DETAILED ACTION
This action is a non-final, first office action on the merits in response to applicant’s communication filed on 12/13/2024, wherein claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) based upon an application filed in Germany. The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE102023135239.3, filed on 12/14/2023 (effective filing date).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/28/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 17, and 19 are objected to for the following minor informalities:
Claim 1 and 17, preambles, recite "disk-shaped bodies comprising vibration dampers." The transitional term "comprising" within the statement of intended use renders the preamble awkward; "for disk-shaped bodies, such as vibration dampers," appears to be intended.
Claim 17, first step, ends "…wherein the receiving element is connected to a base element" with no terminating punctuation before the next step. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17, second step, recites "wherein drive device is configured to act between…". The article appears to be omitted; "wherein the drive device is configured…" appears to be intended.
Claim 19 recites "wherein drive device comprises at least one of…". The article appears to be omitted. Appropriate correction is required.
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, chassis 18 and carriage 19 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.
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.
Claims 14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 14 depends from claim 1 and recites "wherein the track guide has one or more fasteners…". Claim 1 recites no track guide; a track guide is first introduced in claim 11. The lack of antecedent basis is aggravated rather than technical: one of ordinary skill would not know whether claim 14 requires the lifting device to include a track-bound conveyor and track guide at all, or whether claim 14 is instead intended to depend from claim 11. The scope of claim 14 is therefore indeterminate. MPEP § 2173.05(e). Appropriate correction of the dependency is required.
Claim 17 recites, in the first step, "wherein the receiving element is connected to a base element," and then recites, in the second step, "enabling rotation between the receiving element and a base element of the lifting device." The second recitation of "a base element" is a second indefinite introduction of the same term. It is indeterminate whether the claim requires one base element or two distinct base elements, and, if one, which recitation supplies the antecedent for "the base element" appearing later in the same step. The scope of the claim is therefore indeterminate.
For purposes of examination on the merits, claim 17 is construed as requiring a single base element, the second recitation being read as "the base element." MPEP § 2173.06. Claims 18–20 are rejected as depending from an indefinite claim.
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;
(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.
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 15–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hernandez (US 2008/0101898 A1) (Cited on IDS of 2/28/2025). Hernandez is relied upon for the wheel dolly 20 embodiment, FIGS. 1–12.
Regarding Claim 1,
Hernandez discloses a wheel dolly (20) (see FIGS. 1, 4, 6, and 12), comprising:
A lifting device for disk-shaped bodies comprising vibration dampers, comprising: — a wheel dolly (20) that lifts and supports a motor-vehicle wheel (100), itself a disk-shaped body (FIGS. 10–12). The recited bodies are the material worked upon (MPEP § 2115);
a base element — the first extension member (32) together with the lower linkages (62) and casters (28), the lower linkage forming the fixed basis of the device (FIGS. 4, 6); and
a receiving element — the movable upper load-supporting assembly, comprising the second extension member (38), the first and second lifting arms (41, 43), the upper linkages (60), and the cylindrical rollers (30), which Hernandez describes as operating together: "The two lifting arms 41, 43 are each connected at their upper ends to the second extension member 38, and are each connected at their lower ends to the parallel arms 22, 24," and "This force vector will cause the upper linkage 60 to separate upwardly from the fixed lower linkage 62 under considerable mechanical advantage" (FIGS. 2, 6, Pars. [0030-0032]);
wherein the receiving element comprises a frame-shaped holding element for the temporary mounting of a disk-shaped body — within that assembly, the U-shaped frame formed by the second extension member (38) and the upper linkages (60) of the left and right support arms (22, 24), which together temporarily carry the wheel (100) (FIGS. 8, 12);
the receiving element is connected to the base element via a rotary bearing — the pinned lower end of the arc arm (52) at the first extension member (32) (FIG. 2). "An arc arm 52 is pinned to the first extension member 32 at the lower end of the arc arm, and is fixed to the second extension member 38 at the upper end of the arc arm 52, thus allowing the second extension member to rotate in an arc about the first extension member 32." (Par. [0030]);
and a drive device comprising a linear drive — the second threaded rod (54) terminating in the lifter nu90t (58) (FIG. 2), which "runs through a threaded aperture in the arc arm." (Par. [0030]);
the drive device is configured to act between the base element and the receiving element, — the lower end of the second threaded rod (54) is "connected to a fixed washer that is indirectly supported by the first extension member 32 via a base unit 56," and "rotation of the lifting nut 58 will cause the second extension member 38 to be forcibly rotated in an arc about the first extension member." (Par. [0030]); and
the frame-shaped holding element has at least one rotatably mounted support element for the disk-shaped body. — the cylindrical roller (30) directly pinned to the upper linkage (60) (FIG. 6). "Each parallel arm 22, 24 includes a cylindrical roller 30, pinned by the ends of the roller to points of support on the support arm.") (Par. [0027]).
Regarding Claim 2, Hernandez discloses:
The lifting device according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Hernandez further discloses:
wherein—viewed in a longitudinal section—a bearing plane of the frame-shaped holding element is spaced vertically from a bearing axis of the rotary bearing. — (the second extension member (38) is "positioned above, and parallel with, the first extension member" (32), while the “arc arm (52) is pinned to the first extension member (32) at the lower end of the arc arm,” placing the axis of the rotary bearing vertically below the plane in which the holding element carries the wheel (FIG. 2)); (Pars. [0028, 0030]).
Regarding Claim 3, Hernandez discloses:
The lifting device according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Hernandez further discloses:
wherein the frame-shaped holding element has a passage opening for receiving the disk-shaped body, — the open interior of the U-shape, "formed into a U-shape (when viewed from above as in FIG. 4 and FIG. 8) by two parallel support arms, left arm 22 and right arm 24," into which the wheel (100) is received (FIGS. 10–12) (Par. [0027]);
wherein the at least one rotatably mounted support element comprises opposing support elements arranged in two opposite end portions of the passage opening such that the passage opening is delimited by the opposing support elements. — the two cylindrical rollers (30), one carried on the upper linkage (60) of the left arm (22) and one on the upper linkage (60) of the right arm (24), between which "the wheel may be captured by the rollers 30 attached to the upper linkages 60 of the positioning arms 22, 24" (FIG. 10) (Par. [0032]).
Regarding Claim 5, Hernandez discloses:
The lifting device according to claim 3, as set forth above.
Hernandez further discloses:
wherein the opposing support elements are formed by running bodies with substantially parallel axes. — the two cylindrical rollers (30) carried on the "two parallel support arms, left arm 22 and right arm 24," each roller having "an axis" and being "configured to engage a wheel and to rotate about the roller axis" (FIG. 6) (Par. [0027]).
Regarding Claim 6, Hernandez discloses:
The lifting device according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Hernandez further discloses:
wherein the receiving element has at least one rod connected to the frame-shaped holding element in a substantially flexurally rigid manner, and an end portion of the at least one rod facing away from the frame-shaped holding element and a corresponding portion of the base element forms the rotary bearing. — (the arc arm (52), which "is fixed to the second extension member 38 at the upper end of the arc arm 52," a rigid, non-articulated connection to the second extension member (38) of the frame-shaped holding element, and whose opposite, downwardly directed end portion "is pinned to the first extension member 32 at the lower end of the arc arm," that pinned connection with the first extension member (32) constituting the rotary bearing recited in claim 1 (FIG. 2, (Par. [0030]).
Regarding Claim 9, Hernandez discloses:
The lifting device according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Hernandez further discloses:
wherein the drive device comprises a spindle drive. — the second threaded rod (54) driven by the lifter nut (58), "The lifter nut 58 is fixed to the rod 54 so that rotation of the nut 58 causes rotation of the rod 54 … so that rotation of the nut 58 causes rotation of the rod 54. Providing the lifter nut 58 with the same plan dimensions as the extension nut 50 has the advantage that a user may use the same socket affixed to a driver to operate both nuts 50, 58, without having to change the socket for each nut." which advances the arc arm (52) along the threaded rod, i.e., a screw-and-nut (spindle) drive (FIG. 2) (Par. [0030]). See also “a powered driver to the extender nut 50, a user may cause the two parallel arms 22, 24 to be forced toward each other in a pincer movement, or away from each other as desired, to capture a wheel 100 positioned on the floor (FIG. 10) ”(Par. [0029]).
Regarding Claim 10, Hernandez discloses:
The lifting device according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Hernandez further discloses:
wherein the drive device comprises a lift drive. — the same second threaded rod (54), of which Hernandez states: "operation of the second threaded rod 54 via the lifter nut 58 permits the user to elevate the wheel by a significant amount under considerable mechanical advantage" (FIGS. 5–8) (Par. [0033]).
Regarding Claim 15, Hernandez discloses:
The lifting device according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Hernandez further discloses:
wherein the receiving element is designed to temporarily mount the disk-shaped body, — the rollers (30) carried by the upper linkages (60) "are configured to collectively support a wheel 100 (as indicated in FIGS. 10-12) in a vertical position" (Par. [0027]); and
the base element is configured such that the receiving element, together with the disk-shaped body mounted thereon, can be moved at least linearly for moving out of and into a machine region. — the casters (28) attached at each end of the lower linkage (62): "the dolly may be slid horizontally upon the floor by action of the casters 28," carrying the elevated wheel with it (FIG. 12) (Par. [0033]). The "machine region" is a recitation of intended use of the environment in which the device is moved.
Regarding Claim 16, Hernandez discloses:
The lifting device according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Hernandez further discloses:
wherein the receiving element is designed for a rotatable mounting of the disk-shaped body. — "The rollers 30 are configured to collectively support a wheel 100 (as indicated in FIGS. 10-12) in a vertical position, and to rotate about the pinned ends so as to allow the wheel to be rotated about its center point." (Par. [0027]).
Regarding Claim 17, Hernandez discloses:
Claim 17, construed as set forth in the § 112(b) rejection above as requiring a single base element, recites a method.
Hernandez discloses:
A method for lifting disk-shaped bodies comprising vibration dampers, comprising: — the disclosed method of operating the wheel dolly (20) to lift a wheel (100) (FIGS. 10–12).
temporarily mounting a disk-shaped body via a frame-shaped holding element of a receiving element of a lifting device, wherein the receiving element is connected to a base element — "the wheel may be captured by the rollers 30 attached to the upper linkages 60 of the positioning arms 22, 24," the wheel thereafter being carried by the U-shaped frame of the second extension member (38) and upper linkages (60) (Par. [0032]);
enabling rotation between the receiving element and a base element of the lifting device via a rotary bearing and a drive device comprising a linear drive, wherein drive device is configured to act between the base element and the receiving element — "rotating the second threaded rod 54 clockwise via the lifter nut 58 will force the second extension member 38 to rotate in an arc anticlockwise (as viewed in FIG. 2) about the first extension member 32," the arc arm (52) being pinned to the first extension member (32) (Par. [0032]); and
rotatably supporting the disk-shaped body via at least one rotatably mounted support element of the frame-shaped holding element — "the rollers 30 permit the user to rotate the wheel slightly to line up the studs of the vehicle axle with the holes in the wheel." (Par. [0032]).
Regarding Claim 18, Hernandez discloses:
The method for lifting disk-shaped bodies according to claim 17, as set forth above.
Hernandez further discloses:
comprising receiving the disk-shaped body in a passage opening in the frame-shaped holding element. — "a wheel may conveniently be captured between the two positioning arms 22, 24 by rotating the first threaded rod 44 via the extender nut 50 (FIG. 10)," the wheel being received in the open interior of the U-shape (FIGS. 10–12) (Par. [0032]).
Regarding Claim 19, Hernandez discloses:
The method for lifting disk-shaped bodies according to claim 17, as set forth above.
Hernandez further discloses:
wherein drive device comprises at least one of a spindle drive, a lift drive, or a track-bound conveyor having a chassis, a carriage, and a track guide — the second threaded rod (54) driven by the lifter nut (58), "The lifter nut 58 is fixed to the rod 54 so that rotation of the nut 58 causes rotation of the rod 54 … so that rotation of the nut 58 causes rotation of the rod 54. Providing the lifter nut 58 with the same plan dimensions as the extension nut 50 has the advantage that a user may use the same socket affixed to a driver to operate both nuts 50, 58, without having to change the socket for each nut." which advances the arc arm (52) along the threaded rod, i.e., a screw-and-nut (spindle) drive (FIG. 2) (Par. [0030]). See also “a powered driver to the extender nut 50, a user may cause the two parallel arms 22, 24 to be forced toward each other in a pincer movement, or away from each other as desired, to capture a wheel 100 positioned on the floor (FIG. 10) ”(Par. [0029]). And "operation of the second threaded rod 54 via the lifter nut 58 permits the user to elevate the wheel by a significant amount under considerable mechanical advantage" (FIGS. 5–8) (Par. [0033]).
Regarding Claim 20, Hernandez discloses:
The method for lifting disk-shaped bodies according to claim 17, as set forth above.
Hernandez further discloses:
comprising moving the receiving element and the disk-shaped body at least linearly for moving out of and into a machine region. — "the dolly may be slid horizontally upon the floor by action of the casters 28," with the captured wheel (100) supported on the rollers (30) (FIG. 12) (Par. [0033]).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez (US 2008/0101898 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Hernandez discloses:
Claim 4 incorporates the limitations of claim 3, which are met as set forth above.
Hernandez further discloses:
wherein a longitudinal extent of a clear opening portion of the passage opening remaining between the opposing support elements is a percent of a diameter of the disk-shaped body. — the clear spacing between the two rollers (30) is set by the length of the base arm (26), which is continuously adjustable by the first threaded rod (44) and extender nut (50): "rotation of the first threaded rod 44 via the extender nut 50 permits the user to set the space between the positioning arms 22, 24 to locate the positioning arms precisely around the base of the wheel, and further permits the user to elevate the wheel to some degree" (FIGS. 4, 8, 10) (Par. [0033]).
Hernandez does not expressly recite that the clear spacing is between 65 and 98 percent of a diameter of the disk-shaped body.
Hernandez does disclose, however, that the arms are forced toward each other in a pincer movement to capture and then lift the wheel — "The mechanical advantage provided by the threaded rod is sufficient to pull the arms together with enough force to lift loads which may be a wheel alone (FIG. 11)" (Par. [0033]) — which necessarily requires the roller spacing to be set to less than the wheel diameter and to engage the wheel below its center point.
The clear spacing between the support rollers is therefore a result-effective variable in Hernandez: too great a spacing forfeits capture and lifting engagement, while too small a spacing prevents the wheel from being received between the rollers at all.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the spacing between the rollers (30) of Hernandez within the claimed 65-to-98-percent band in order to obtain simultaneous secure capture and free rotation of the supported wheel, because the discovery of an optimum or workable range of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II). Such modification would have yielded no more than the predictable result of a securely captured, rotatable wheel. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP § 2144.05(III)(A).
As so modified, the clear opening remaining between the opposing rollers (30) of Hernandez falls within the claimed proportional range of the diameter of the supported disk-shaped body.
Claims 11–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez (US 2008/0101898 A1) in view of Du Preez (US 4,825,771 A). Du Preez is relied upon for the traveller 10 / guide rail 11 embodiment, FIGS. 1–4.
Regarding Claim 11, Hernandez discloses:
The lifting device according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Hernandez does not disclose wherein the lifting device comprises a track-bound conveyor having a chassis, a carriage, and a track guide.
Although, Hernandez does disclose a wheeled running gear for the lifting device — casters (28) fixed at each corner, "allowing the dolly to be easily moved about a horizontal floor surface, including when carrying a load" (Par. [0033]) — however, that running gear travels freely on the floor and is not constrained to a track.
In the same field of endeavor, namely lifting devices for supporting and displacing heavy loads, Du Preez discloses:
a track-bound conveyor having a chassis, a carriage, and a track guide — a traveller (10) which is movable on the guide rail 11 and which is adapted to mount a lifting jack shown at 20, the traveller comprising an outer downwardly directed U-shaped channel section (15) forming its chassis and, mounted to the inner channel section (16) and outer channel (15), outer load-bearing rollers (17) and inner rollers (18) forming its running carriage, guided by the guide rail (11) comprising the rail section (12) having base (12a), web (12b), and head (12c) (FIGS. 1–3).
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 wheel dolly of Hernandez to run on the guide rail and traveler running gear of Du Preez in order to constrain the loaded lifting device to a single defined linear path, so that the supported load can be withdrawn from and returned to a confined working position along a repeatable line rather than being steered by hand on free casters. Du Preez teaches that this arrangement is provided precisely so "the lifted unit can be moved laterally relative to its rails, not shown, by moving the traveller 10 along the guide rail 11," and that the rollers "engage the guide and minimize friction." Such modification is the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a guided, low-friction traverse of a loaded lifting device, and the application of a known technique (rail-guided running gear) to a known device (a wheeled lifting dolly) ready for improvement. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(A), (C), (D). One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, as both devices are floor-supported, load-bearing frames carried on rolling elements, and the substitution of rail-guided rollers for free casters requires no change in the lifting mechanism.
As so modified, the lifting device of Hernandez is carried by the traveler running gear of Du Preez along the guide rail of Du Preez, thereby comprising a track-bound conveyor having a chassis, a carriage, and a track guide.
Regarding Claim 12, Hernandez/Du Preez discloses:
The lifting device according to claim 11, as set forth above.
Claim 12 incorporates the limitations of claim 11, and requires no modification beyond that set forth for claim 11.
The combination further discloses:
wherein the base element forms the chassis" — in the proposed combination, the base element of Hernandez (the first extension member 32 with the lower linkages 62) is the structure carried by and secured to the traveller of Du Preez, and therefore constitutes the chassis of the track-bound conveyor;
and the carriage has at least two parallel axles with running bodies. — Du Preez discloses the inner channel section (16) "serving to mount two or more inner rollers 18 on each of the legs of its U-shape, while the outer channel 15 acts to mount two or more outer rollers 17 on each of the legs of its U-shape," the load-bearing rollers (17) being mounted on a bolt (17b) "which passes through the legs of the channel 16 and the channel 15" and the inner rollers (18) on a stub shaft (18b), i.e., a plurality of parallel transverse axles each carrying running rollers (FIG. 3).
Regarding Claim 13, Hernandez/Du Preez discloses:
The lifting device according to claim 11, as set forth above.
Claim 13 incorporates the limitations of claim 11, and requires no modification beyond that set forth for claim 11.
The combination (Du Preez) further discloses:
Wherein the track guide comprises a location-unbound rail – (the guide rail (11) is not fixed to a foundation or permanent track structure but is “mounted substantially horizontally in use on transverse ground engaging supports 30”) (Col. 1, Line 68).
Regarding Claim 14, Hernandez discloses:
Claim 14, construed per the § 112(b) rejection above as depending from claim 11, incorporates the limitations of claim 11, which are met as set forth above, and requires no modification beyond that set forth for claim 11. Claim 14 recites an express alternative ("and/or"); the height-adjustable supporting element species is elected for the mapping below.
Du Preez further discloses:
at least one height-adjustable supporting element for temporarily positioning the lifting device on a floor — the transverse ground engaging supports (30) on which the guide rail (11) is mounted, of which Du Preez states: "Such supports may be vertically extensible to enable the guide rail to be adjusted relative to the horizontal" (FIG. 4) (Col. 1, Line 32).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez (US 2008/0101898 A1) in view of Ealet (US 4,401,405 A). Ealet is relied upon for the frame 1 / frame 6 embodiment, FIGS. 1–3.
Regarding Claim 7, Hernandez discloses:
Claim 7 incorporates the limitations of claim 6, which are met as set forth above.
However, Hernandez does not appear to disclose:
wherein the rod is connected to the frame-shaped holding element substantially at right angles.
Hernandez does disclose the arc arm (52) fixed to the second extension member (38) (Par. [0030]); however, Hernandez does not describe the angle at which the two meet.
In the same field of endeavor, Ealet discloses:
wherein the rod is connected to the frame-shaped holding element substantially at right angles. — (the frame (6) "comprises a vertical beam 7 at the base of which is placed a horizontal beam 8," a vertical member joined at its base to the roller-carrying horizontal member, the resulting structure being "in the shape of a reversed T" (FIG. 1, Col. 1, Lines 55-67)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the arc arm (52) of Hernandez substantially at right angles to the second extension member (38), as Ealet arranges its beam (7) relative to its roller-carrying beam (8), in order to place the pivot axis directly beneath the plane in which the body is carried, so that operation of the drive produces a substantially vertical rise of the carried body rather than a lateral excursion. Such modification applies a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(C), (D). One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, as both devices join a rigid pivot member to a transverse load-carrying beam, and the modification changes only the included angle at an existing rigid joint.
As so modified, the arc arm (52) of Hernandez meets the second extension member (38) of the frame-shaped holding element substantially at a right angle.
Furthermore, Ealet is directed to the same kind of device as Hernandez and discloses, in overlapping form, the elements already mapped to Hernandez above: a first frame (1) serving as the base structure; a second frame (6) carrying the wheel; a horizontal axis (5) at which the second frame is articulated to the first, corresponding to the rotary bearing; roller trains (11, 12) carried on the arms (9, 10) "on which the wheel is supported and can be turned," corresponding to the rotatably mounted support elements; and a screw actuator acting between the two frames, the frames being "coupled to each other via a jack, which can be a mechanical screw jack 14" (Col. 2, Line 12), corresponding to the drive device. Ealet is relied upon above only for the angular relationship between the rod and the holding element, and for the express recognition that the length of that rod is a selected design parameter as discussed below.
Regarding Claim 8, Hernandez discloses:
Claim 8 incorporates the limitations of claim 6, which are met as set forth above.
However, Hernandez does not expressly recite:
wherein the length of the rod is between 45 and 85 percent of a radius of the disk-shaped body.
In the same field of endeavor, Ealet does disclose that the length of the rod is selected as a design parameter of the geometry: "Preferably, the length of beam 7 is slightly superior to that of the corresponding beam of frame 1; and such that beam 8 is lower than the trunnions 1b and 1c" (Col. 1, Line 67), and further dimensions the wheel-engaging structure to the wheel actually handled: "in order that the fork formed by the two parallel rollers 11 and 12 may grip all the types of wheels of the big tractors presently used, the spacing between the two arms 9 and 10 is of about 1.10 m and the distance between the axes of rollers 11b and 11c is of about 0.20 m" (Col. 2, Line 55).
The length of the rod is a result-effective variable: it sets the vertical offset between the pivot axis and the plane in which the disk-shaped body is carried, and therefore determines both the angle through which the receiving element must be swung to achieve a given change in height and the clearance available beneath the carried body. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the length of the arc arm (52) of Hernandez within the claimed 45-to-85-percent band of the radius of the body being handled, in order to obtain a small swing angle together with sufficient access beneath the body, because the discovery of an optimum or workable range of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and because a mere change in the relative size or proportion of a known component is not patentably distinct absent a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459 (CCPA 1955); MPEP §§ 2144.04(IV)(A), 2144.05(II).
As so modified, the arc arm (52) of Hernandez has a length falling within the claimed proportional range of the radius of the supported disk-shaped body.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. US 2,622,746 relates to a hoist for motor vehicles, cited in the family record of the instant application. US 8,137,044 B2 relates to a wheel handling apparatus. US 9,630,819 B2 relates to a low rider wheel jack.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fathi Abdelsalam whose telephone number is (571) 270-0380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10 AM to 6 PM ET.
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.
/FATHI K. ABDELSALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/KAITLIN S JOERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights