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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Specification
The amendment filed 3/16/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Claim 1 newly recites that the movable wall includes an upper end extending above an upper end of the side wall which is not found in the disclosure as originally filed. The drawings are not set forth as being to scale (MPEP 2125(II)) and disclosure only discusses the open top/ceiling of the dump body 14 but does not explicitly set forth the movable wall having an upper end being above an upper end of the dump body. If applicant is relying on what the drawing reasonably teach a person having ordinary skill in the art, this argument should be made in the next response.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitations "the extended position” in line 3 and “the retracted position” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. There are no previous recitations for these limitations (except for claims 6 and 11 from which this claim does NOT depend).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marble (2019/0291623 also as US 11208023) in view of DE 1220747 (DE 747).
Marble teaches a dumping-body assembly, which could be used in a haulage vehicle/dump truck (100), comprising
a dump body (i.e. the tipping container at 101, 103, 104, 111+) pivotably mounted to a carrier (i.e. the lower frame of vehicle 100 as seen in figure 1) of the vehicle,
the dump body including a rear wall (102) and a side wall,
an ejecting unit (paragraphs 0030-0042) including a movable wall (170) configured to move an ejector (170) in the dump body for unloading a payload (e.g. see paragraph 0043) and
a pivoting unit including an actuator (hydraulic lift actuator 180) configured to. in a mounted state of the dumping-body assembly on the vehicle, pivot the dump body relative to the carrier between a stowage end position (figure 2) and an unloading end position (figure 1).
Note the pivoting unit is configured to pivot the dump body relative to the carrier by a maximum pivot angle of not more than 40 degrees for positioning the dump body from its stowage end position into its unloading end position - e.g. see paragraph 0013 indicating that the trailer is tilted to between a 12 degree and 19 degree incline in use.
PNG
media_image1.png
367
425
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Marble discloses the movable wall (170) being only two inch by two inch cross section and therefore fails to provide the upper end thereof extending above an upper end of the side wall as recited.
This feature, however, is known from DE 747 as seen with the movable wall (30) in FIG.2.
PNG
media_image2.png
356
753
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the push bar of Marble as an elevated wall as taught by DE 747 in order to assure movement of not only the pallet but the palletized items as well.
Claim 2, to the extent that the pivoting actuator is configured to set the dump body tilt at the prescribed angle, it is deemed configured to limit the pivoting movement of the dump body relative to the carrier to the maximum pivot angle as broadly claimed.
Claims 4 and 5, the rear pivot of the dump body at the vehicle rear is deemed to comprise a structural interface which forms a pivot joint for pivotably connecting the dump body to the carrier as broadly claimed - e.g. see paragraph 0048. Moreover, regarding claim 5, the pivot joint would define a pivot axis around which the dump body is pivotable relative to the carrier so as to be moved between its stowage end position and its unloading end position, wherein the pivot axis is arranged in parallel to a transverse axis of the vehicle as broadly claimed - e.g. see figures 1 and 2 etc.
Claim 6, the ejector (bar 170) of the ejecting unit is translationally guided within the dump body so as to be movable relative the dump body between a retracted position and an extended position as broadly claimed - e.g. see paragraph 0043 etc.
Claim 7, the vertically extending ejector (170) is deemed to define a movable wall which is accommodated in the dump body as very broadly claimed. Moreover, the ejector would serve to delimit a loading space of the dump body to some degree and is readable on the claim as broadly recited.
Claim 8, the pivoting unit comprises an actuating means (hydraulic lift actuator) for pivoting the dump body relative to the carrier and a control means for controlling operation of the actuating means as broadly claimed - e.g. see paragraph 0046.
Claim 13, the control means is deemed configured to limit an extraction movement and to limit a retraction movement as broadly claimed and as best understood - note section 112 rejection above.
Claim 15, the disclosed vehicle which includes the dumping-body assembly is a haulage vehicle as broadly recited.
For claim 16, Marble, as modified above, discloses a dumping-body assembly for use in a dump truck as set forth above, comprising:
a dump body (as set forth above) pivotably mounted to a carrier of the dump truck, the dump body including a side wall;
an ejecting unit including a movable wall (as set forth above) configured to move to eject a payload, the movable wall having an upper end extending above an upper end of the side wall (see Marble, as modified with DE 747 above); and
a pivoting unit (disclosed above) including an actuator configured to pivot the dump body relative to the carrier by a maximum pivot angle of not more than 40 degrees.
For claim 17, the movable wall of Marble, as modified, can be considered a front wall of the dump body as broadly recited and interpreted.
For claim 18, the movable wall is configured to move toward a rear wall of the dump body to eject the payload.
For claim 19, Marble, as modified above, discloses a dumping-body assembly for use in a dump truck, comprising:
a dump body (see above) pivotably mounted to a carrier of the dump truck including a front wall (constituting the movable wall as set forth with Marble IVO DE 747) and a rear wall; and
an actuator (as set forth above) configured to pivot the dump body relative to the carrier by a maximum pivot angle of not more than 40° for positioning the dump body into an unloading end position,
wherein in the unloading end position, the front wall (movable wall of Marble, as modified with DE 747 above) of the dump body is configured to move toward the rear wall to eject a payload.
For claim 20, the maximum pivot angle is between 20 degrees to 40 degrees.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marble, as modified, and applied to claim 1 above in view of CN206870921 (item number 3 under the Foreign Patent Documents on the 6/20/22 IDS).
Marble, as modified, is silent as to the maximum pivot angle being between 20 and 40 degrees.
CN 921 teaches a dumping-body assembly for a haulage vehicle/dump truck (figure 1) comprising
a dump body (i.e. the tipping container at 2) configured for being pivotably mounted to a carrier (frame at 1) of the vehicle,
an ejecting unit (e.g. figure 2) configured to move an ejector (at 23) in the dump body for unloading a payload as broadly claimed, and
a pivoting unit (lift cylinder actuator 11) configured to. in a mounted state of the dumping-body assembly on the vehicle, pivot the dump body relative to the carrier between a stowage end position and an unloading end position (figure 1).
Note the pivoting unit is configured to pivot the dump body relative to the carrier by a maximum pivot angle of not more than 40 degrees for positioning the dump body from its stowage end position into its unloading end position - e.g. see the abstract indicating that the trailer is tilted to between a 25 degree and 30 degree incline in use.
PNG
media_image3.png
367
481
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 3, the disclosed pivot angle is between 20 and 40 degrees - see discussion of claim 1 above.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to cause the dumping body assembly of Marble, as modified, to have a maximum pivot angle of 20-40 degrees as taught by CN 921 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In addition, if a claimed range and a prior art range do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, then there would be a prima facie case of obviousness and the set value in the claimed range is not deemed critical or inventive (MPEP 2144.05) and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See also MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claim(s) 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marble '623, as modified above, and further in view of Hutchinson '939.
Claim 9, Marble, as modified, teaches the claimed features as discussed above regarding claim 8. The Marble lifting actuator (180), however, is only broadly disclosed as being "a hydraulic lift actuator" with no additional detail being provided. While is likely that the Marble hydraulic lift actuator defines a conventional cylinder-piston unit wherein translational movement of a piston relative to a cylinder is transformed into the rotational movement of the dump body, the reference is silent as to this specific structure.
Hutchinson teaches a conventional dump body hydraulic tilt actuating means including a cylinder-piston unit defining the pivoting unit wherein in the mounted state of a dumping body (D), a translational movement of a piston (43) relative to a cylinder (42) is transformed into a rotational movement of the dump body relative to a carrier (B+) - see the second column on the first page at line 47 through the first column on the second page at line 7.
Assuming the Marble hydraulic lift actuator is not configured as a translating piston/cylinder arrangement, as a simple substation of one known hydraulic lifting actuator for another, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a translating piston/cylinder hydraulic actuating unit in place of the hydraulic actuating unit of Marble in view of the teachings of Hutchinson.
Claim 9, the modified Marble device would define a cylinder-piston unit providing for conversion of translational movement to rotational movement as broadly claimed.
With additional regard to claim 10, while is likely that the Marble hydraulic lift actuator defines a conventional cylinder-piston unit with pivotally attached ends, the reference is silent as to this specific structure.
Hutchinson further teaches that the cylinder piston unit has a first end section pivotally mounted to the dump body (at 46) and a second end section pivotally mounted to the carrier of the vehicle (at 45) - see the second column on the first page at line 51 through the first column on the second page at line 7.
Assuming the Marble hydraulic lift actuator is not configured as a piston/cylinder arrangement, with pivotally attached end sections as a simple substation of one known hydraulic lifting actuator for another, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a piston/cylinder hydraulic actuating unit pivotally attached at both end sections respectively to the dump body and the vehicle carrier portion in place of the hydraulic actuating unit of Marble in view of the teachings of Hutchinson.
Claim 10, the modified Marble device would define a base cylinder with a second end section pivotally attached to the vehicle carrier and a piston translatably movable within the cylinder with a first end section pivotally attached to the dump body. The Marble/Hutchinson device would be configured as broadly claimed.
Claim 11, Marble teaches use of a control means to actuate the hydraulic lifting actuator - e.g. see the first part of paragraph 0046 of Marble etc. The modified Marble/Hutchinson device would define a control means configured for actuation as broadly claimed.
Claim 12, the modified Marble/Hutchinson device would be configured as broadly claimed.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marble '623, as modified, and further in view of Itai et al. '589.
Claim 14, Marble teaches the claimed features as discussed above regarding claim 8.
The reference does not, however, teach a pivot angle sensor and wherein the control means is configured to actuate the actuating means based on pivot state information.
Itai teaches a dump truck with a hydraulic actuator (18) to pivot a dump body. The truck includes an angle sensor (e.g. sensor 16) for determining rotation angle of the body including angle relative to its lowered stowage position and raised unloading position - e.g. see column 5, lines 48-55. Moreover, the truck includes a controller adapted to actuate the hydraulic actuator based on pivot state information - e.g. see columns 4 and 5.
In order to facilitate safer operation during tilting of the dump body, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fit the vehicle dump system of Marble with an angle detection sensor and communicating controller which communicates with the actuator based on pivot state information in view of the teachings of Itai.
Claim 14, the modified Marble device would be configured as broadly recited.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) as amended have been considered but 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mathews is cited as an additional example of a vehicle tilt body utilizing a cylinder and piston assembly with pivotally attached ends.
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 HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
Prosecution Insights