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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the slide plates (c 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Elevation direction labeled as EL (paragraph 41) and ED (Fig. 1, paragraphs 25, 40, 42). (EL) not defined in specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Element number (284) is used for multiple elements. It’s defined as lateral guide mechanism (paragraph 58), guide element (paragraphs 43,52-57) and an actuator (paragraph 58).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
Claims 1, 13, and 15 recite the generic placeholder “mount mechanism” modified by functional language “to mount the chassis on a loading dock”.
Claim 3 recites the generic placeholder “successive connection mechanism” modified by functional language “configured to connect the adjacent successive roller bed parts so that each roller bed part is configured to rotate by means of the connection mechanism”.
Claim 4 recites the generic placeholder “parallel connection mechanism” modified by functional language “configured to connect parallel adjacent roller bed parts so that each roller bed part is configured to decline by means of the parallel connection mechanism”.
Claims 5 and 6 recite the generic placeholder “lateral guide mechanism” modified by functional language “configured to guide the roller bed” and “enable the fixed mounting of the chassis so that the elevation of the chassis is permanent with respect to the loading dock”.
Claims 9, 10, 12, and 13 recite the generic placeholder “mount module” modified by functional language “configured to be mounted directly on the loading dock and to be connected successively in a longitudinal direction”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites limitation “Mount mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Mount mechanism function is to “mount the chassis on a loading dock” but sufficient structure is not disclosed in the specification to perform this function.
Claim 3 recites limitation “successive connection mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Successive connection mechanism function is to “to connect the adjacent successive roller bed parts so that each roller bed part is configured to rotate” but no structure is disclosed in the specification (paragraph 41) to perform this function.
Claim 4 recites limitation “parallel connection mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Parallel connection mechanism is described in the specification as a flexible connection bar (paragraph 40) with function is to “connect parallel adjacent roller bed parts so that each roller bed part is configured to decline” (paragraph 40). It is unclear how a “bar” alone is enabled to provide pivoting.
Claims 5-7 recite the limitation “lateral guide mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Lateral guide mechanism function is to “guide the roller bed” and “enable the fixed mounting of the chassis so that the elevation of the chassis is permanent with respect to the loading dock”. (Paragraphs 43, 52, 58). Paragraph 43 recites “lateral guide mechanism (slider mechanism)” which is not sufficiently disclosed structure to perform the stated function.
Claim 9, 10, 12, 13 recite limitation “mount module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Mount module function is to “be mounted directly on the loading dock and to be connected successively in a longitudinal direction” but sufficient structure is not disclosed in the specification to perform this function.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 recites a mount mechanism “to mount chassis on a loading dock”. In the specification “The chassis is formed by attaching mount modules successively in the longitudinal direction to the loading dock and by connecting the mount modules” (paragraph 27). The claim is indefinite because the claimed invention is claiming two distinct structures, but the specification is saying that they are directed to the same structure. It’s unclear what the features are of the claimed chassis that are separate from the claimed mount mechanism. For the purpose of examination, chassis, mount mechanism and mount modules will be interpreted as one element.
Claim 9 recites a “chassis comprises mount modules configured to be mounted directly on the loading dock” and claim 1 discloses “a mount mechanism to mount the chassis on a loading dock”. It’s unclear how mount modules can be mounted directly on a loading dock, yet also provide a mount mechanism to mount the chassis on the loading dock. The relationship between these elements is unclear.
Claims 10 and 12 recites “chassis comprises mount modules and each mount module comprises at least one mount plate configured to be mounted on the loading dock” and claim 9 discloses “mount modules configured to be mounted directly on the loading dock”. It is unclear how mount modules and mount plates are both mounted directly on a loading dock. The relationship between these elements is unclear.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "lateral roller" in line 3. It is unclear if lateral roller is part of the previously claimed lateral rollers referred to in claim 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9,12-13,and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brewster (WO 2025/259688).
Regarding claim 1 Brewster teaches;
A loading system for loading a transport unit comprising a chassis (904);
a roller bed (200, 206, outer rollers 402, inner rollers 404, end roller 412, Fig 4A, 4B) mounted on the chassis (Fig, 9A, 9B),
and a mount mechanism (904) to mount the chassis on a loading dock, (102, Fig, 1 A. “ATLSs disclosed herein can mount or couple directly on a floor or platform of a building or warehouse” (paragraph 39). Figs. 4C and 4D show floor mounting for chassis under conveyor system.
which chassis (904) comprises a lateral position mechanism (800, Fig 9A, 9B, paragraph 73) configured to position the roller bed (200, 206) laterally with respect to the loading dock,
which roller bed (200, 206) comprises rollers (outer rollers 402, inner rollers 404, end roller 412) configured to roll the roller bed (200 part of roller bed) forwards and backwards (paragraph 76, Fig 2B) with respect to the chassis (904, Fig 9A, 9B), and which roller bed is configured to carry a load to be loaded to the transport unit (paragraph 37),
wherein the loading system further comprises a drive mechanism (236, Fig. 7A, paragraph 61) that is configured to drive the roller bed (200 part of roller bed) forwards and backwards with respect to the chassis (904) (paragraph 76 shows relationship between 236, 220 and 206. Fig 9A shows relationship between 206 and 904) and mounted beside the chassis (Fig. 7A shows 236 mounted beside 206. 904 is coupled to 206 (Fig. 9D, paragraph 73). Therefore 236 is mounted beside 904) to enable a fixed mounting of the chassis (904) to the loading dock by means of the mount mechanism (904) so that an elevation of the chassis is permanent with respect to the loading dock (Fig. 9D, paragraph 75).
Regarding claim 2 Brewster teaches the loading system according to claim 1, which roller bed (200, 206) further comprises a group of roller bed parts (400, paragraph 56) that are arranged as a matrix, which comprises successive rows and parallel columns, so that each roller bed part belongs to one row and one column (Fig. 4A, 4B).
Regarding claim 3 Brewster teaches The loading system according to claim 2, which roller bed (200, 206) further comprises a successive connection mechanism (410) between successive roller bed parts (400), which are adjacent in a longitudinal direction and belong to the group of the roller bed parts, and which successive connection mechanism (410) is configured to connect the adjacent successive roller bed parts so that each roller bed part is configured to rotate by means of the connection mechanism with respect to at least one adjacent successive roller bed part to cause the roller bed flexible in longitudinal and elevation directions. “Chain links 410 maintain connection between the slats 400 as the conveyor 200 moves between the extended position and the retracted position (e.g., from a straight condition (Figs. 4A and 4B) to a curved condition (FIGS. 4C-4E)” (paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 4 Brewster teaches the loading system according to claim 2, which roller bed (200, 206) comprises a parallel connection mechanism (410) configured to connect parallel adjacent roller bed parts (400) so that each roller bed part is configured to decline by means of the parallel connection (410) mechanism with respect to the chassis (904) to cause the roller bed (200 part of roller bed) flexible in lateral and elevation directions (Fig 7B).
Regarding claim 5 Brewster teaches the loading system according to claim 1, which lateral position mechanism (800) comprises a lateral guide mechanism (908, Fig 9A) configured to guide the roller bed (200, 206) with respect to the chassis by means of a controller (“One or more sensors and/or control systems can be employed” paragraph 36) and a lateral guide actuator (906, Fig. 9B, paragraph 73).
Regarding claim 6 Brewster teaches the loading system according to claim 5, wherein the lateral guide mechanism (908, Fig 9A) and lateral guide actuator (906, Fig 9A) are mounted beside the chassis (Fig. 9B) to enable the fixed mounting of the chassis (206) so that the elevation of the chassis is permanent with respect to the loading dock (102, Fig, 1A, paragraph 73).
Regarding claim 7 Brewster teaches the loading system according to claim 5, wherein the lateral guide mechanism (908) comprises at least one guide element (arm/first part of 908, Fig. 9C) on each side of the roller bed (200, 206, Fig. 9C) and each guide element on one side of the roller bed is configured to guide the roller bed laterally and diagonally with respect to the loading dock (Fig. 8B, 8C, loading dock located under 800) together with one guide element on other side of the roller bed (Fig. 9A, 9B).
Regarding claim 9 Brewster teaches the loading system according to claim 1, which chassis comprises mount modules (904 frame comprises center members connected by end members and side members 910, 914, paragraph 73. Fig 9D. Each mount module is one center beam) configured to be mounted directly on the loading dock (102, Fig. 1A show the loading entire system mounted on the loading dock. 904 shown in figure but not labelled) and to be connected successively in a longitudinal direction by means of a connection element (Each connection element is an end beam of 904 Fig. 9D) so that the successive mount modules establish a uniform upper surface for the chassis (206 is couple to 904 paragraph 75).
Regarding claim 12 Brewster teaches the loading system according to claim 1, which chassis (904) comprises mount modules (904 frame comprises center members connected by end members and side members 910, 914, paragraph 73. Fig 9D. Each mount module is one center beam) and each mount module comprises at least one mount plate (904-first side 910, second side 914, Fig. 9A) configured to be installed on the loading dock (102, Fig. 1A show the loading entire system mounted on the loading dock. 904 shown in figure but not labelled).
Regarding claim 13 Brewster teaches the loading system according to claim 12, which mount mechanism (904) comprises at least one slide plate (918, paragraph 75) configured to be mounted on the loading dock so that the at least one slide plate is between the loading dock and the mount modules (Fig. 9D) and configured to enable the mount modules to slide with respect to the at least one slide plate.
Regarding claim 15 Brewster teaches a loading method for loading a transport unit by means of the loading system (Figs. 12A-12J, 13A-F) according to any of the previous claims, comprising at least following steps of
establishing, by the mount mechanism (904, Fig, 1A, paragraph 39. Figs. 4C and 4D show floor mounting for chassis under conveyor system) the permanent elevation of the chassis with respect to the loading dock (102, Fig, 1A, paragraph 73),
mounting, by the mount mechanism, the chassis on the loading dock (paragraph 39), (“ATLSs disclosed herein can mount or couple directly on a floor or platform of a building or warehouse”, paragraph 39. Figs. 4C and 4D show floor mounting for chassis under conveyor system). (Fig. 1A)
positioning, by the lateral position mechanism (800), the roller bed (200, 206) laterally with respect to the loading dock below the chassis, (paragraph 71, 73)
driving, by the drive mechanism (236, paragraph 61, 93), the roller bed carrying the load (200 part of roller bed) forwards (paragraph 37, Figs. 12G, H) with respect to the chassis when the load is loaded into the transport unit, and
driving, by the drive mechanism (236), the roller bed (200 part of roller bed) backwards with respect to the chassis when the roller bed is retracted from under the load in the transport unit (Figs. 13A-F),
wherein the roller bed (200, 206) comprises the rollers (402, 404, Fig. 4A) that rolls the roller bed forwards and backwards (200 part of roller bed, Fig. 2B) with respect to the chassis (paragraph 55, 91) and the
drive mechanism (236) is mounted beside the chassis (Fig. 7A) to enable a fixed mounting of the chassis to the loading dock (102) so that the elevation of the chassis is permanent (Fig, 1A, paragraph 73).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewster (WO 2025/259688).
Regarding claim 10 Brewster teaches the loading system according to claim 1, which chassis (904) comprises mount modules (904 frame comprises center members connected by end members and side members 910, 914, paragraph 73. Fig 9D. Each mount module is one center beam) and each mount module comprises at least one mount plate (first side 910, second side 914, part of 904, Fig. 9A) configured to be mounted on the loading dock (102).
Brewster doesn’t disclose at least one top plate on the mount plate, and lateral rollers between the mount and top plates to move each top plate with respect to the at least one mount plate. However, Brewster appears to suggest a top plate on the mount plate, and lateral rollers as chassis (904) which comprises element (920, Fig. 9D) which appears to be a plate that can be mounted on a loading dock. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to put rollers on the top plate so that friction can be reduced while traveling along a surface such as a floor and therefore have better movement of the chassis.
Regarding claim 14 Brewster teaches the loading system according to claim 1, lateral position (800) and drive mechanisms (236). Brewster doesn’t teach a controller configured to control an operation of the loading system to operate at least the lateral position and drive mechanisms. Brewster teaches an automated trailer loading system (ATLS), "Slug loading systems typically include various components, including conveyors, sensors, and/or control systems" and "One or more sensors and/or control systems can be employed to improve (e.g., ensure precise) handling and/or placement of the cargo in the vehicle." (paragraph 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Brewster’s ATLS would have a controller to operate the loading system to operate at least the lateral position and drive mechanisms.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewster (WO 2025/259688) in view of Rallis (US 7695235).
Regarding claim 8 Brewster teaches the loading system according to claim 7, wherein the lateral guide actuator (908) is configured to move the roller bed (200,206) with respect to the loading dock (102, Fig 9A, 9B. 206 is moveable by 800 (part of 104 ATLS) paragraph 73. Fig. 1B). Brewster doesn’t teach at least one hydraulic actuator. Brewster Fig. 9C depicts pistons and cylinders and it is well known that actuators can be operated hydraulically suggesting hydraulic actuators are used.
Rallis teaches hydraulic actuators (Rallis: 130a, b, Fig. 3, column 14, line17). T It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the actuator of Brewster with the hydraulic actuator of Rallis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because hydraulic actuators are well known for having a high force output suitable for moving heavy loads.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewster (WO 2025/259688) in view of Brewster (WO 2025/259695).
Regarding claim 11 Brewster (WO 2025/259688) teaches the loading system according to claim 10. Brewster (WO 2025/259688) doesn’t teach each top plate comprises shafts mounted on a lower surface of the top plate in a longitudinal direction and each shaft comprises a lateral roller configured to move along the shaft and to roll to move the top plate with respect to the at least one mount plate.
Brewster (WO 2025/259695) teaches each top plate (204, paragraph 62) comprises shafts (rotational axes 804a) mounted on a lower surface of the top plate in a longitudinal direction (Fig. 8A) and each shaft comprises a lateral roller (804) configured to move along the shaft (paragraph 62) and to roll to move the top plate with respect to the at least one mount plate (202).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the loading system to add plates with rollers “to reduce friction between a cargo load and the upper surface of the plate and improve or facilitate removal of a load” (Brewster (WO 2025/259695) paragraph 64).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ragan (US 11235932) shows modular roller beds that can be arranged in a matrix formation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE A SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)270-5980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8.30am-5.00pm).
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/NICOLE A SANTOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights