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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/8/2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,428,277. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each structural feature claimed in 12,428,277 overlaps with the current application.
Claims 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,428,277. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each structural feature claimed in 12,428,277 overlaps with the current application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Clark, US Patent 4,114,854.
PNG
media_image1.png
486
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Clark discloses a lift device (see fig 1), comprising: a base (14); a platform (12); and a scissor assembly (17) coupling the base (14) to the platform (12), comprising: a plurality of scissor layers (i.e. 18,20,22,24 – see fig 1), each of the plurality of scissor layers (as described above) coupled to at least one other (see fig 1) of the plurality of scissor layers (as described above) and comprising an inner arm (20,24) coupled to an outer arm (18,22 respectively); an actuator (42) configured to exert an actuator force (via power cylinder) to the at least one of the plurality of scissor layers (as described above); and a kicker assembly (30,50,64) coupling the actuator (42) to the at least one of the plurality of scissor layers (see fig 7-8, as described above), the kicker assembly (as described above) comprising: a kicker (30) having opposing first (connected at 32) and second kicker ends (34), wherein the kicker (30) is operably coupled to the actuator (42) such that the actuator (42) is configured to rotate (see fig 7 vs fig 9) the kicker (30) relative to the at least one of the plurality of scissor layers (as described above) about a kicker axis (centered at 32); and a guide (62,64) coupled to the kicker (30) and configured to limit the rotation of the kicker (30), wherein in a first stage (shown in fig 7-8), the kicker (30) is movably engaged with the at least one other of the plurality of scissor layers (as described above) proximate the second kicker end (34), such that the actuator force (from 42) partially passes directly from the second kicker end (34) to the at least one of the plurality of scissor layers (as described above) and in a second stage (see fig 1), the kicker (30) is disengaged from the at least one of the plurality of scissor layers (as described above) such that the actuator force partially passes through the guide (62,64) and the at least one of the plurality of scissor layers (as described above).
Regarding claim 2, Clark discloses the lift device of Claim 1, wherein the kicker (30) is operably coupled to the actuator (42) between the first (32) and second kicker ends (34) such that the actuator (42) is configured to rotate the kicker (30) relative to the at least one of the plurality of scissor layers (as described above).
Regarding claim 3, Clark discloses the lift device of Claim 1, wherein the kicker (30) is pivotally coupled (at 32) to the at least one of the plurality of scissor layers (as described above) proximate the first kicker end (32) and releasably (see fig 1 vs fig 7-8) coupled to at least one other of the plurality of scissor layers (as described above) proximate the second kicker end (34).
Regarding claim 4, Clark discloses the lift device of Claim 1, wherein the actuator (42) is configured to move the platform (12) between a raised position (see fig 1) and a lowered position (see fig 2) relative to the base (14).
Regarding claim 5, Clark discloses the lift device of Claim 1, wherein the kicker (30) is pivotally coupled to the actuator (42) by an actuator pin (46).
Regarding claim 10, Clark discloses the lift device of Claim 1, further comprising a kicker plate (50) coupled to the at least one other of the plurality of scissor layers (as described above), and wherein the kicker (30) is releasably coupled to the at least one other of the plurality of scissor layers (as described above) via the kicker plate (50) and is supported for sliding movement (via roller 36) along the kicker plate (52 of 50).
Regarding claim 12, Clark discloses the lift device of Claim 1, further comprising: a first mode of operation (see fig 7-8) defined when the kicker (30) rotates around the kicker axis (centered on 32) and the second kicker end (34) is movably coupled to the at least one of the plurality of scissor layers (as described above); and a second mode of operation (see fig 1) defined when the kicker (30) is static relative to the guide (62,64) and the second kicker end (34) is removed (see fig 1) from the at least one of the plurality of scissor layers (as described above).
Regarding claim 13, Clark discloses a scissor assembly (see fig 1), comprising: a plurality of scissor layers (18,20,22,24 etc.) and an actuator (42) configured to extend and retract the scissor layers (see fig 1 vs fig 7), wherein each scissor layer (as described above) includes: an inner arm (i.e. 24); and an outer arm (i.e. 22) pivotally (about 32) coupled to the inner arm (24) such that the outer arm (22) and the inner arm (24) rotate relative to one another (see fig 1 vs fig 7); a kicker assembly (30,50,64) selectively coupling the actuator (42) to a first scissor layer (22,24) of the plurality of scissor layers (as described above) and a second scissor layer (18,20) of the plurality of scissor layers (as described above), the kicker assembly (as described above) comprising: a kicker (30) operably coupled to the actuator (42) and a stop (62,64), wherein, in a first stage (fig 7-8), the kicker (30) is rotatable around a kicker axis (about 32) relative to the first scissor layer (as described above) and the second scissor layer (as described above) by the actuator (42), and in a second stage (see fig 1), the stop (62,64) restrains the kicker (30) from rotating around the kicker axis (32).
Regarding claim 14, Clark discloses the scissor assembly of Claim 13, wherein the stop (62,64) is supported by the first scissor layer (22,24) and configured to selectively restrain the rotation of the kicker (30) around the kicker axis (as described above) to an arc centered at the kicker axis (32).
Regarding claim 15, Clark discloses the scissor assembly of Claim 14, wherein the kicker (30) transitions from the first stage (fig 7-8) to the second stage (fig 1) based on at least one of a length of the arc and a length of an engagement surface (52) supported by the second scissor layer (18,20) and configured to selectively engage with the kicker (30).
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Bruno et al., US PGPub 2020/0290855.
Regarding claims 11 and 16-17, Clark discloses the lift device of Claims 1 and 12, the plurality of scissor layers (as described above) further comprising: a first scissor layer (22,24) including a first inner arm (24) pivotally coupled to a first outer arm (22), wherein the first inner arm (24) is configured to rotate relative to the first outer arm (22) wherein the first scissor layer (22,24) has a first end axis center point (at 32) positioned at an intersection of (a) a first straight line that extends from an upper end (see fig 1) of the first inner arm (24) to a lower end (see fig 1) of the first inner arm (24) and (b) a second straight line that extends from an upper end (see fig 1) of the first outer arm (22) to a lower end (see fig 1) of the first outer arm (22). Clark does not specify that the first inner and outer arms rotate about a first middle axis wherein the center point (at 32) vertically offset from the first middle axis.
PNG
media_image2.png
494
358
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bruno et al. teaches a similar lifting device (see fig 1) wherein the first inner (110) and outer arms rotate (112) about a first middle axis (114) wherein the center point (as detailed above) is vertically offset (see fig 1) from the first middle axis (114). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the vertically offset middle axis described by Bruno et al. to the system disclosed by Clark, in order to prevent lift contraction to an angle that is overly contracted and would overload the actuator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 6-9 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 claim 6, including every structural element recited in the claims, especially, the configuration wherein the actuator pin at least partially extends into a slot in the guide.
None of the references of the prior art teach or suggest the elements of the elevator system as advanced above and such do not provide the necessary motivation, absent applicant's specification, for modifying the system in the manner required by the claims.
Claim 18 is 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 claim 18, including every structural element recited in the claims, especially, the configuration wherein the kicker is pivotally coupled to the actuator by a pin, wherein the pin extends through the kicker and selectively engages with the stop to limit rotation of the kicker, and wherein the stop includes a slot configured to receive the pin having a first and second slot ends for movement of the pin from the first slot end to the second slot end.
None of the references of the prior art teach or suggest the elements of the elevator system as advanced above and such do not provide the necessary motivation, absent applicant's specification, for modifying the system in the manner required by the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7956. The examiner can normally be reached 8-6 EST Monday - Friday.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (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 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.
MICHAEL A. RIEGELMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights