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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 & 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rymer (US 4,215,968) in view of Borders (US 4,422,814).
Rymer discloses an apparatus for emptying contents of a container comprising:
a base (comprised generally as elements 10, 17, 18, 21a, 21b, 22, 39);
a frame 34, 43 that comprises a platform; and
a lift comprising:
a drive portion 38 fixed to a base,
a linearly movable member 40, 41, 42 (disclosed as "beams sliding between the rails 21a-b, and confined laterally by the short horizontal bars 21c-e and the beams 18 and 19") pivotal relative to a frame 34, 43, a drive portion 38 configured for driving a linearly movable member for movement relative to a base along a substantially linear axis, wherein a linearly movable member is constrained to move along a substantially linear axis by a lift tower 21a-b, and
a pivot arm 32 having a first end coupled to a base and a second end pivotally coupled to a frame,
whereby as drive portion 38 drives a linearly movable member along a substantially linear axis a frame moves upwardly and rotates (FIGS. 1, 7 & 8) relative to a base to transition from a loading position (FIG. 1) to an unloading position (FIG. 8).
Rymer's frame 32 rests on and pivots relative to linearly movable member 40. Rymer does not disclose that the two elements are pivotally coupled.
Borders discloses a linearly movable member 42, 36 pivotally coupled to a frame 26, 33 at pivot shaft 37, a drive portion 38 configured for driving a linearly movable member for movement relative to a base along a substantially linear axis, wherein a linearly movable member is constrained to move along a substantially linear axis. Borders teaches that pivotally connecting a linearly movable member to a frame provides a mechanical advantage by automatically locking a to-be emptied container to a frame. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Rymers to include a linearly movable member that is pivotally coupled to a frame, as taught by Borders, thereby providing mechanical advantage to lifting and pivoting containers during emptying.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-27 are allowed. Claims 6-13 & 17-19 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.
Response to Arguments
With respect to claims 1-5 & 14-16 Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicants arguments and amendments with respect to claims 6-13 & 17-27 have been considered are persuasive.
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 GREGORY W ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8101. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8am-5pm.
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.
/GREGORY W ADAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit