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 "170" and "107" have both been used to designate the transfer lever. Figure 4 has the wrong number. 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.
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 1-20 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.
The term “near” in claims 1, 7, 8, 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “near” is relative language and could be interpreted very differently by different people and thus is indefinite. It is not clear where the metes and bounds of the scope of the term “near” would encompass. It is advisable to use more precise language or qualify the language in a clear manner.
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) 1-8, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Heberling et al. (USP 7018155).
Regarding claim 1, Heberling et al. discloses a container lift, configured to be supported on a dumpster, comprising:
a lift frame (14) comprising:
a frame member (14) having a hook end (18 or 72), configured to support the lift frame on an edge of the dumpster (it has that capability),
a fulcrum end (end at 24a or 24b) at or near the hook end, and
a footer (16b could read on this) cooperatively engaged with the frame member, configured to support the lift frame on a supporting surface;
a lift platform (38 reads on this) comprising:
a seat having a front edge (38 has a front edge with wheels 40 docked at ground level), configured to be docked at ground level, and
an upright (44) opposite to the front edge and that extends upward to an upper end and rotatably couples with the fulcrum end (evident from fig.5b); and
an elevating mechanism (64 and corresponding linkages reads on this), cooperatively engaged with the lift platform, wherein the elevating mechanism is configured to exert a linear force on a first point (could be interpreted as the points at 24a or 24b) on the lift platform that rotates the lift platform on the fulcrum end to raise the seat above the upright and position the upper end over a sidewall of the dumpster (the capability is evident in figures).
Regarding claim 2, Heberling discloses the container lift according to claim 1, further comprising a slide component (20 or any portion of the hook could read on a slide component since almost anything is capable of sliding to some extent) on the hook end that is configured to facilitate sliding the lift frame on the edge of the dumpster.
Regarding claim 3, Heberling discloses the container lift according to claim 1, wherein the lift platform comprises a sidewall (50, 54 or 86 could read on a sidewall).
Regarding claim 4, Heberling discloses the container lift according to claim 1, wherein the elevating mechanism is a linear actuator (col.7, lines 61+ describe the use of a linear actuator in the form of a hydralic cylinder or piston).
Regarding claim 5, Heberling discloses the container lift according to claim 4, wherein the linear actuator is a piston (col.7, lines 61+ describe the use of a linear actuator in the form of a hydralic cylinder or piston) operably connected to a first point on the lift platform (it is operably connected as evident in the figures).
Regarding claim 6, Heberling discloses the container lift according to claim 5, further comprising a transfer lever (either 26 or 28 read on this) rotatably connected to the first point and to a second point (interpreted as the points on 26 or 28, opposite 24a or 24b) on the lift platform, such that, when the piston exerts a linear force on the lift platform, the transfer lever redirects a portion of the linear force to the second point (evident in fig.5c).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Heberling et al. discloses the container lift according to claim 6, wherein the second point is at or near the seat of the lift platform, such that the redirected linear force rotates the seat above the upright (the points as interpreted in claim 6 could be interpreted as near either the side of the seat or the upper end since the term “near” is relative terminology; furthermore the placement of these points at a specific location on their own is not novel as evidenced in cited art1).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Heberling discloses the container lift according to claim 6, wherein the second point (Fpt) is at or near the upper end of the upright, such that the redirected linear force rotates the upper end to bring the seat above the upright (the points as interpreted in claim 6 could be interpreted as near either the side of the seat or the upper end since the term “near” is relative terminology; furthermore the placement of these points at a specific location on their own is not novel as evidenced in cited art2).
Regarding claim 15, Heberling discloses a method for depositing material into a dumpster, the method comprising: obtaining a container lift, according to claim 1 (see rejection above); and activating the elevating mechanism to exert a linear force against the first point, whereby the lift platform rotates on the fulcrum end to raise the seat above the upright, such that material on the container lift slides off the upright and into the dumpster (evident from figures 5a-d).
Regarding claim 16, Heberling discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein the frame member further comprises a slide component (as mentioned above for claim 2, either a portion of the hook end could be read on this or even 20 could read on this functionality) on the hook end, and the method further comprises sliding the lift frame on an edge of the dumpster.
Regarding claim 17, Heberling discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein the lift platform is raised from a ground level (It is either raised during dumping or could be considered raised via the wheels 40).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-14, 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. This is pending no significant change in scope of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. There are numerous examples of prior art related to the general concept of a container lift along with many variations of both the elevating mechanisms and/or the lift itself. Some may serve as future teaching depending on the scope of the claims pursued.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS C DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5461. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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.
/THOMAS C DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
1 USP 7699065 showcases concept of a pivot at relatively either end of a lift platform.
2 USP 7699065 showcases concept of a pivot at relatively either end of a lift platform.
Prosecution Insights