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 .
Claims 1 and 3 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 8, “a hydraulic pump” should read “the hydraulic pump”
Claim 3, line 9, “a head gate squeezes from front” should read “a head gate that squeezes from the front”
Claim 3, line 10, “a center point of walking axle” should read “a center point of the walking beam axle”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels (US 20090064941 A1), hereafter referred to as “Daniels” in view of Patrick et al. (US 20110311338 A1), hereafter referred to as “Patrick”, Collins (US 6135700 A), hereafter referred to as “Collins”, and Manwaring (US 2012/0037090), hereafter referred to as “Manwaring”.
Regarding claim 1, Daniels teaches a working livestock chute (figs. 1-15) comprising:
a main frame (12, 14; fig. 7);
a gooseneck hitch (horizontal frame of 20, 10; fig. 1) that is integrally connected1 to the main frame (figs. 1-2);
a hitch (20; figs. 1-2 and paragraph [0047]) that is integrally connected to the gooseneck hitch (figs. 1-2);
a torsion tube (94, fig. 8) that is integrally connected to two wheel assemblies (18; figs. 1-2 and 8);
an alleyway escape gate (44) placed midway through the main frame (fig. 5 showing element by element 102, and fig. 3 showing that element 102 is midway through the 10);
a palpation gate (102) placed longitudinally directly after the alleyway escape gates (fig. 5);
two folding panels (at least two elements 64; figs. 2, 8, 12) placed at the end of the working chute (fig. 7) for shots to a neck of the livestock (fig. 14 showing element 64, not labeled, allowing for giving shots to the animal), wherein the alleyway escape gate, the palpation gate, exit gates (164), and the two folding panels for shots to neck serve to treat the livestock while the livestock are contained in the working chute (elements 44, 102, 164, 64 allow for treating livestock while contained within 10);
two outside panels (168, 170; fig. 3) located outside on both sides of the alleyway extend rearward (fig. 3); and
two inside panels on both sies of the alleyway extend rearward (panel between element 36 and 168 and panel between 36 and 170 in fig. 3).
Daniels further teaches the gooseneck hitch including elements 22 and 24 to raise and lower the chute to connect to a vehicle, but does not explicitly teach that the gooseneck hitch is hydraulic, and thus does not teach that the hydraulic gooseneck hitch is powered by a hydraulic pump and controlled by a hydraulic control for the hydraulic goose neck hitch. Additionally, Daniels does not explicitly teach a hitch hydraulic cylinder that is integrally connected to the hydraulic gooseneck hitch, the hitch integrally connected to the hitch hydraulic cylinder, a walking beam hydraulic lift powered by a hydraulic pump and controlled by the hydraulic control for rear lift, a walking beam axle that is raised and lowered by the hydraulic control for rear lift, two alleyway escape gates, two palpation gates, and a solar panel that supplies electrical power to a battery.
It is well settled, however, that that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chute of Daniels to include an additional alleyway escape gate and palpation gate, in order to facilitate quicker entry and exit of the livestock.
Patrick teaches a hydraulic gooseneck hitch (22; figs. 15-16 and paragraphs [0046]-[0047]) powered by a hydraulic pump (64; paragraph [0047]) and controlled by a hydraulic control for the hydraulic goose neck hitch (paragraph [0047]), a hitch hydraulic cylinder (186) that is integrally connected to the hydraulic gooseneck hitch (fig. 16), and the hitch integrally connected to the hitch hydraulic cylinder (figs. 15-16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the working livestock chute of Daniels such that the gooseneck hitch is a hydraulic gooseneck hitch powered by a hydraulic pump and controlled by a hydraulic control for the hydraulic goose neck hitch that includes a hitch hydraulic cylinder that is integrally connected to the hydraulic gooseneck hitch, the hitch integrally connected to the hitch hydraulic cylinder, as taught by Patrick, in order to provide a hitch mechanism that provides a faster and more efficient means to attach and control the loading and unloading of the hitch to a vehicle (paragraph [0009]).
Collins teaches a transport vehicle (figs. 1-7) including a walking beam hydraulic lift (30, 32, 34, 36, 52, 70, 80, 90, 91, 92, 180, 191, 192) powered by a hydraulic pump (col. 4, lines 1-8) and controlled by a hydraulic control (col. 4, lines 1-8) for rear lift (col. 3, lines 49-67 and col. 4, lines 13-32) and a walking beam axle (50, 60) that is raised and lowered by the hydraulic control (fig. 4-7) for rear lift (col. 3, lines 49-67 and col. 4, lines 13-32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the working livestock chute of Daniels as modified by Patrick to include a walking beam hydraulic lift powered by a hydraulic pump and controlled by the hydraulic control for rear lift and a walking beam axle that is raised and lowered by the hydraulic control for rear lift, as taught by Collins, in order to provide smoother towing on bumpy ground, as it is well known that walking beam suspensions share loads between axles and mitigate frame twist.
Manwaring teaches a livestock chute (figs. 1-10) including a solar panel that supplies electrical power to a battery (paragraph [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chute of Daniels as modified by Patrick and Collins, to include a solar panel, as taught by Manswaring, in order to harness natural energy for operation of the device.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels in view of Patrick, Collins, and Manswaring as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Keong (US 2013/0098312), hereafter referred to as “Keong”, Givens (US 5558043), hereafter referred to as “Givens”, and Hall (US 3921585), hereafter referred to as “Hall”.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings of Daniels in view of Patrick, Collins, and Manswaring teaches the working livestock chute described in claim 1, and further teaches:
a dirt alleyway (28, 30 of Daniels);
four radial tires (wheel assembly 18 including wheels; figs. 1-2 of Daniels);
a rolling tail gate (170 of Daniels);
chute panels that parallel squeeze from both sides (46, 50 of Daniels);
a head gate squeezes from front (paragraph [0045] of Daniels);
an entry parallel squeeze (104, 106 of Daniels); and
a center point (52; fig. 5 as relied on Collins) of walking axle (50, 60 as relied on Collins; figs. 4-7) which is a main pivot point (figs. 5-7 and col. 3, lines 28-33 and 49-62 as relied on Collins).
Daniels as modified by Patrick, Collins, and Manswaring does not explicitly teach one or more electric brakes, a rubber floor, and a drop in lock for extended panels.
Keong teaches a chute (figs. 1-3) including an electric brake (abstract, paragraphs [0013] and [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chute of Daniels as modified by Patrick, Collins, and Manswaring with an electric brake, as taught by Keong, in order to allow control of the head gate.
Givens teaches a chute (figs. 1-7) including a rubber floor (at least col.4, lines 42).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chute of Daniels as modified by Patrick, Collins, Manswaring, and Keong with a rubber floor, as taught by Givens, in order to provide comfort and cleanliness to the chute.
Hall teaches a drop in lock (161).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chute of Daniels as modified by Patrick, Collins, Manswaring, Keong, and Givens with a drop in lock, as taught by Hall, in order to allow panels to be locked together in a desired position.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or 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.
Applicant argues that Daniels “teaches away from a moveable gooseneck hitch entirely by showing a fixed gooseneck,” citing paragraph [0035] of Daniels.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Daniels teaches a hitch mechanism 20 with jack elements 22 and 24, which are either raised or lowered to enable the hitch mechanism 20 to engage and disengage a vehicle for transport (see paragraphs [0035] and [0047] and fig. 4). It is unclear how this mechanism is “teaching away” from a moveable gooseneck hitch as the hitch necessarily moves up and down to align and couple with a vehicle. As shown in the rejection above, Patrick is relied upon to teach a gooseneck hitch that is hydraulic. Such modification would improve the ease of positioning and coupling the hitch to the vehicle.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. The references have many of the elements in the applicant’s disclosure and claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Byun whose telephone number is (571) 272-3212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 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. Agendas may be sent to HaeRie.Byun@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached on (571) 272-6891. 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.
/H.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 In light of applicant’s disclosure (which makes no mention of the term “integrally connected”), the claim term “integrally connected” is being interpreted to mean: connected in such a way that the parts together constitute a whole. (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/integral, which defines “integral” as consisting or composed of parts that together constitute a whole”)