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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108086688 A (hereinafter will be referred to as “CN ‘688”) in view of Huth, WO 2018/069514 A1.
Regarding claim 1, CN ‘688 teaches a mobile concrete distribution system comprising:
a chassis (200);
a primary boom member (section of 310 closest to chassis 200 as shown in Figures 1 and 3; see reproduction of Figure 1 provided below with Examiner’s annotations);
the primary boom member comprising a front section and a rear section (the front section towards the right side as shown in Figures 1 and 3 and the rear section being towards the left side as shown in Figures 1 and 3);
an auxiliary boom member (other section of 310 as shown in Figures 1 and 3); and
a concrete conduit pipe (320).
PNG
media_image1.png
406
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CN ‘688 discloses that the primary boom member is rotatably connected to a “rotary bearing comprising an outer ring, an inner ring, and a ball bearing between the inner ring and outer ring” which allows the boom to freely rotate in the horizontal plane (third paragraph of page 5 of English translation) but fails to explicitly disclose a main slew drive. Huth teaches a concrete-distributing boom and discloses the boom being rotatable about vertical axis 16 (which means rotation in the horizontal plane) at its base by means of a slewing gear (near the middle of page 3 of the English translation), which is a slew drive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CN ‘688’s rotary bearing 330 to be a main slew drive in view of Huth’s disclosure as an alternate device that allows the primary boom member to freely rotate in the horizontal plane. The resulting combination includes the primary boom member being rotatably connected to a main slew drive and the primary boom member being elongated and extending both rearwardly and forwardly of the main slew drive (as suggested in CN ‘688’s Figures 1 and 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
328
600
media_image2.png
Greyscale
CN ‘688 additionally discloses that the auxiliary boom member is rotatably connected to the primary boom member at a distal end of the front section of the primary boom member via a second rotary bearing 330 (shown in Figure 3). It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CN ‘688’s second rotary bearing to be a secondary slew drive in view of Huth’s disclosure above as an alternate device that allows the auxiliary boom member to freely rotate in the horizontal plane. The resulting combination includes the secondary slew drive being configured to enable the auxiliary boom member to rotate three hundred sixty degrees relative to the primary boom member and wherein the concrete conduit pipe extends upwardly from the main slew drive, along an entire length of the front section of the primary boom member, vertically through the secondary slew drive, and along an entire length of the auxiliary boom member (Figures 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 2, the resulting combination makes obvious that the main slew drive is situated in a center of the chassis since CN ‘688 discloses the rotary bearing to be in the center of the chassis (CN ‘688’s Figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, the resulting combination includes the limitation claimed since CN ‘688 shows a counterweight (unnumbered box on the left of the primary boom member in Figures 1 and 3) that is disposed on a distal end of the rear section of the primary boom member.
Regarding claim 4, while the resulting combination fails to disclose the limitation claimed, Huth further discloses that the boom is comprised of a plurality of boom arm sections which articulate relative to each other and the joints are associated with hydraulic cylinder (paragraph starting with “FIG. 1” on page 3 of the English translation), which would require hydraulic hoses to function. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the front section of the primary boom member (which is connected to the auxiliary boom member) to enclose hydraulic hoses in view of Huth’s disclosure as an alternate way to control the joints. The Examiner took Official Notice in the previous office action that a hydraulic lever control panel being situated on a chassis of a work vehicle is old and well-known. Applicant failed to challenge the Official Notice in their arguments. Under the guidelines of MPEP 2144.03, to adequately traverse Official Notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action including stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice would be inadequate. Since applicant did not adequately traverse the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, the facts are now considered to be admitted prior art (MPEP 2144.03). Applicant’s traversal is considered inadequate because there was no reference to the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice. In view of the resulting combination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend the hydraulic hoses from a hydraulic lever control panel that is situated on the chassis to be able to control the hydraulic cylinders of the resulting combination since that is a common arrangement.
Regarding claim 7, the resulting combination includes the concrete conduit pipe extending for a certain distance beyond a distal end of the auxiliary boom member (CN ‘688’s Figures 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 9, the resulting combination includes the main slew drive being configured to enable the primary boom member to rotate three hundred sixty degrees relative to the chassis, since a slew drive is a closed circular ring.
Regarding claim 10, the resulting combination can be considered to include the front section of the primary boom member comprising a length, the rear section of the primary boom member having a length, and the length of the front section of the primary boom member is at least 1.5 times the length of the rear section of the primary boom member because there are no physical structures dividing the front section and rear section, only an arbitrary, imaginary line.
Regarding claim 11, the resulting combination includes a distal end of the concrete conduit pipe comprising an outlet that is configured to deposit onto a surface wet concrete slurry that is pumped through the concrete conduit pipe (CN ‘688’s disclosure of a concrete distributing system and pump pipe in the Abstract). It must be wet slurry because once it dries it becomes solid and cannot be pumped.
Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydraulic lever control panel of the resulting combination to be situated on the inside rear wall of the chassis to make it more convenient for the operator since it has been held that rearrangement of parts without an unexpected result is a matter of obviousness. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 15, the resulting combination from claim 1 includes a pair of front wheels is connected to a front part of the chassis and a pair of rear wheels is connected to a rear part of the chassis (CN ‘688’s 223 in Figure 2).
Claims 5-6 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘688 in view of Huth as applied to claim 1, further in view of CN 111058636 A (hereinafter will be referred to as “CN ‘636”).
Regarding claim 5, while the resulting combination includes the auxiliary boom member being situated directly above and parallel with the primary boom member when the auxiliary boom member is in a fully retracted position but fails to disclose underneath, CN ‘636 teaches a folding concrete distributor with boom members comprising an auxiliary boom member and discloses folding in the auxiliary boom member to be situated directly underneath a primary boom member (Figures 1 and 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lengths and orientations of the boom members of the resulting combination to have the auxiliary boom member be situated directly underneath and parallel with the primary boom member when the auxiliary boom member is in a fully retracted position as an alternate configuration of the boom members in view of CN ‘636’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 6, the resulting combination includes the primary boom member having a length and the auxiliary boom member having a length. While the resulting combination fails to include the length of the auxiliary boom member being approximately half the length of the primary boom member, CN ‘636 teaches a folding concrete distributor with boom members and discloses an auxiliary boom member (rightmost section 4 in Figure 1) that has a length that is approximately half of the length of a primary boom member (leftmost section 2 in Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lengths of the auxiliary boom member and the primary boom member so that the auxiliary boom member has approximately half of the length of the primary boom member in view of CN ‘636’s suggestion since that is a known relationship in boom member lengths.
Regarding claim 21, the resulting combination from claim 1 includes the concrete conduit pipe extending vertically through the secondary slew drive. While the resulting combination fails to disclose the remaining limitations claimed, CN ‘636 teaches a folding concrete distributor with boom members (frame sections) and a concrete delivery conduit pipe that parallel to the frame sections, and discloses that the concrete delivery conduit pipe is above a frame section in some parts and below a frame section in some other parts (Figures 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to have the concrete conduit pipe be configured so that a middle section of the concrete conduit pipe extends horizontally above and parallel with the front section of the primary boom member, downwardly through the secondary slew drive, and horizontally beneath and parallel with the auxiliary boom member based on obvious design choice in view of CN ‘636’s disclosure that a concrete conduit pipe section can be either above or below boom members, since it is well established that design choice is applicable when alternative elements or configurations in the prior art perform the same function as the claimed structures with no unexpected results. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 22, the resulting combination includes the limitations claimed since CN ‘688 discloses “drives the material distributing pipe to rotate” (last line on page 2 of the English translation) and the resulting combination includes the concrete conduit pipe going through the slew drive and the slew drive allowing rotation three hundred sixty degrees; the top part must rotate relative to the bottom part at the slew drive in order for the figure shown to function (CN ‘688’s Figures 1 and 3 with the rotary bearing modified to be a slew drive).
Regarding claim 23, the resulting combination includes the secondary slew drive being vertically aligned with an axis of rotation of the middle section of the concrete conduit pipe.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘688 in view of Huth as applied to claim 1, further in view of DE 102006031257 A1 (herein after will be referred to as “DE ‘257”).
Regarding claim 12, while the resulting combination fails to disclose the limitations claimed, DE ‘257 teaches a vehicle-mounted concrete distribution system and discloses a chassis (12; Figure 1a) that comprises a floor, a front inside wall (the interior side of the front wall behind the cab), and a rear inside wall (the interior side of the rear wall). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chassis of the resulting combination to be more enclosed in view of DE ‘257’s disclosure based on obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 13, while the resulting combination fails to disclose the limitation claimed, this appears to be a matter of mere change in shape, which has been held to be a matter of obviousness. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to have the front inside wall and rear inside wall of the chassis both be sloped based on obvious design choice.
Claims 8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘688 in view of Huth as applied to claim 1, further in view of Quenzi et al., US 2002/0015618 A1.
Regarding claim 8, while the resulting combination fails to explicitly disclose the limitation claimed, Quenzi teaches a concrete distribution machine with rotatable sections and discloses selecting an outer pipe length which is short enough to avoid interference during rotation ([0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to have the length of the auxiliary boom member plus the certain distance be less than the length of the front section of the primary boom member in view of Quenzi’s disclosure to ensure that interference is avoided during rotation of the auxiliary boom member plus the certain distance of conduit pipe since that is rotated in use.
Regarding claim 16, the resulting combination from claim 4 includes a pair of front wheels (CN ‘688’s 223 in the front and back; Figure 2) that are connected to a front part of the chassis and a pair of rear wheels that are connected to a rear part of the chassis. CN ‘688 only discloses that the chassis (walking mechanism) and rotary base are connected with a drive motor (lines 5-6 of page 4 of the English translation) but fails to disclose the limitations claimed. Quenzi teaches a concrete distribution machine and discloses hydraulically operated wheel drive motors, control valves for the hydraulic fluid system, and a control console with levers that allows an operator to actuate or deactuate the control valves ([0008], [0036], and [0039]-[0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to include proportional hydraulic valves that are configured to control the pair of front wheels and rear wheels and have the hydraulic lever control panel comprise a plurality of levers that are configured to control the proportional hydraulic valves in view of Quenzi’s disclosure as a known way to drive and steer the wheels. It would have been further obvious to have the proportional hydraulic valves also control the main slew drive and the secondary slew drive in view of CN ‘688’s disclosure that the chassis and rotary base are connected with a drive motor.
Regarding claim 17, while the resulting combination fails to disclose a gas motor and a battery that is configured to start the gas motor, the Examiner took Official Notice in the previous office action that a gas motor situated within a chassis and a battery that is configured to start the gas motor is old and well-known such as in most cars that most people drive. Applicant failed to challenge the Official Notice in their arguments. Under the guidelines of MPEP 2144.03, to adequately traverse Official Notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action including stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice would be inadequate. Since applicant did not adequately traverse the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, the facts are now considered to be admitted prior art (MPEP 2144.03). Applicant’s traversal is considered inadequate because there was no reference to the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to include a gas motor that is situated within the chassis and a battery that is configured to start the gas motor as a known way to power a chassis.
Quenzi further discloses a hydraulic pump to move hydraulic fluid to the wheel drive motors ([0008]) and providing a plurality of hydraulic motors, one for each wheel ([0039] and [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to include a hydraulic pump to move hydraulic fluid to a plurality of hydraulic wheel drive motors in view of Quenzi’s disclosure as an alternate way to steer the wheels. The resulting combination includes the plurality of hydraulic motors being situated and configured to drive the pair of front wheels and the pair of rear wheels. It would have been further obvious to have the plurality of hydraulic motors also control the main slew drive and the secondary slew drive in view of CN ‘688’s disclosure that the chassis and rotary base are connected with a drive motor.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘688 in view of Huth as applied to claim 1, further in view of Butler, US 2022/0196000A1.
Regarding claim 20, while the resulting combination fails to disclose a compressed air tank, Butler teaches constant-rate placement of concrete and discloses providing a compressed air tank to control the concrete line pressure ([0148]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to include a compressed air tank to be able to control the concrete line pressure when distributing the concrete in view of Butler’s disclosure. The Examiner took Official Notice in the previous office action that providing an aperture that is configured to receive a container/tank is old and well-known. Applicant failed to challenge the Official Notice in their arguments. Under the guidelines of MPEP 2144.03, to adequately traverse Official Notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action including stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice would be inadequate. Since applicant did not adequately traverse the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, the facts are now considered to be admitted prior art (MPEP 2144.03). Applicant’s traversal is considered inadequate because there was no reference to the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to have the rear section of the primary boom member comprise a rear end with an aperture that is configured to receive the air holding tank (compressed air tank) to ensure a dedicated fit for the tank, and the exact location is a matter of obvious design choice since it has been held that rearrangement of parts is a matter of obviousness. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-19 and 24 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
Applicant's arguments filed 8/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s main argument is that the primary boom member does not extend both rearwardly and forwardly of the main drive. Examiner disagrees, as the primary boom member is the whole section above the main drive and below the auxiliary boom member in CN ‘688. A reproduction of CN ‘688’s Figures 1 and 3 have been included in the rejection above with Examiner’s annotations for clarification.
Applicant does not provide other arguments, only relying on the argument as addressed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited sheet. Examiner notes that in the references cited, at least KR 10-2316140 and Raymond, US 6,588,448 teach a primary boom member that extends both rearwardly and forwardly of a main drive.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KATHERINE J CHU whose telephone number is 571-272-7819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 9:30-5:30.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/KATHERINE J CHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671