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.
Claim(s) 1 & 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eitel (US 2,896,750) in view of McDermott (US 8,381,460) and Gardner (US 2011/0156430).
Interpretative note 1. The body of claim 1 does not recite limitations that "breaths life" into the preamble. Consequently, terms like board lifter have been given little if any patentable weight.
Interpretative note 2. A chain that is "loop engaged around" a pinion requires engagement by a chain with a pinion of approx. 180-degrees.
Eitel discloses-
a telescopic mast comprising a fixed segment 22 and a second telescopic movable segment 23 referred to as "end" segment mounted slidingly inside an intermediate segment;
characterized in that a lifting mechanism further comprises:
a chain 37 arranged inside a fixed segment and forming a loop engaged around a first pinion 38 arranged at an upper end of a fixed segment 22 and around a second pinion 34 arranged at a lower end of a fixed segment 22, one of two pinions being engaged with a gear motor 33, e.g. means for rotating a pinion, a lower end of an end movable segment 23 being fastened to a strand of a chain at bracket 47.
Eitel does not disclose a first telescopic segment, an upper internal guide stop a lower external guide stop, an upper internal drive stop, a lower external guide stop and an upper external lifting stop.
With respect to FIGS. 3C-3H, McDermott discloses
a telescopic mast comprising a fixed segment BS1, a first telescopic movable segment BS2 referred to as "intermediate" segment mounted slidingly inside a fixed segment, and a second telescopic movable segment BS1 referred to as "end" segment mounted slidingly inside an intermediate segment;
characterized in that a lifting mechanism further comprises:
a cable arranged inside a fixed segment and forming a loop engaged around a first pinion 16f arranged at an upper end of a fixed segment and around a second pinion 16e arranged at a lower end of a fixed segment, a lower end of an end movable segment BS1 being fastened to a strand of a chain at attachment point 16g;
and in that:
a fixed segment BS1 comprises an upper internal guide stop 17 for guiding an intermediate movable segment BS2 during sliding;
an intermediate movable segment BS2 comprises a lower external guide stop 18 (C8/L31-37) for guiding against a fixed segment BS1, and an upper internal drive stop 17; and
an end movable segment BS3 comprises a lower external guide stop 18 for parallel guiding of an intermediate movable segment, and an upper external lifting stop 17 for lifting an intermediate movable segment.
McDermott teaches that 3-segment lifting mechanisms are "scalable in terms of size, weight and extension length. For antenna masts with relatively light payloads, the central beam could be very light weight and may not require diagonal anchoring cables. Lighter weight versions could be mounted on a truck or other vehicle as will be seen in later figures with the central beam incorporated in the body of the truck with nested stays incorporated in the roof." McDermott adds that a 3-segment system "is relatively lightweight and very compact when stowed, but extendable into a long stiff beam structure for both space and terrestrial applications." Therefore, 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 Eitel to include a first telescopic segment, an upper internal guide stop a lower external guide stop, an upper internal drive stop, a lower external guide stop and an upper external lifting stop, as taught by McDermott, such that a central beam is lighter than previously known masts while allowing lager payloads due to the substantial increase in lifting force.
And, Gardner discloses a first pinion 44 (FIG. 3), a second pinion 44 and a chain 46 looped around both pinions, wherein pinion 44 being engaged with a control shaft 42, and a motor 40, e.g. means for rotating a shaft. 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 Eitel to include a control shaft, as taught by Gardner, which provides a more serviceable chain-pinion means for moving two bodies relatively while providing reduced weight in the drive.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 13 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eitel in view of McDermott and Gardner and further in view of Reynolds (US 4,027,802).
Eitel discloses a lifting mechanism according to claim 1, and does not disclose a rolling stand or board holder. In combination with a lifting mechanism Reynolds discloses a board lifter comprising:
a rolling stand 12, 14, 16, 18 fastened to a lower end of a fixed segment 20 of a mechanism;
a board holder 48 pivotably mounted at an upper end of an end movable segment 32 of a mechanism;
three legs 18, 18, 18 which pivots about a vertical axis.
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 Eitel to provide a rolling stand and board holder, as taught by Reynolds, which enhances heretofore known lifting mechanism for use in applying panels or boards with means for vertically adjusting the sections relative to each other for raising or lowering a wall board or panel positioned on the support means in place for securement to the framework is also provided.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 6-10 & 14 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable with successful traversal of the double patenting rejection contained within this office action and the claims are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1, 3. Applicant argues impermissible hindsight.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant also argues the references individually. For example, that the primary reference Eitel does not disclose or need three segments. Nowhere in the previous office action or in the above rejection is Eitel cited for disclosing three segments. And, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2145 IV.
A 35 USC 103 prima facie case of obviousness does not ask whether the primary reference discloses a need, but whether 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 inventions. In this case, it's not whether Eitel only employs one movable segment, but whether it would have been obvious to modify Eitel's invention by adding a third segment. McDermott discloses the missing segment for explicit reasons such as compactness, extending the reach of a telescoping apparatus and lightness of weight of the apparatus. McDermott further teaches that its invention is scalable which a skilled artisan would have known to apply to Eitel's invention.
Claims 1, 3. Applicant argues that the motivation provided in the above rejection (repeated from the previous office action) has nothing to do with a lifting mechanism.
The examiner does not agree. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to reduce weight. Gardner discloses upper and lower pinions about which a chain is looped for purposes of extending and retracting a bump-out unit relative to a fixe unit. This is the definition of a telescoping arrangement. Because both Eitel and Gardner disclose apparatus' directed to the result of telescoping a movable unit or element relative to a fixed unit or element it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute the structure of Gardner for the missing structure of Eitel to achieve the predictable result of telescoping elements.
Claims 1, 3. Applicant argues that Eitel with McDermott would lead away from Applicants claimed invention, e.g. a teaching away argument.
Applicant alleges that to "create a three-segment mast, the artisan would import the multi-segment structure of McDermott. However, Eitel's simple chain drive is designed for a single movable section and is not equipped to drive a multi-segment mast, especially not via the claimed indirect "push" kinematic." The examiner does not agree.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Applicant correlates Eitel's goal of safe telescoping extension with the physical number of extensions. Eitel's safety element disclosed in FIG. 3 provides safety if the driving chain snaps. As McDermott discloses a driving chain the technology would work identically. Therefore, Eitel's safety considerations when combined with McDermott would remain.
Claim 5. Applicant argues that the Reynolds teaches away by virtue of disclosing pneumatic or hydraulic actuators which are not chain driven as claimed.
Claim 5 was canceled by Applicants amendment. Consequently, any arguments are 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 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 3652