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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in IT on Sept 12, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IT 102022000018561 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because there appears to be a missing comma at “at least one lane[,] each leg comprised”. 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 14 and 17 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the relevant leg" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the maximum lifting stroke". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites “not less than unity,” it is unclear what is meant by this limitation. Does this mean that the maximum lifting height of the lane is not higher than the length of the leg?
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.
laim(s) 1-6, 12, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jong (US 2022/0135383 A1) in view of Gotz (US 2002/0003998 A1). Jong discloses a lift for motor vehicles (fig. 1), the lift comprising:
Re claim 1, at least one lane (8), two legs (12s) articulated to said at least one lane each leg comprised of a single arm (20), at least one actuator (24) associated with each leg and configured to vary inclination of the legs with respect to the horizontal plane and to lift and lower said at least one lane (par [0015]), and a synchronized control unit (13) for the at least one actuator, wherein the two legs connected to said at least one lane are arranged symmetrically with respect to a transversal median plane of the lift (fig. 2), a lower end of each leg is articulated in correspondence with a first fixed transversal axis (18) to a base (14) for anchoring to a floor (4), an upper end of each leg is articulated in correspondence with a second transverse axis (fig. 3: 30) to a trolley (21) sliding along a respective lane, between at least one of the two legs of the at least one lane and the section of at least one lane which in the raised lift configuration forms an angle less than 90° with said leg (fig. 2), a further connection (fig. 3: axis at the top of 34 corresponding to 30) is provided comprising at least one rod articulated at one end to said leg in correspondence with a third transverse axis (36) and at the other end to said lane in correspondence of a fourth fixed transversal axis (30).
Re claim 2, wherein a distance between the upper ends of said legs is less than a distance between the lower ends of the legs in any lifting condition of the lift (fig. 2).
Re claim 5, wherein said at least one rod is substantially rigid and is articulated to said leg and/or to said at least one lane (fig. 2) by means of a shock-absorbing sleeve (Gotz below teaches the elastic means 4 serves as a sleeve surrounding a pivoting shaft).
Re claim 12, wherein in a lowered lift configuration, said first articulation axis of said leg to said base is placed at a level not lower than said second articulation axis of said leg to said trolley (by inspection of the figures, the height distance between first axis 18 and floor 4 is approximately equal to or greater than the height distance between axis 30 and bottom housing surface of 8, this would result in the first articulation axis is placed at a level not lower than said second articulation axis).
Re claim 15, wherein said at least one actuator is placed between each leg and the trolley sliding along the respective at least one lane (fig. 2).
Re claim 16, wherein in a lowered lift configuration said at least one lane houses within it the respective legs, the actuators associated with them, the rods and the bases, to which said legs are articulated (by inspection of figs. 2-3 when the lift is in the lowered configuration the lane houses the respective components).
Re claim 17, wherein a ratio between the maximum lifting stroke of said at least one lane, measured with reference to said second articulation axes to a respective trolleys, and the length of said legs, measured between said second articulation axes to the respective carriages and said first articulation axes to the respective bases, is not less than unity (Jong in view of Gotz discloses the claimed structure thus would exhibit the claimed ratio).
Re claim 18, wherein the at least one lane is two lanes (8,10), each supported by two legs (fig. 1).
Re claim 19, wherein each lane is configured in such a way as to present, at least in correspondence with its internal longitudinal edge (longitudinal edges of 8,10), a continuous longitudinal step (top surface) for supporting internal crosspieces (fig. 3).
Re claim 20, wherein the at least one lane is a single lane (fig. 1), to which a plurality of crosspieces projecting laterally from both sides of the lane are applied and wherein the crosspieces are configured to support a motor vehicle (par [0041] of the instant invention describes the crosspieces are known).
Jong does not disclose:
Re claim 1, said at least one rod is provided with elastic means configured to absorb variations in distance between said third axis and fourth axis of articulation of the rod to said leg and said at least one lane, resulting from changes in the geometry of the lift which are due to load imbalances or to the functioning of the lift and are counteracted by the presence of a vehicle placed on a raised at least one lane.
Re claim 3, wherein a distance between the upper ends of said legs is greater than a distance between the lower ends of the legs in any lift condition of the lift.
Re claim 4, wherein the distance between said third articulation axis and said fourth articulation axis is equal to the distance between said third articulation axis and said second articulation axis.
Re claim 6, wherein said shock-absorbing sleeve is made of elastic material and is placed between an internal pin integral with said leg and/or with said at least one lane and a hollow cylindrical body integral with the corresponding end of said rod.
However, Gotz teaches:
Re claim 1, said at least one rod is provided with elastic means (4) configured to absorb variations in distance between said third axis and fourth axis of articulation of the rod to said leg and said at least one lane, resulting from changes in the geometry of the lift which are due to load imbalances or to the functioning of the lift and are counteracted by the presence of a vehicle placed on a raised at least one lane (the elastic means 4 of Gotz would be taught to surround the third and fourth axis of Jong, which would effectively along for dampening movement).
Re claim 6, wherein said shock-absorbing sleeve is made of elastic material (par [0025]) and is placed between an internal pin (3) integral with said leg and/or with said at least one lane and a hollow cylindrical body (2) integral with the corresponding end of said rod.
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the elastic means, as taught by Gotz, to absorb sudden movement of a heavy load and produce a quieter lifting operation.
Regarding claim 3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the orientation of the legs to reduce the span of space taken up on the floor by the bases, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the claimed lengths to provide a more balanced weight distribution, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jong (US 2022/0135383 A1) in view of Gotz (US 2002/0003998 A1) and Isogai (US 5,450,928). Jong discloses the lift (as cited above). Jong does not disclose:
Re claim 7, wherein said rod is of the controlled variable length type.
Re claim 8, wherein said rod includes a body affected at one end by means for articulated constraint to said at least one lane or to said leg, a slide sliding along said body and affected by means for articulated constraint to said leg or to said lane, and pre-loaded elastic means cooperating with said slide to counteract said slide's movements from a predefined rest position.
Re claim 9, wherein said rod includes two telescopically sliding elements, between which elastic means are interposed, pre-loaded with compression and bias to exclusively counteract the shortening telescopic of the rod.
Re claim 10, wherein said rod includes several parts articulated together and associated with elastic means pre-loaded by compression, which keep the parts in a substantially aligned condition.
Re claim 11, wherein said pre-loaded elastic means are made up of metal springs or air springs or hydraulic springs.
However, Isogai teaches a lift (title):
Re claim 7, wherein said rod (40,41) is of the controlled variable length type (fig. 5 shows the rod may be retracted or extended).
Re claim 8, wherein said rod includes a body (40) affected at one end by means for articulated constraint to said at least one lane or to said leg, a slide (41) sliding along said body and affected by means for articulated constraint to said leg or to said lane, and pre-loaded elastic means (spring effect due to compression of compressible fluid within the cylinder 40 against piston 41 to bias/maintain the table 49 in a particular orientation) cooperating with said slide to counteract said slide's movements from a predefined rest position.
Re claim 9, wherein said rod includes two telescopically sliding elements (41 is slidable within 40), between which elastic means are interposed, pre-loaded with compression and bias to exclusively counteract the shortening telescopic of the rod (spring effect due to compression of compressible fluid within the cylinder 40 against piston 41 to bias/maintain the table 49 in a particular orientation).
Re claim 10, wherein said rod includes several parts (40,41) articulated together and associated with elastic means pre-loaded by compression, which keep the parts in a substantially aligned condition (aligned as shown in fig. 5).
Re claim 11, wherein said pre-loaded elastic means are made up of metal springs or air springs or hydraulic springs (spring effect due to compression of compressible fluid within the cylinder 40 against piston 41 to bias/maintain the table 49 in a particular orientation).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the variable length rod, as taught by Isogai, to adjust the orientation of the lane on various floor surfaces.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jong (US 2022/0135383 A1) in view of Gotz (US 2002/0003998 A1) and Mitchell (US 5,016,858). Jong discloses the lift (as cited above). Jong does not disclose:
Re claim 13, wherein said at least one actuator is placed between said leg and the relative base.
Re claim 14, wherein in a lowered lift configuration, a sixth articulation axis of said actuator to the relevant leg is placed at a level not lower than a fifth articulation axis of the actuator to the relative base.
However, Mitchell teaches a lift (title)
Re claim 13, wherein said at least one actuator (76,80) is placed between said leg (44) and the relative base (23).
Re claim 14, wherein in a lowered lift configuration, a sixth articulation axis (81) of said actuator to the relevant leg is placed at a level not lower than a fifth articulation axis (77) of the actuator to the relative base (Mitchell teaches rearranging the actuator to the base and fig. 7 shows the claimed arrangement).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the actuator, as taught by Mitchell, to easier reach and access to the actuator during maintenance.
Conclusion
The cited prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH D TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3014. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Minh Truong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654