combination of Heller and Kelpin because such is a known sensor that is specifically configured to determine inclination and levelness of an element as required by Heller (e.g. paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Heller and Kelpin further discloses that said valve includes a restrictor valve that is directed by said controller to constrict and reduce hydraulic fluid flow between said hydraulic pump and said connected hydraulic motor (e.g. Kelpin, col. 8, line 68 – col. 9, line 12) when a corresponding one of said proximal and distal longitudinal sides of said lift platform is laterally inclined at least a number of degrees relative to an opposite longitudinal side of said lift platform (e.g. Heller, claim 2, paragraph 0061), but the combination of Heller and Kelpin does not explicitly disclose that the number of degrees is two. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the inclination angle limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Finally, Applicant has not disclosed that this inclination angle provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Heller and Kelpin further discloses that the sensor can be a variety of devices (e.g. Heller, paragraph 0040) but the combination of Heller and Kelpin does not explicitly disclose that the sensor includes an inclinometer. The examiner takes official notice that inclinometers are notoriously well known inclination sensors in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an inclinometer for the inclination sensor of the combination of Heller and Kelpin because such is a known sensor that is specifically configured to determine inclination and levelness of an element as required by Heller (e.g. paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Heller and Kelpin further discloses that the sensor can be a variety of devices (e.g. Heller, paragraph 0040) but the combination of Heller and Kelpin does not explicitly disclose that the sensor includes an inclinometer. The examiner takes official notice that inclinometers are notoriously well known inclination sensors in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an inclinometer for the inclination sensor of the combination of Heller and Kelpin because such is a known sensor that is specifically configured to determine inclination and levelness of an element as required by Heller (e.g. paragraph 0057).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STACY N LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7515. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-3pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/S.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678
