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
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, 3-6, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda 7,247,803 further in view of Tamura US 20090218875.
Regarding claim 1, Takeda teaches a working machine vehicle, comprising:
a supporting frame (28);
a load container (21) pivotally connected to the supporting frame, the load container configured to tilt from a transport position to a tilted position for dumping a load from the load container,
a suspension arrangement (note combination of lift (Tamura below) and springs (31) and suspension (16) configured to reduce transfer of vibrations between the supporting frame and the load container when the load container is in the transport position the suspension arrangement comprising a spring element (31) and a damper element (26), the spring element configured to maintain the load container in the transport position offset from a supporting surface of the supporting frame to allow vibrational vertical movement of the load container relative to the supporting frame, and
See figure 1 – 28 is connected to 13 which connects to 31 which is connected to 30 which is connected to 21, thus spring (31) is between frame 28 and load container 21. Sensors 20 and 46 are between 28 and 21 thus offset. Lift (26) is also part of suspension.
The spring configuration with pins is configured to transfer vibrations. Takeda teaches springs (31) and suspension device (16) which structurally permit movement of 21. Furthermore (26) permits movement.
Takeda discloses (26) is a lift cylinder however fails to explicitly disclosed it is a hydraulic lift and describe the particulars of the system.
Tamura also teaches a known dump truck with a cylinder lift (30). Tamura teaches a hydraulic system comprising:
at least one hydraulic hoist cylinder (30) connected to the supporting frame and the load container to lift and tilt the load container between the transport position and the tilted position for dumping, and (see figure 2),
at least one hydraulic container (32) for hydraulic fluid [0050-0052 inter alia], and at least one conduit (35a and 35B) that connects the at least one hydraulic hoist cylinder with the hydraulic container so as to form a flow passage for hydraulic fluid between the at least one hydraulic hoist cylinder and the hydraulic cylinder,
wherein the flow passage is arranged to exert a flow resistance to the hydraulic fluid flowing through the flow passage to dampen an oscillating flow of the hydraulic fluid through the flow passage and thereby form the damper element of the suspension arrangement reducing vibrations between the supporting frame and the load container.
It is noted that conduits will exert flow resistance (as a tube does carrying liquid) which will result in damping an oscillating flow of fluid. As Applicant and Tamura both teach hydraulic lifts between a frame and load container, they will accordingly act in the same manner.
It 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 to utilize the hydraulic lift cylinder of Tamura in place of the non-specific lift cylinder of Takeda as the hydraulic lift cylinders disclosed by Tamura “improve(s) the durability and service life of the apparatus” [0012] – also of note hydraulic lifts are well known in the art.
The combination of Takeda and Tamura teach a suspension arrangement (the lift portion), element 31 and 16 which as shown in figure 1, maintain the load container offset when in the transport position (that is not dumping) and permits vibrational movement (hydraulics, springs, etc permit vibrational movement, it also is configured to reduce transfer of vibrations due to the suspension system.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Takeda and Tamura teaches a vehicle of claim 1, (specifics of hydraulic provided by Tamura)
wherein the hydraulic container (32) is an open tank,
wherein a first conduit (35A) of the at least one conduit connects the open tank with a piston side (30G) chamber of the hydraulic hoist cylinder,
wherein a second conduit (35B) of the at least one conduit connects the open tank with a piston rod side chamber (30E) of the hydraulic hoist cylinder,
wherein the hydraulic hoist cylinder is configured to be set in a floating state in which the hydraulic fluid can flow through the hydraulic hoist cylinder between the piston side chamber and the piston rod side chamber (0006, 0056, 0061-0062), and
wherein the open tank, the first conduit, the hydraulic hoist cylinder and the second conduit form a loop; through which the hydraulic fluid can flow in either direction to dampen vibrations between the supporting frame and the load container (0087-0092).
It 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 to utilize the hydraulic lift cylinder specifics of Tamura in place of the non-specific lift cylinder of Takeda as the hydraulic lift cylinders disclosed by Tamura “improve(s) the durability and service life of the apparatus” [0012] – also of note hydraulic lifts are well known in the art.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Takeda and Tamura teaches a vehicle of claim 1 (specifics of hydraulic provided by Tamura), wherein the at least one conduit for hydraulic fluid is provided with at least one orifice (46A or 46B) to increase the flow resistance to a suitable level [0067].
It 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 to utilize the hydraulic lift cylinder specifics of Tamura in place of the non-specific lift cylinder of Takeda as the hydraulic lift cylinders disclosed by Tamura “improve(s) the durability and service life of the apparatus” [0012] – also of note hydraulic lifts are well known in the art.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Takeda and Tamura teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the spring element comprises at least one mechanical spring (31 of Takeda see claim 1) arranged between the supporting frame and the load container.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Takeda and Tamura teaches a vehicle of claim 1, wherein the at least one conduit and a spring element are configured to split up a natural vibration frequency of the vehicle. Takeda or Tamura does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the suspension arrangement is configured to split up a natural vibration frequency of the vehicle. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the suspension arrangement is configured to split up a natural vibration frequency of the vehicle, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, because is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a vehicle suspension as a mechanism whose function is to split up a natural vibration frequency of the vehicle; that is, the suspension by definition is intended to stabilize the vehicle and reduce the interference between the vehicle and the load it is carrying by regulating the vibration of the vehicle during transport (eg on bumpy or uneven roads).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Takeda and Tamura teaches a vehicle of claim 1, wherein the spring element (31) is connected to the frame and the load container to keep the load container at some distance above a supporting surface of the supporting frame when the load container is empty and set in the transport position (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Takeda and Tamura teaches a vehicle of claim 1 (specifics of hydraulic provided by Tamura), wherein the hydraulic hoist cylinder comprises a piston (30D), a piston rod (30C), a piston side chamber (30G) and a piston rod side chamber (30E) see 0047 and figure 6.
It 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 to utilize the hydraulic lift cylinder specifics of Tamura in place of the non-specific lift cylinder of Takeda as the hydraulic lift cylinders disclosed by Tamura “improve(s) the durability and service life of the apparatus” [0012] – also of note hydraulic lifts are well known in the art.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Takeda and Tamura teaches a vehicle of claim 1 (specifics of hydraulic provided by Tamura), wherein the vehicle is provided with two hydraulic hoist cylinders, one on each side of the load container (30, [0046], see figure 6) – Takeda teaches two lift cylinders (26) (column 4 lines 39-55).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Takeda and Tamura teaches a vehicle of claim 1, wherein the vehicle (11 see figure 1 of Takeda) is an articulated working machine vehicle, comprising a front vehicle section 24 and a rear vehicle section 25 pivotally connected via a connection arrangement 35 configured to control a pivot angle between the front and the rear sections (column 4 lines 33-38) for steering of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Takeda and Tamura teaches a vehicle of claim 11, wherein the supporting frame (28) and the pivoted load container (21) are arranged on the rear vehicle section, see figure 1 of Takeda.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Takeda and Tamura teaches a vehicle of claim 12, wherein the at least one conduit and the spring element are configured to split up a natural vibration frequency of the rear vehicle section. Takeda or Tamura does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the suspension arrangement is configured to split up a natural vibration frequency of the vehicle. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the suspension arrangement is configured to split up a natural vibration frequency of the vehicle, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, because is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a vehicle suspension as a mechanism whose function is to split up a natural vibration frequency of the vehicle; that is, the suspension by definition is intended to stabilize the vehicle and reduce the interference between the vehicle and the load it is carrying by regulating the vibration of the vehicle during transport (eg on bumpy or uneven roads).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda 7,247,803 further in view of Tamura US 20090218875 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brennan US 3838885
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Takeda and Tamura teaches a vehicle of claim 1, however fails to explicitly teach wherein the hydraulic container is a closed accumulator partly filled with gas to function as a spring for the oscillating flow of the hydraulic fluid.
Brennan however in a similar field of suspension systems teaches a hydraulic actuator (13) that includes an accumulator (14) that itself includes an air cell (15, air being a gas). Brennan further teaches wherein the accumulator partly filled with gas functions as a spring for an oscillating flow of hydraulic fluid and thereby forming the spring element of the suspension arrangement (C3, L32-35).
It would have been obvious to incorporate the accumulator of Brennan into the suspension system of Takeda and Tamura and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation prior to the effective filing date of the instant application because it would improve the effectiveness of the suspension system by more effectively controlling the system by raising or lowering the wheels “in conformity with change in level of the road system” (Brennan C3, L32-35).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda 7,247,803 further in view of Tamura US 20090218875 as applied to claims 1 and 13 above Dersjo US 20100131122.
Regarding claim 7, Takeda and Tamura teaches a vehicle of claim 6, Takeda and Tamura fails to explicitly teach wherein the natural vibration frequency is "f' and wherein a spring stiffness of the spring element is such that when expressed as a rotational stiffness "k" around a load container hinge, the spring stiffness satisfies the following expression:
k=(2nif)2(Io+mgrsin(ao+a) where
k: Rotational stiffness around body (load container) hinge.
f: Frequency of interest to prevent.
Io: Moment of inertia around c.o.g. (center of gravity) of body.
m: Mass of empty body.
r: Distance from body hinge to c.o.g. of body.
g: Gravitational constant.
a*: Angle lowered body to body c.o.g
Angle lowered body c.o.g. to body c.o.g. in static equilibrium, supported by spring(s).
Dersjo, however, in a similar field of invention of invention of work machines, discloses a work machine (601) having the same structure as the vehicle (1) claimed in the instant application (see FIG. 6 of Dersjo and FIG. 2 of the instant application below). Dersjo, in disclosing a work machine having the same structure as the claimed vehicle, also discloses the claimed spring stiffness equation because the claimed spring stiffness equation describes the structure of the work vehicle (see P9, L31 — P10, L22).
It would have been obvious to modify the working machine vehicle of Takeda and Tamura to have the same structure as the work machine of Dersjo, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, because it would be substituting one known element for another.
Regarding claim 14, Takeda and Tamura teaches a vehicle of claim 13, Takeda and Tamura fails to explicitly teach wherein the natural vibration frequency of the rear vehicle section is "f' and wherein a spring stiffness of the spring element is such that when expressed as a rotational stiffness "k" around a load container hinge, the spring stiffness satisfies the following expression:
k=(2;rf)2(Io+mr2)+mgrsin(a0+a) where
k: Rotational stiffness around body (load container) hinge.
f: Frequency of interest to prevent.
Io: Moment of inertia around c.o.g. (center of gravity) of body.
m: Mass of empty body.
r: Distance from body hinge to c.o.g. of body.
g: Gravitational constant.
*O: Angle lowered body to body c.o.g.
Angle lowered body c.o.g. to body c.o.g. in static equilibrium, supported by spring(s).
Dersjo, however, in a similar field of invention of invention of work machines, discloses a work machine (601) having the same structure as the vehicle (1) claimed in the instant application (see FIG. 6 of Dersjo and FIG. 2 of the instant application). Dersjo, in disclosing a work machine having the same structure as the claimed vehicle, also discloses the claimed spring stiffness equation because the claimed spring stiffness equation describes the structure of the work vehicle (see P9, L31 — P10, L22).
It would have been obvious to modify the working machine vehicle of Takeda and Tamura to have the same structure as the work machine of Dersjo, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, because it would be substituting one known element for another.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim above have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Takeda is directed to measurement of the weight of a load of a dump truck and is silent on any suspension arrangement for reducing vibrations between frame and load container…” Takeda teaches spring element (31) and damper element (26) – as written on page 5 of the non-final, “permits vibrational movement (hydraulics, springs, etc permit vibrational movement, it is also configured to reduce transfer of vibrations due to the suspension system)”. Applicant appears to be arguing that springs/hydraulics/etc would not reduce vibrations. Applicant seems to be arguing that because Takeda is directed to measuring weight, it cannot also reduce vibrations. Applicant has provided no evidence of why springs/hydraulics of Takeda and Tamura would not result in reduced vibrations as Applicant’s springs/hydraulics do. As stated on page 9 of specification, “spring element in the form of at least one mechanical spring 115 arranged between the frame and the load container 5” – this merely requires the spring to be between these two components but does not actually specify direct connection points. Claim 1 is directed to the hydraulic system reducing vibrations between the supporting frame and the load container – which the hydraulic system of Takeda does. Applicant has provided no evidence one hydraulic system performs different from another.
Applicant argues Takeda fails to teach “the spring element configured to maintain the load container in the transport position offset from a supporting surface of the supporting frame to allow vibrational vertical movement of the load container relative to the supporting frame” - As shown in figure 1 of Takeda, container (21) is offset from (28) due to (26) and (31). Applicant has not claimed the spring is directly connected to the upper surface of the supporting frame at a first end and at a second end directly connected to the underside of the container which appears to be Applicant’s argument. Nothing precludes a plurality of elements working in tandem to maintain the position of the container.
On page 8, Applicant argues vessel (21) is not offset as the rear part is seated on the frame. The claim does not state the entire container is offset from the frame thus Applicant is arguing features not claimed. Also, seating sensor (46) is provided between rear frame (28) and vessel (21) thus offset as well.
On page 8, Applicant argues Takeda does not teach springs to permit movement of 21. Applicant has provided no evidence that the system shown in figure 1 (combination of 26 and 31) would not permit movement and one of ordinary skill would readily see that spring 31 would permit movement.
Dependent claims are only argued based on claim 1.
Conclusion
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 AMY REGINA WEISBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-5500. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:15-4:15.
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.
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.
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612