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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first and second end of the track mechanism and the lower bars 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 Objections
Claims 4, 6, and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 1 recites the limitation “each linkage bar”, Applicant has removed most iterations of the word “linkage” in reference to the bars of the articulated linkages. It is recommended that “linkage” be removed from this limitation.
Claim 6, lines 2-3, recites the limitation “each linkage bar”, Applicant has removed most iterations of the word “linkage” in reference to the bars of the articulated linkages. It is recommended by the Examiner that “linkage” be removed from this limitation.
Claim 12, lines 1-2, recites the limitation “the two upper linkage bars”, Applicant has removed most iterations of the word “linkage” in reference to the bars of the articulated linkages. It is recommended by the Examiner that “linkage” be removed from this limitation.
Claim 13, line 3, recites the limitation “two or more upper linkage bars”, Applicant has removed most iterations of the word “linkage” and term “or more” in reference to the bars of the articulated linkages. It is recommended by the Examiner that “linkage” and “or more” be removed from this limitation.
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 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.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 18, each independent claim recites limitations for a plurality of articulated linkages each comprising two upper bars. Each claim further recites limitations for “two lower bars”. These limitations render the claims indefinite as it is not clear which bars of the invention are being referenced, nor how the bars are configured to be considered “upper” or “lower” bars. In the drawings one articulated linkage comprising two bars is shown on each side of the platform for a total of two articulated linkages and four total bars. It is not clear how any of the bars are “lower” bars or “upper” bars. The specification notes that scissor bars 208a-208b can be a “lower set of bars” and scissor bars 210a-210b can be an “upper set of bars” in paragraph [0049], however, if 208a-208b are the lower bars it is unclear how each articulated linkage of a plurality of articulated linkages can have “two upper bars” (making a minimum of four upper bars) and then further claim two lower bars. Clarity regarding how many bars and their placement in the load lift system is necessary. It is recommended by the Examiner to remove the limitations regarding the lower bars.
Claim 1, line 12 recites the limitation, “wherein the rail system includes two rails that are in parallel and a track mechanism with a first end that is opposite to a second end”. The only rails referred to in the specification are 204a and 204b which make up the “platform” that is introduced in line 2 of claim 1. As written, the claim identifies the platform and the rail system as distinct, separate components. The Examiner recommends clarifying that the platform comprises the rail system that includes the two rails. Independent claims 13 and 18 also include the contested limitations. It is recommended by the Examiner to include language in the claims that clarifies that the rail system is part of the platform, for example, “wherein the platform comprises a rail system that includes two rails that are in parallel”.
Claim 5, lines 1-2, recites the limitation, “wherein the platform comprises one or more rails”. It is unclear if these are the same rails of the rail system introduced in claim 1, line 12 or if it is a new limitation. If it is a new limitation, it is unclear where the additional rails are located. It is recommended by the Examiner to cancel claim 5 or remove the limitation, “wherein the platform comprises one or more rails to support the load to be lifted” and change “wherein a top end of the one or more rails is connected to each of the two upper bars” and change “one or more rails” to “two rails” and change “each of the two upper bars” to “each of the two upper bars of each articulated linkage” so that claim 5 reads, “The load lift system of claim 1, wherein a top end of the two rails is connected to each of the two upper bars of each articulated linkage.”.
Claim 10, recites the limitation "the one or more rails" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if these are the same rails of the rail system introduced in claim 1, line 12 or if it is a new limitation. If it is a new limitation, it is unclear where the additional rails are located. It is recommended by the Examiner to modify claim 10 to read, “The load lift system of claim 6, wherein the two upper bars of each articulated linkage are connected at a first end of the two rails provided in the platform via a hinge connection such that each bar of the two upper bars of each articulated linkage rotate with respect to the two rails at the first end, wherein the two upper bars of each articulated linkage are connected at a second end of the two rails through the track mechanism, wherein the track mechanism enables the two rails to slide laterally with respect to the two upper bars of each articulated linkage.”
In claims 1, 13, and 18, Applicant claims “a plurality of articulated linkages” each comprising “two upper bars” meaning there are, at a minimum, four upper bars. Throughout the independent claims and the dependent claims these bars are referred to as “the two upper bars”. It is unclear which two of the at least four upper bars are being referred to when the claims point to the “two upper bars” or if the intention is to refer to all of the upper bars. It is recommended by the Examiner to modify each iteration of “two upper bars” to “two upper bars of each articulated linkage” to clarify that the limitation is referring to all of the upper bars.
Overall, each of the independent claims 1, 13, and 18 recites limitations pointing to more components than seem to exist in the invention. The platform and the rail system seem to be the same components. The lower bars seem to be one pair of the upper bars. The track mechanism with first and second ends is neither clearly shown nor described in the specification in a way that makes clear how the track mechanism interacts with the platform/rail system.
In order to remedy the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness issues raised regarding claim 1, the Examiner recommends modifying the claim to read:
“A load lift system, comprising:
a platform arranged to hold a load to be lifted;
a base frame comprising one or more base bars;
a plurality of articulated linkages, wherein each articulated linkage of the plurality of articulated linkages comprises two upper bars connected to the platform,
wherein the platform comprises a rail system that includes two rails that are in parallel and a track mechanism that enables the two rails to slide horizontally relative to the two upper bars of each articulated linkage,
wherein the two upper bars of each articulated linkage are pivotally connected at a center point to facilitate a cross-link motion of the two upper bars of each articulated linkage, and wherein the two upper bars of each articulated linkage are connected to the base frame, wherein a top end of the two upper bars of each articulated linkage is positioned underneath the rail system with an open area between the rail system and the top end, wherein the rail system is configured to slide horizontally in one or more intervals over the top end of the two upper bars of each articulated linkage; and
an elevating mechanism operatively connected to each of the two upper bars of each articulated linkage and the base bars, wherein the elevating mechanism is configured to transmit lifting force to the two upper bars of each articulated linkage to actuate a vertical movement of the platform to lift the load.”
Similar modifications to independent claims 13 and 18 are recommended.
Claims 2-4, 6-9, and 11-12 are rejected based on their dependence upon claim 1. Claims 14-17 are rejected due to their dependence upon claim 13. Claims 19-20 are rejected based on their dependence upon claim 18.
For examination purposes, the claims are treated as best understood by the Examiner.
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, 3-6, 9-10, 12-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 4109896 A (Ragen).
Regarding claim 1, Ragen discloses:
A load lift system, comprising:
a platform (planks 22) arranged to hold a load (boat) to be lifted;
a base frame (12) comprising one or more base bars (two beams 12);
a plurality of articulated linkages (two pairs of scissor bars 28), wherein each articulated linkage of the plurality of articulated linkages comprises two upper bars (metal bars of 28) connected to the platform,
wherein the two upper bars are pivotally connected at a center point (29) to facilitate a cross-link motion of the two upper bars, and wherein the two upper bars are connected to the base frame (at 31, 33), wherein a top end of the two upper bars is positioned underneath a rail system (20, 22, 24) with an open area between the rail system and the top end, wherein the rail system is configured to slide horizontally in one or more intervals over the top end of the two upper bars (20, 22, 24 slide horizontally relative to all four metal bars of scissors 28) and two lower bars (26), wherein the rail system includes two rails (20) that are in parallel and a track mechanism (24) with a first end (left side of 24, figure 1) that is opposite to a second end (right end of 24, figure 1), wherein the track mechanism enables the two rails to slide horizontally between the first end and the second end; and
an elevating mechanism (cable and pulley system shown in figures 2 and 3) operatively connected to each of the two upper bars and the base bars, wherein the elevating mechanism is configured to transmit lifting force to the two upper bars to actuate a vertical movement of the platform to lift the load.
Regarding claim 3, Ragen further discloses:
wherein the one or more base bars further comprises stabilizing bars (16) for leveling the lifting of the load.
Regarding claim 4, Ragen further discloses:
wherein each linkage bar of the two upper bars comprise two bars movably connected at the center point to enable each linkage bar of the two upper bars to move with respect to other linkage bar of a two-linkage bar in the cross-link motion.
Regarding claim 5, Ragen further discloses:
wherein the platform comprises one or more rails (20) to support the load to be lifted, wherein a top end of the one or more rails is connected to each of the two upper bars (28).
Regarding claim 6, Ragen further discloses:
wherein the at least two upper bars are rotatably connected at one end to the base bars via a hinge connection (31, 33) to enable each linkage bar of the two upper bars to rotate with respect to the base bars.
Regarding claim 9, Ragen further discloses:
wherein each stabilizing bar (16) comprises an adjustable end (15), wherein the adjustable end is adjusted to a predefined height to level the base bars to lift the load to a desired height (via holes 17).
Regarding claim 10, Ragen further discloses:
wherein the two linkage bars are connected at a first end (at pivot point 32) of the one or more rails provided in the platform via a hinge connection such that each linkage bar of the two upper bars rotate with respect to one or more rails at the first end, wherein the two upper bars are connected at a second end (at 30) of the one or more rails through the track mechanism, wherein the track mechanism enable the one or more rails to slide laterally with respect to the two upper bars.
Regarding claim 12, Ragen further discloses:
wherein the two upper linkage bars are attached at the second end of the one or more rails to allow a freedom of movement along the track when raising and lowering the load lift system vertically (as 30 slides along slot 25 of track 24).
Regarding claim 13, Ragen discloses:
A load lift system, comprising:
a plurality of articulated linkages (28), wherein each articulated linkage of the plurality of articulated linkages comprises two or more upper linkage bars (metal bars of 28) connected to a platform (22) holding a load to be lifted,
wherein the two upper bars are pivotally connected at a center point (29) to facilitate a cross-link motion of the two upper bars, wherein a top end of the two upper bars are positioned underneath a rail system (20, 24), with an open area between the rail system and the top end, wherein the rail system is configured to slide horizontally in one or more intervals over the top end of the two upper bars and two lower bars (26), wherein the rail system includes two rails (20) that are in parallel and a track mechanism (24) with a first end (left end of 24, figure 1) that is opposite to a second end (right end of 24, figure 1), wherein the track mechanism enables the two rails to slide horizontally between the first end and the second end (rails 20 slide horizontally relative to the bars of 28 along the track 24); and
an elevating mechanism (cable and pulley system shown in figures 2 and 3) operatively connected to each of the two upper bars, wherein the elevating mechanism is configured to transmit lifting force to the two upper bars to actuate a vertical movement of the platform to lift the load.
Regarding claim 18, Ragen discloses:
A method for lifting a load through a load lift system, the method comprising:
actuating an elevating mechanism (cable and pulley system shown in figures 2 and 3) to enable movement of two upper bars (metal bars of 28) provided in each articulated link of a plurality of articulated linkages (28) of the load lift system, wherein the two upper bars are connected to a platform (22) arranged to hold the load to be lifted, wherein a top end of the two upper bars is positioned underneath a rail system (20, 24) with an open area between the rail system and the top end, wherein the rail system is configured to slide horizontally in one or more intervals over the top end of the two upper bars and two lower bars (26), wherein the rail system includes two rails that are in parallel (22) and a track mechanism (24) with a first end (left end of 24, figure 1) that is opposite to a second end (right end of 24, figure 1), wherein the track mechanism enables the two rails to slide horizontally between the first end and the second end; and
transmitting force to the two or upper bars to actuate a vertical movement of the platform to lift the load to a desired height (by hand wheel 40).
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 2, 7-8, 14-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4109896 A (Ragen) in view of US 5454625 A (Christensen et al.).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Ragen teaches:
The load lift system of claims 1 and 13.
Ragen does not teach the elevating mechanism comprising a hydraulic mechanism.
However, Christensen et al. teach:
A load lift system, and
a hydraulic mechanism (hydraulic cylinder 50, figure 8) configured to actuate the at least two linkage bars (41, 42); and
a lever mechanism (hinge and lever, annotated figure 8) operatively connected to the hydraulic mechanism (50), wherein the lever mechanism is configured to transmit the lifting force from the hydraulic mechanism to the two upper bars (41, 42) to raise and lower the platform (20) in a vertical direction enabling the vertical movement (operation shown in figures 7A-7C).
PNG
media_image1.png
309
419
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 8 of Christensen et al., annotated by the Examiner
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a hydraulic mechanism as taught by Christensen et al. to elevate the platform of Ragen to make the lift easier to use. The hand wheel of Ragen requires greater force to actuate the lift than a hydraulic mechanism as taught by Christensen et al.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Christensen et al. further teach:
wherein the lever mechanism comprises a hinge mechanism (hinge, annotated figure 8) to connect a lever (lever, annotated figure 8) of the lever mechanism to the hydraulic mechanism (50).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Christensen et al. further teach:
wherein the hydraulic mechanism comprises a handlebar (foot pedal 34, figure 8) arranged to be pulled up or pulled down to actuate the lever mechanism of the hydraulic mechanism (50), wherein the lever mechanism when actuated (rotated by extension of hydraulic cylinder 50) moves ends of the two upper bars (bottoms ends of arms 41) laterally along the one or more base bars.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a handlebar to actuate the hydraulic mechanism in the lift of Ragen as taught by Christensen et al. to enable comfortable, manual operation of the lift.
Regarding claim 19, Ragen teaches:
The method of claim 18.
Ragen does not teach a hydraulic mechanism and method of use.
However, Christensen et al. teach:
actuating (with foot pedal 34) a hydraulic cylinder in a hydraulic mechanism (hydraulic cylinder 50) in the elevating mechanism to apply lifting force to the two upper bars (41, 42), thereby lifting the platform (20) and the load (10) supported on the platform; and
controlling the actuation of the elevating mechanism to raise or lower the platform (20) to lift the load (10) to the desired height (from position shown in figure 7C to position in figure 7A or 7B as desired).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the steps of actuating and controlling the lifting means taught by Christensen et al. with the method of Ragen with a reasonable expectation of success to controllably raise and lower the lift platform. Ragen does not outline operation of a hydraulic lifting system, Christensen et al. teach a system and accompanying method that promotes smooth and efficient operation.
Regarding claim 20, Christensen et al. further teach:
wherein the actuating further comprising:
pulling a handle bar (34) of the hydraulic mechanism (50) to actuate a lever mechanism (lever and hinge, annotated figure 8) in the hydraulic mechanism;
moving ends of the two upper bars (both arms 41, figure 8) laterally along base bars (base bars, annotated figure 1) based on the pulling of the handle bar (34);
transmitting lifting force from the hydraulic mechanism (50) to the two upper bars (41, 42) to raise; and
raising and lowering the platform (20) in a vertical direction based on the transmission of the lifting force.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a step of using a handlebar to actuate the lifting mechanism of Ragen as taught by Christensen et al. to enable comfortable, manual operation of the lift.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 17 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims including claims 1, 2, and 7 for claim 11 and claims 13, 14, and 16 for claim 17.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious all of the limitations of claims 11 and 17. Ragen teaches a load lift system with all of the features claimed in independent claims 1 and 13. Ragen does not teach a hydraulic mechanism. Christensen et al. teach a hydraulic mechanism with features as claimed in dependent claims 2, 7, 14, and 16. Neither Ragen nor Christensen et al. teach the lever of the hydraulic mechanism being guided on a track attached to the upper bars in response to a piston of the hydraulic mechanism actuating the hinge mechanism. There is no apparent motivation to rearrange the hydraulic mechanism in the lift taught by the combination of Ragen and Christensen et al. to teach all of the features as claimed in claims 11 and 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the argument on the bottom of page 8 through page 10 that the claims as amended are not anticipated by DeVries, this argument is moot as the new ground of rejection does not rely on DeVries. Regarding the arguments on page 10 of the Remarks that the dependent claims should be allowable based on their dependency to allowable claims, the independent claims as amended are anticipated by Ragen as outlined in the current rejection, rendering this argument moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE M MUDWILDER whose telephone number is (571)272-6068. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 am - 7:30 pm.
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, VICTORIA AUGUSTINE can be reached at (313)446-4858. 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.
/M.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654