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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen, U.S. Patent No. 7156436 B2 in view of Trotta et al., U.S. Patent No. 3197250.
Nguyen ‘436 shows a method of using the device in figures 1-4.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Nguyen ‘436 shows a wall grabbing system (see figure 1) comprising: a machine attachment structure (i.e., not shown, 10 is inherently attached to a machine attachment structure in order to operate, see the background), a wall grabbing device 10 coupled to the machine attachment structure, the wall grabbing device comprising: a frame assembly (part of 20) having a wall guide 20 (i.e., a straight guide portion and a tapered guide portion, see figures 3a-3c, claims 2 and 12), a hook assembly (part of 24) coupled to the frame assembly between the wall guide 20, the hook assembly having one jaw 22 configured to engage the wall structure (i.e., slab, panel or sheet material), and an actuator 26 coupled to the frame assembly and having an actuator shaft (i.e., using 88) coupled to the hook assembly, wherein the actuator moves the hook assembly from an extended position to a retracted position (see figures 3a-3c, 22 moving in and out) such that the jaw 22 engage the wall structure in the retracted position to grab the wall structure, see figures 1-4.
As stated above, Nguyen ‘436 shows a tapered portion of the jaw 22 rather than a hook shape for the hoisting device.
Trotta ‘250 shows a hook shape portion 5 on the hoisting device in figures 1-2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use any old and well known shaped and sized hook for the hoisting device as shown by Trotta ‘250 as a common choice of hoisting means for supporting the sheet like material.
PNG
media_image1.png
480
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen ‘436 in view of Trotta ‘250 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Walker, US 2016/0137468 A1.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 19-20, as stated above Nguyen ‘436 in view of Trotta ‘250 shows a wall grabbing system (see figure 1) comprising: a machine attachment structure (i.e., not shown, 10 is inherently attached to a machine attachment structure in order to operate, see the background).
Walker ‘468 shows the concept of a lifting device for hoisting as a portable crane 10 with a chain (i.e., cables are a metal material, 33, 41) with a fork lift 24 which would inherently can be inserted into one or more machine slots (i.e., not shown), see figures 1-8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the grabbing device of Nguyen ‘436 in view of Trotta ‘250 to include a chain and a forklift as a part of the machine structure as suggested by Walker ‘468 to show that the grabbing device to need to be lifted with some sort of chain and the forklift. Furthermore, since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8, and 13-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The claims 3-8, and 13-18 are patentable over the prior art of record because the teachings of the references taken as a whole do not show or render obvious the combination set forth in claims 3-8, and 13-18, including every structural element recited in the claim, especially all the structural element(s) recited in each dependent claim.
None of the references of the prior art teach or suggest the elements of the device as advanced above and such do not provide the necessary motivation, absent applicant's specification, for modifying the device in the manner required by the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG K KIM whose telephone number is 571-272-6947. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 9 P.M or Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 7 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Robert Hodge, can be reached on (571) 272-2097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SK
9/24/26
/SANG K KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
