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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
After further consideration and search of prior art references and in light of the amendments made, a modified grounds of rejection under Sakuma et al as part of JP 2001295316 A, hereinafter referred to as Sakuma, and Sakuma in view of Akpinar as part of "Minimization of Banded Structure in Spring Steels by the Optimization of Continuous Casting Machine Parameters", hereinafter referred to as Akpinar, is presented, as is detailed below.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the application contains the implied phraseology, “The present invention is a packer that is able to engage…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 27, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 27: Claim 27 recites the limitation “each located in use in the gap between". There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the gap” as recited in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the gap” will be considered a new element introduced in this claim.
Regarding Claim 35: Claim 35 recites the limitation “wherein the two packing regions reduce the gap in the elongate direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the gap” as recited in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the gap” will be considered to be the same “the gap” introduced in claim 27.
Regarding Claim 36: Claim 35 recites the limitation “to reduce the gap by at least 80%.”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the gap” as recited in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the gap” will be considered to be the same “the gap” introduced in claim 27.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 18-19, 27-29, 31-32, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sakuma.
Regarding Claim 1: Sakuma teaches of a packer releasably engaged to a coupler of a kind secured or to be secured to the end of an arm of an earth working machine (Fig. 14-15, leaf springs 34 and 36 releasably engage tool connector 25 at the end of arm 15) to allow an attachment to be releasably held to the coupler at a mounting portion of the coupler by releasable locking of an elongate pin of the attachment at the mounting portion (Fig. 12-13, connector 25 engages bucket 39 on mounting pins 40 and 41),
said pin supported at its ends by and spanning between pin mounts (Fig. 14-15, pins 41 and 40 extend between two mounting brackets of bucket 39),
the mounting portion comprises of two spaced apart side members that are spaced apart a distance less than the span of the pin to be located at that mounting portion so that the pin can project beyond both side members (Fig. 14-15, the mounting brackets of bucket 39 are spaced a distance apart less than the span of pins 40 and 41, causing them to project beyond both mounting brackets of bucket 39),
the packer comprising at least one body releasably secured to the coupler (Fig. 14-15, leaf springs 34 and 36 are releasably secured to fixed hook 30 of connector 25)
Said body being a unitary body comprising of two packing regions, each located in use between a respective said pin mount and an adjacent side member to reduce the play in the elongate direction of the pin between the attachment and the coupler (Fig. 14-15, leaf springs 34 and 36 are positioned to fill the gap between bracket 39 and fixed hook 30; Fig. 12-14, leaf springs 34 and 36 are shown to comprise two spring portions 34B and 36B),
Regarding Claim 4: Sakuma teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Sakuma further teaches wherein the coupler can releasably engage to the attachment (Paragraph 63, the connector 25 is releasable secured to bucket 39 when the process of attachment is reversed).
Regarding Claim 5: Sakuma teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
While Sakuma does not specifically use the phrase “quick coupler”, Applicant has defined “quick coupler” to indicate a device “that is secured to an end of a digger arm and that can releasably secure, in a rapid manner, an attachment.” (Specification, page 1, Background). Sakuma discloses an apparatus defined as “[providing] a working device of a construction machine capable of exchanging a working tool by a simple operation without having to insert and remove a mounting pin provided on the working tool” (Sakuma, Paragraph 16). As Sakuma provides a method of releasably securing an attachment to the end of an arm of a work machine, focusing on simplicity of the operation, and as such Sakuma fits the definition provided in the specification of the instant application of a ”quick coupler”.
Regarding Claim 6: Sakuma teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Sakuma further teaches wherein there are two parallel spaced apart elongate pins of the attachment each mounted at its end by a pin mount, each pin to releasably lock at a respective mounting portion of the coupler (Fig. 16, Connector 25 mounts to bucket 39 via fixed hook 30 which locks to pin 40, and rotary hook 31 which locks to pin 41).
Regarding Claim 7: Sakuma teaches of the apparatus described in claim 6.
Sakuma further teaches wherein the packer is located at either of said mounting portions (Fig. 12-13, leaf springs 34 and 36 are located on both the left and right sides of the mounting portions of connector 25).
Regarding Claim 8: Sakuma teaches of the apparatus described in claim 6.
Sakuma further teaches wherein the packer is located at only one of said mounting portions (Fig. 12-13, the leaf springs 34 and 36 are not mutually exclusive, and one may be removed without affecting the other).
Regarding Claim 18: Sakuma teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Sakuma further teaches wherein the body is substantially U shaped with flanks of the U defining the packing regions (Fig. 3, leaf spring 34 is U shaped, wherein the flanks of the U define the packing region).
Regarding Claim 19: Sakuma teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Sakuma further teaches wherein the packing region is or are of a combined width to reduce the play by at least 50% (Paragraph 50; Fig. 14, leaf spring 34 is designed to bend and have a width dimension L2 greater than dimension L1 to prevent rattling in the axial direction of mounting pin 40).
Regarding Claim 27: Sakuma teaches of a packer releasably engaged to a coupler of a kind secured or to be secured to the end of an arm of an earth working machine (Fig. 14-15, leaf springs 34 and 36 releasably engage tool connector 25 at the end of arm 15) to allow an attachment to be releasably held to the coupler at a mounting portion of the coupler by releasable locking of an elongate pin of the attachment at the mounting portion (Fig. 12-13, connector 25 engages bucket 39 on mounting pins 40 and 41),
said pin supported at its ends by and spanning between pin mounts (Fig. 14-15, pins 41 and 40 extend between two mounting brackets of bucket 39),
the mounting portion comprises of two spaced apart side members that are spaced apart a distance less than the span of the pin to be located at that mounting portion so that the pin can project beyond both side members (Fig. 14-15, the mounting brackets of bucket 39 are spaced a distance apart less than the span of pins 40 and 41, causing them to project beyond both mounting brackets of bucket 39),
the packer comprising at least one body releasably secured to the coupler (Fig. 14-15, leaf springs 34 and 36 are releasably secured to fixed hook 30 of connector 25),
said body being a unitary body comprising of two packing regions (Fig. 12-14, leaf springs 34 and 36 are shown to comprise two spring portions 34B and 36B),
each located in use in the gap between a respective said pin mount and an adjacent side member (Fig. 14-15, leaf springs 34 and 36 are positioned to fill the gap between bracket 39 and fixed hook 30).
Regarding Claim 28: Sakuma teaches of a packer releasably engaged to a coupler of a kind secured or to be secured to the end of an arm of an earth working machine (Fig. 14-15, leaf springs 34 and 36 releasably engage tool connector 25 at the end of arm 15)
to allow an attachment to be releasably held to the coupler at a mounting portion of the coupler by releasable locking of an elongate pin of the attachment at the mounting portion (Fig. 12-13, connector 25 engages bucket 39 on mounting pins 40 and 41),
said pin supported at its ends by and spanning between pin mounts (Fig. 14-15, pins 41 and 40 extend between two mounting brackets of bucket 39),
the mounting portion comprises of two spaced apart side members that are spaced apart a distance less than the span of the pin to be located at that mounting portion so that the pin can project beyond both side members (Fig. 14-15, the mounting brackets of bucket 39 are spaced a distance apart less than the span of pins 40 and 41, causing them to project beyond both mounting brackets of bucket 39),
the packer comprising at least one body releasably secured to the coupler (Fig. 14-15, leaf springs 34 and 36 are releasably secured to fixed hook 30 of connector 25)
and having at least one packing region to locate in use between a said pin mount and an adjacent side member to reduce the play in the elongate direction of the pin between the attachment and the coupler (Fig. 14-15, leaf springs 34 and 36 are positioned to fill the gap between bracket 39 and fixed hook 30),
said at least one packing region having a fixed size (Fig. 12, 14-15, leaf springs 34 and 36 are shown to be single, contiguous parts and are therefore fixed sizes).
Regarding Claim 29: Sakuma teaches of the apparatus described in claim 28.
Sakuma further teaches wherein the at least one body further comprises a mount region, the mount region releasably securing the packer to the coupler outside of the at least one packing region (Fig. 12, 14, leaf springs 34 and 36 comprise rectangular mounting portions 34A and 36A for releasably securing the leaf springs to connector 25).
Regarding Claim 31: Sakuma teaches of the apparatus described in claim 29.
Sakuma further teaches wherein the mount region comprises a hole via which a threaded fastener secures the packer to the coupler (Fig. 12, leaf springs 34 and 36 are secured to connector 25 via bolts 35, which are disposed on mounting portions 34A and 36A).
Regarding Claim 32: Sakuma teaches of the apparatus described in claim 29.
Sakuma further teaches wherein the mount region releasably secures the packer to the coupler at a location between said two spaced apart side members (Fig. 14, the mounting portions 34A and 36A are disposed between brackets 39).
Regarding Claim 34: Sakuma teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Sakuma further teaches wherein the at least one body further comprises a mount region, the mount region comprising a hole via which a threaded fastener secures the packer to the coupler (Fig. 12, leaf springs 34 and 36 are secured to connector 25 via bolts 35, which are disposed on mounting portions 34A and 36A).
Regarding Claim 35: Sakuma teaches of the apparatus described in claim 27.
Sakuma further teaches wherein the two packing regions reduce the gap in the elongate direction of the pin between the pin mount and side member (Fig. 14-15, leaf springs 34 and 36 eliminate the gap between bracket 39 and hook 30 by filling the gap via spring portion 34B and 36B; Paragraph 50; Fig. 14, leaf spring 34 is designed to bend and have a width dimension L2 greater than dimension L1 to prevent rattling in the axial direction of mounting pin 40).
Regarding Claim 36: Sakuma teaches of the apparatus described in claim 35.
Sakuma further teaches wherein the packing regions are of a combined width to reduce the gap by at least 80% (Fig. 14-15, spring portions 34B and 36B are shown to completely fill the gap between bracket 39 and hook 30, making contact with both surfaces when disposed therebetween).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma in view of Akpinar.
Regarding Claim 26: Sakuma teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
While Sakuma teaches of the body of the packer being a unitary body, Sakuma does not teach of the manufacturing or assembly method of the packer.
Akpinar teaches of improving known manufacturing methods of spring steel, namely through the method of continuous casting to create steel billets. Akpinar focuses on improving this known method to create spring steel, specifically for the use in leaf springs (Akpinar: Page 1, leaf springs are known to be formed through continuously cast billets, which are rolled into leaf springs and cut to the specified length).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to create the leaf springs of Sakuma via continuous casting, as is taught as being a known method of manufacture by Akpinar. Utilizing a known technique of manufacture of leaf springs would have been within the technical grasp of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was originally filed, to the predictable result of creating a unitary body via continuous casting (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, D).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30 and 33 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, and to overcome all relevant rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
Regarding claim 30 and 33, as indicated in the previous office correspondence, while packing elements such as those taught by Sakuma are known in the art of quick couplers, and several examples of such packers are found in prior art, no such examples were found wherein the mount region includes at least one dowel pin projecting into a hole of the coupler to register the packer to the coupler.
Conclusion
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 EVAN ANTHONY BREGEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0922. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 Eastern, M-F.
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 J 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.
/EVAN A BREGEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671 .
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights