DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 21, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-11, filed November 21, 2025, with respect to amended independent Claim 1, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended independent Claim 1 to incorporate only some of the limitations that were found in original Claim 13, the latter deemed to be allowable in the Final Rejection mailed on October 21, 2025. As shown below, a new reference teaches the aspects of Claim 13 that were incorporated into Claim 1. As such, Claims 1-11 remain rejected under 35 USC 103, as modified below.
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 1-5, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cormier, US 7,419,347 in view of Harrison et al., US 2015/0224906, Holt, US 7,374,388, and Frommer, US 6,250,483.
With regard to Claims 1 and 11, Cormier discloses a lift apparatus for selectively lifting and storing components (10, Figs. 1-13, C2, L25 – C4, L46; Note: The use of the claimed lift apparatus for “selectively lifting and sorting removable components of a convertible vehicle” is a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention, which must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, Cormier alone, or in combination with Harrison and Holt, is capable of lifting elongated objects, and as such, could also lift removable components of a convertible vehicle. See also MPEP 2115, which states “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)), comprising:
a frame (11, 12, 41, 42, 43, 44, Figs. 1-3, 8, 10, 12) configured to removably mount to a tow hitch of a towing vehicle (Fig. 8), the frame including:
a base (11, 12, 41) configured to removably mount to the tow hitch (Fig. 8);
a post (42, 43) extending vertically from the base; and
a boom/primary member (44), pivotally mounted to the post and configured to pivot (Fig. 12), and extending longitudinally from the post (Fig. 8), and
a lift mechanism (47, 48/49/50) operatively supported on the frame and configured to selectively lift a component (C3, L58-60).
While Cormier discloses a pivotable boom, Cormier fails to teach that the pivotable boom is movable between a travel position where the boom is aligned with the post and a lift position where the boom extends transverse to the post. Harrison discloses a lift apparatus for selectively lifting and storing components (40, Figs. 1-19, [0092]-[0128] that includes a frame having a base (46, Figs. 1-2), a post (44), and a boom (46), where the boom is pivotable between a travel position where the boom is aligned with the post ([0114]) and a lift position where the boom extends transverse to the post (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Cormier to make the boom pivotable between a travel position and use position because it would allow the lift apparatus to be easily stored as taught by Harrison ([0114]).
While the combination of Cormier and Harrison teaches a pivotable boom/primary member that extends longitudinally from the post, the combination fails to teach first and second cross members that extend laterally from the primary member and at least three spaced apart lift points with two of the lift points being mounted on the first and second cross members and the third lift point being mounted on the boom/primary member.
Holt discloses a lift apparatus (11, Figs. 1-4, C3, L44 – C5, L26) that includes a post (27, 29, Fig. 1), and a boom/primary member (69, 71/75, 107,Fig. 4) that includes a first cross member (75 left, Fig. 4) that is mounted to the first lateral side of the primary member (69/71) and extends laterally from the primary member (Fig. 4), a second cross member (75 right, Fig. 4) that is mounted to the second lateral side of the primary member (69/71) and extends laterally from the primary member (Fig. 4), a first lift point (109 or 111) disposed on the first cross member, and a second lift point (113 or 115) disposed on the second cross member.
Frommer discloses a lift apparatus (10, Figs. 1-6, C2, L16 – C5, L13) that includes a post (14, 20, Fig. 1), a boom/primary member (48, 22, 72) that extends longitudinally from the post, a first cross member (70 left, Fig. 1) that is mounted to the first lateral side of the primary member (72) and extends laterally from the primary member (Fig. 1), a second cross member (70 right, Fig. 1) that is mounted to the second lateral side of the primary member (72) and extends laterally from the primary member (Fig. 1), a first lift point (78 left) disposed on the first cross member, a second lift point (78 right) disposed on the second cross member, and a third lift point (26) operatively disposed on the boom at a longitudinal position spaced from the longitudinal position of the first cross member and the second cross member on which the first lift point and the second lift point, respectively, are disposed (Fig. 1); the first lift point, the second lift point, and the third lift point are arranged in a plane that forms a triangle (when the cable (24) is retracted to raise lift point (26), the three lift points (78 left, 78 right, and 26 would all lie in the same horizontal, triangular-shaped plane); and the planar arrangement of the first lift point, the second lift point, and the third lift point would restrict an object attached to these three lift points from twisting and tilting when lifted by the lift mechanism from the at least three spaced apart lift points.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the Cormier/Harrison apparatus to include at least three spaced apart lift points, with two of the lift points being located on first and second cross members that extend laterally from the boom/primary member and the third lift point being disposed on the boom/primary member at a longitudinal position spaced from the longitudinal positions of the first and second lift points, as taught by Frommer because the triangular-shaped plane formed by these three lift points would provide a safe way to lift an object that would prevent the object that is being lifted from twisting in the air. Holt teaches the importance of preventing the twisting of an object being lifted (C4, L57 – C5, L3), and while Holt’s lifting apparatus that also includes at least three lift points uses a different structure to prevent the twisting motion (i.e., Holt’s stabilizer bar (75) restricts the movement of the spreader bar (107) in both horizontal directions, as shown in Fig. 4), the ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that by providing one lift point being longitudinally spaced apart from the other two lift points, this would also limit the motion of the lifted object in both horizontal directions, thereby preventing any twisting of the object and achieving Holt’s desired goal. The ordinarily skilled artisan would be able to make this modification using known methods and the modification would yield only predictable results.
With regard to Claim 2, Cormier discloses wherein the base defines a base tongue (11, Fig. 1) adapted to insert into a tow hitch recess of the tow hitch (1) to selectively couple the base to the tow hitch (Fig. 8).
With regard to Claim 3, Cormier discloses wherein the base includes a receiver hitch (34, Fig. 1) mounted to the base tongue, the receiver hitch configured to receive a towbar (36) or a ball mount to selectively link another component to the towing vehicle (Fig. 6).
With regard to Claim 4, Cormier discloses wherein the boom operatively couples to the component to be lifted (via 50) and moving the boom vertically lifts the component (C4, L11-21).
With regard to Claim 5, Cormier discloses wherein the lift mechanism includes an actuator (47, Fig. 8) configured to selectively move the boom vertically to lift the removable top of the convertible vehicle (C4, L11-21).
With regard to Claim 7, Cormier discloses wherein: the lift mechanism includes: a winch (48) operatively supported on the frame and including a spool (Fig. 8) ; and a cable (49) having a first end coupled to the winch and a second end opposite the first end and operatively coupled to the component (Fig. 8, C4, L11-21); a selected portion of the cable is wound around the spool; and rotating the spool to wind more of the cable around the spool lifts the component (C4, L11-21).
With regard to Claim 9, while Cormier discloses a winch arm (the structure that holds winch (48) to the boom, as shown in Fig. 8), Cormier fails to specifically teach a winch located on the post and a pivotable winch arm. Harrison discloses a winch (45, 110) that is supported on a winch arm on the post (Figs. 2, 19). Cormier discloses outriggers (15, Figs. 4-5, 7-8) that are pivotably mounted (Figs. 4-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Cormier to include place the winch arm on the post and to make the winch arm pivotable (similar to the pivotable outriggers of Harrison), because it would allow the winch to be more easily accessed, as shown by Harrison, and allows the stowage position to be more compact as taught by Harrison (C2, L45-46).
With regard to Claim 10, Cormier discloses wherein the lift mechanism includes an elongate tension bearing member (49, 50) configured to selectively engage the component to be lifted (C4, L11-21).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cormier in view of Harrison, Holt, and Frommer, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Grodaes, US 9,656,837. The combination of Cormier, Harrison, Holt and Frommer fails to teach lift mechanism that includes a cleat-fixed tension member. Grodaes discloses a lift apparatus (10, Figs. 1-14, C2, L35 – C9, L10) wherein the lift mechanism includes an elongate tension bearing member (52) supported from the boom (Fig. 1) and operatively coupled to the component to be lifted (C3, L37-54); and a cleat (52d or the ratchet portion of the recited ratchet strap) coupled to the elongate tension bearing member and configured to fix the effective length of the elongate tension bearing member; and selectively shortening the effective length of the elongate tension bearing member with the cleat lifts the component (C3, L37-54; Because Grodaes specifically discloses a ratchet strap, this mechanism is capable of lifting an object based on Applicant’s admission that a ratchet strap has this capability as described in paragraphs [0104]-[0108]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the Cormier/Harrison/Holt/Frommer apparatus to include a cleat-fixed ratchet strap to provide a lifting capability because ratchet straps are well-known and often used device to securely tension a strap around an object so that the object can be moved, and the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been able to make this modification using known methods and the modification would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cormier in view of Harrison, Holt, and Frommer, as applied to Claims 1/7, and further in view of Elder, US 6,599,078. While Cormier and Harrison disclose a winch and cable, both fail to specifically teach a pulley supporting the cable. Elder discloses a vehicle-mounted lift assembly (10, Figs. 1-10, C5, L17 – C9, L32) that includes a post (36, Fig. 1), a boom (45), a winch (40) mounted on the post and having a cable (44) that is supported by a pulley (45) mounted on the boom (Fig. 1). Holt also discloses two pulleys (93, 95) located on the boom for supporting a lifting cable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the Cormier/Harrison/Holt/Frommer apparatus to include a pulley for supporting a cable used with a winch because pulleys are well known and often used devices to support a winch-driven cable and the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been able to make this modification using known methods and the modification would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Dependent Claims 13-15 remain allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16-20 remain allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNN E SCHWENNING whose telephone number is (313)446-4861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5 pm EST.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272 -7097. 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.
/LYNN E SCHWENNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652