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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denis Cimaf, “DAF-180D Maintenance Manual”, hereinafter “Denis”, in view of Daining (US 20150334918 A1).
It is noted that all citations to Denis are in reference to the corresponding document attached by the Examiner under NPL documents.
Regarding claim 1, Denis discloses a disc mulcher (page 13, mulcher is comprised of a plurality of discs carrying blades and thus meets the BRI of a disc mulcher) connectable to a carrier vehicle (“skid steer”, page 19), the disc mulcher comprising:
a frame (“Main Frame”, designated in Fig. 2-3 on page 13) connectable to the carrier vehicle;
a spindle assembly (see Fig. 4-48 and 4-49 on page 44) connected to the frame;
a disc (rotor comprising discs carrying blades as seen in Fig. 2-3 on page 13) connected to the spindle assembly and rotatable relative to the frame about a central (i.e. rotation) axis of the disc and the spindle assembly; and
a variable speed hydraulic motor (“Hydraulic Motor” as seen in Fig. 2-3 on page 13) connected to the frame and indirectly coupled to the spindle assembly and the disc, wherein the variable speed hydraulic two stage motor is operable to rotate the disc (page 16 “The hydraulic motor…is a variable displacement axial piston motor”);
a drive pulley (“Motor Pulley” as seen in Fig. 2-3 and Fig. 2-4 on pages 13-14) connected to the variable speed hydraulic two stage motor;
a driven pulley (“Rotor Pulley”, Fig. 2-3 and Fig. 2-4) connected to the spindle assembly, wherein the drive pulley has a circumference smaller than a circumference of the driven pulley (known from page 14, motor pulley has 40 teeth and rotor pulley has 48 teeth, therefore motor pulley size < rotor pulley) such that the variable speed hydraulic two stage motor is configured to operate at a speed higher than a speed of the disc (inherent from speed-reduction configuration, output speed reduced by approx. 83.3%); and
a belt or chain (“Drive Belt”) connecting the drive pulley to the driven pulley (see Fig. 2-4 on page 14); and
a driven shaft (“rotor shaft”) including a proximal portion connected to the driven pulley and a distal portion connected to the disc (Fig. 4-52 on page 46).
Denis does not explicitly state wherein the variable speed hydraulic motor is configured to produce between 8,000 and 10,000 inch-pounds of spindle shaft torque at startup and between 5,000 and 6,000 inch-pounds of spindle shaft torque during steady state operation.
However, Denis on page 16 discloses that the hydraulic motor has a maximum torque of 610 lbf-ft = 7320 lbf-in, which at “roughly 95% efficiency” = 6954 lbf-in start-up torque for the motor shaft. Given a gear ratio of 48/40 = 1.2, the maximum output torque of the spindle (i.e. driven) shaft is approx. 20% greater than the maximum motor torque. Thus, spindle shaft torque at startup can be approximated at 6954 lbf-in x 1.2 = 8345 lbf-in. Further, it is known that start-up torque is greater than steady-state torque in order to overcome inertia and system losses upon starting up the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive a steady-state torque in the range of, for example, 70%-80% less than start-up torque, or approximately 5841.5 lbf-in. to 6676 lbf-in, 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. Further, it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap and/or are merely close to ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Denis teaches wherein the motor is a variable speed hydraulic motor, but does not explicitly detail a two-stage variable speed hydraulic motor.
In the same area, Daining discloses a substantially similar forestry mulcher which utilizes a two-stage variable speed hydraulic motor (para. [0027] “hydraulic motor 42 can be operated in two different displacement modes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a two-stage hydraulic motor for the hydraulic motor of Denis, as taught by Daining, as a mere simple substitution of one known variable displacement motor for a forestry mulcher for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 4-6, Denis in view of Daining discloses the disc mulcher of claim 1. Denis further discloses:
a spindle hub (“taper lock bushing”, designated below and in Fig. 2-4 on page 14) defining a shaft bore (designated below) extending therethrough, the proximal portion of the driven shaft extending into the shaft bore to connect the driven shaft to the spindle hub (as seen in annotated image below and described on page 44, Fig. 4-49 proximal end of driven shaft is received in shaft bore of spindle hub), as per claim 4.
wherein the driven pulley defines a hub bore (designated below), the spindle hub located at least partially within the hub bore to connect the driven pulley to the spindle hub (see page 42, Fig. 4-45 or page 44, Fig. 4-49 spindle hub is inserted into hub bore of driven pulley), as per claim 5.
wherein the hub bore is tapered and an outer portion of the spindle hub is tapered complimentary to the hub bore such that the spindle hub and the hub bore engage in a taper-to-taper interface (implicit from spindle hub comprising a “taper lock bushing” which is received in hub bore requiring a complimentary taper), as per claim 6.
PNG
media_image1.png
442
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Detailed View of Fig. 2-4 on Page 14 of Denis
Regarding claim 7, Denis in view of Daining discloses the disc mulcher of claim 4. Denis further discloses wherein:
the proximal portion of the driven shaft defines a slot (designated below) extending axially along an outer surface of the proximal portion; and
the spindle hub includes a projection (“shaft key”, see below) extending radially into the slot (as described on page 44 “Make sure shaft key is in place” and “Slide in taper lock bushing”).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
PNG
media_image2.png
298
319
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
298
310
media_image3.png
Greyscale
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Annotated Detailed Views of Fig. 4-49 and Fig. 4-52 on Page 44 and 46 of Denis
Regarding claim 8, Denis in view of Daining discloses the disc mulcher of claim 4.
Denis further discloses wherein a radially outer portion of the spindle hub and a radially inner portion of the driven pulley together define a plurality of threaded bores (page 44 “Bushing half of hole” and “hub half of hole”, respectively, see Fig. 4-48 and Fig. 4-49) to receive a plurality of threaded bolts (“socket head cap screws”) therein to secure the driven pulley to the spindle hub (as seen in annotated image below, “To replace/reinstall rotor pulley on rotor shaft…Slide in rotor pulley….Slide in taper lock bushing…Start tightening taper lock bushing with the 3 socket head cap screws in the appropriate holes”, page 44).
PNG
media_image4.png
254
434
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Fig. 4-49 on page 44 of Denis
Regarding claim 10, Denis in view of Daining discloses the disc mulcher of claim 1.
Denis further discloses wherein the variable speed hydraulic two stage motor is connected to the frame at a location laterally offset from the central (i.e. rotation) axis (as seen in Fig, 2-3 and Fig. 2-4 on pages 13-14, hydraulic motor is laterally offset from rotor axis w.r.t. drive belt compartment).
Regarding claim 11, Denis in view of Daining discloses the disc mulcher of claim 1. Denis further teaches wherein the variable speed hydraulic two stage motor and spindle assembly define a portion of a viewing area (designated below) for a front portion of the disc which is unobstructed by the variable speed hydraulic two stage motor.
PNG
media_image5.png
476
779
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Fig. 2-3 on page 13 of Denis
Regarding claim 12, Denis in view of Daining discloses the disc mulcher of claim 1. Denis further discloses wherein a motor mount (“drive support” comprises a “motor plate”) connected to the frame and to the variable speed hydraulic two stage motor, the motor mount movable with respect to the spindle assembly to adjust a tension of a belt or chain connecting the spindle assembly to the variable speed hydraulic two stage motor (see Denis at page 40, “Loosen the 4 motor plate screws…To increase tension, turn the tension screw clockwise, this will raise the drive support…To decrease tension, turn the tension screw counter-clockwise, this will lower the drive support…Tighten the 4 drive support screws”).
Claims 14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denis Cimaf, “DAF-180D Maintenance Manual”, hereinafter “Denis”, in view of Daining (US 20150334918 A1) and Peterson (US 7150300 B1).
Regarding independent claim 14, Denis in view of Daining discloses the limitations of claim 14 which have been analyzed above in view of claim 1. Denis further teaches:
wherein the spindle assembly includes a bearing (“Rotor Bearing”, Fig. 2-3 on page 13) connected to the frame assembly.
Denis fails to disclose a coupler connecting the proximal portion of the driven shaft to the distal portion of the driven shaft to connect the driven pulley to the disc.
In the same area of forest mulches, Peterson discloses stump grinder wherein a driven shaft of the rotating disc (118) includes two shafts connected via a coupler (121), the two shafts comprising a shaft of the driving device and a shaft (146) of the rotating disc (Fig. 15).
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 driven shaft of Denis to be two shafts, connected via a coupler, as taught by Peterson in order to provide an arrangement for absorbing shocks from sudden load changes, and since this is a mere simple substitution with an alternate driven shaft arrangement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 17-20, all the limitations have been analyzed above in view of claims 4-6 and 8 respectively, therefore, claims 17-20 are also rejected over the same rationale as the previous claims.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denis in view of Daining and Peterson as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Casper (US 20170347541 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Denis in view of Daining and Peterson discloses the disc mulcher of claim 14, but fails to disclose a disc hub connected to the distal portion of the driven shaft, the disc hub connected to the coupler to connect the proximal portion of the driven shaft to the distal portion.
In the same area of forestry mulchers, Casper discloses an apparatus for reducing plant material (10, Fig. 1) wherein the drive shaft (42) of the cutting disc (52) is connected to disc hub (60) via a coupler (76) (Fig. 7, Para. [0037]).
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 spindle assembly of the combination to include a disc hub connected to the coupler, as taught by Casper, in order to provide an alternate drive connection for transmitting mechanical power between components to yield predictable results, and to further aid in absorbing shock forces transmitted between the components.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1 and 14, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, these arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (571) 272-8971. 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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights