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 .
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 5, 19, and 20 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.
Claim 19 recites the phrase, “to reduce the play by at least 50% and preferably 60% and preferably 70% and preferably 80% and preferably 90%”. This phrase recites no positive application and fails to define a clear boundary of the scope, and is therefore indefinite. It is unclear whether the preferential elements recited are necessary to the subject matter or its embodiments. For the purposes of examination, examiner will only consider the broadest requirement of reduction by 50% to be necessary for the present invention.
Claim 20 recites the phrase, “to reduce the gap by at least 50% and preferably 60% and preferably 70% and preferably 80% and preferably 90%”. This phrase recites no positive application and fails to define a clear boundary of the scope, and is therefore indefinite. It is unclear whether the preferential elements recited are necessary to the subject matter or its embodiments. For the purposes of examination, examiner will only consider the broadest requirement of reduction by 50% to be necessary for the present invention.
Further, claim 20 depends upon a cancelled claim, making the scope of the claim indefinite. The dependency of claim 20 does not appear to have been updated to match the amended claim set, and appropriate correction is required. To provide the best context and antecedent basis for the claim, as claims 19 and 20 are so similar in scope, Examiner will interpret claim 20 to be dependent upon claim 1 in place of the cancelled claim 2.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sakuma et al as part of JP 2001295316 A, hereinafter referred to as Sakuma.
Regarding Claim 21: Sakuma teaches of a coupler of a kind secured or to be secured to the end of an arm of an earth working machine (Fig. 14-15, connector 25 is releasably connected 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 coupler having releasably engaged thereto a packer (Fig. 14-15, leaf springs 34 and 36 releasably engage tool connector 25) comprising of at least one body 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),
wherein the body is a unitary body comprising a cast or moulded body or an assembly or fabrication of parts (Fig. 12, 14-15, leaf springs 34 and 36 are shown to be single, contiguous parts; it is known in the art to create leaf springs through continuous casting),
the packer being engaged to the coupler at said mounting portion and comprising a mount region of a shape that is complimentary to the shape of the coupler at where it is secured thereto (Fig. 12, the shapes of leaf springs 34 and 36 are complementary to the shapes of fixed hook 30 and rotary hook 31 respectively),
said mount region comprising tapered surfaces to help with guided registering of the pin with the coupler (Fig. 12, leaf spring 34 has a tapered inner surface).
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5-8, 11, 18-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma in view of Mehmet Akpinar as part of "Minimization of Banded Structure in Spring Steels by the Optimization of Continuous Casting Machine Parameters", hereinafter referred to as Akpinar.
Regarding Claim 1: Sukuma 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),
wherein the body is a unitary body (Fig. 12, 14-15, leaf springs 34 and 36 are shown to be single, contiguous parts;),
the packer being engaged to the coupler at said mounting portion and comprising a mount region of a shape that is complimentary to the shape of the coupler at where it is secured thereto (Fig. 12, the shapes of leaf springs 34 and 36 are complementary to the shapes of fixed hook 30 and rotary hook 31 respectively),
said mount region comprising tapered surfaces to help with guided registering of the pin with the coupler (Fig. 12, leaf spring 34 has a tapered inner surface).
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).
Regarding Claim 4: Sakuma in view of Akpinar 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 in view of Akpinar teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
While Sakuma in view of Akpinar 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 in view of Akpinar 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 in view of Akpinar 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 in view of Akpinar 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 11: Sakuma in view of Akpinar teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Sakuma further teaches wherein the mount that includes 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).
Regarding Claim 18: Sakuma in view of Akpinar 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 in view of Akpinar 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 20: Sakuma in view of Akpinar 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 gap 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 24: Sakuma teaches of a packer to reduce sliding movement between a coupler of a kind secured or to be secured to the end of an arm of an earth working machine and an attachment that comprises of two end mounted elongate pins to pass through the coupler (Fig. 14-15, leaf springs 34 and 36 are positioned to fill the gap between bracket 39 and fixed hook 30 of connector 25 which is attached to the end of arm 15; Paragraph 50, 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),
the packer comprising a packing region to locate between the coupler and at least one end of at least one pin (Fig. 14-15, leaf springs 34 and 36 are positioned to fill the gap between bracket 39 and fixed hook 30),
the packer being a unitary body (Fig. 12, 14-15, leaf springs 34 and 36 are shown to be single, contiguous parts),
the packer being engaged to the coupler and comprising a mount region of a shape that is complimentary to the shape of the coupler at where it is secured thereto (Fig. 12, the shapes of leaf springs 34 and 36 are complementary to the shapes of fixed hook 30 and rotary hook 31 respectively),
said mount region comprising tapered surfaces to help with guided registering of the pin with the coupler (Fig. 12, leaf spring 34 has a tapered inner surface).
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 10 and 12-14 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.
Regarding claim 10, 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.
Regarding claims 12-14, 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 body of a single packer body comprised two packing regions between the adjacent side member and the respective pin mount.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Moser et al as part of US 20080092414 A1 teaches of a packer for a quick coupler apparatus to be releasably fixed to the end of an arm and to couple an attachment to the arm, wherein the coupler releasably engages with elongate pins on a mounting portion of the attachment, wherein the pins are supported on their ends spanning between pin mounts spaced apart a distance less than the span of the pins so that the pins can project beyond both side members, wherein the packing region is located between the coupler and the pin mounts.
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