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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 12, 2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-5,7-8, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westendorf et al (US 10,414,633) in view of Mattson et al (US 6,315,344).
As to claim 1, Westendorf et al discloses a mechanical grapple (10), as illustrated in Figures 1-16, for grasping a load, the mechanical grapple configured to be combined with a prime mover vehicle (see col. 1, lines 14-16) having at least one lift arm (14), said mechanical grapple comprising a grapple assembly having a first tine (20) pivotally combined with a second tine (18), the first tine configured to be combined with the prime mover vehicle; and a roller (100) combined with the second tine and configured to engage the lift arm (stop bars 100 are configured to abut into a lower or rear (depending on the orientation) surface of the moveable arm (shown in FIGS. 12-14) (see col. 6, lines 37-40). However, Westendorf et al doesn’t discuss that the roller has the capability to be rotational.
Mattson et al teaches a grapple assembly comprising “a roller 42 that is rotatably mounted to a bracket (43) which, in turn, is mountable to the grapple” and “permit free movement of the grapple hooks 24 about the axis B and about the rotation axis C when the ram cylinder is fully retracted. The bracket and roller also function to pivot the hooks 24 about the axis A upon extension of the ram 30 and consequent engagement by the pusher plate 35” (see col. 5, lines 4-18).
Thus, the manner of enhancing a particular device was made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in Mattson et al. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known “improvement” technique in the same manner to the prior art of Westendorf et al and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, one skilled in the art would have readily that modifying the roller to be rotational in Westendorf et al would facilitate the continuos rotation of the lower claw 18 towards the moveable arm 14 with a sudden a pause.
With claim 2, the first tine includes a mounting mechanism (coupler 12 may include one or more mating surfaces and/or features (not shown) that are configured to mate with and secure the grappling assembly 10 to the coupler 12 - see col. 10, lines 45-50) configured to be combined with a coupler (12) on the prime mover vehicle.
With claim 3, the second tine further includes a first portion having one or more grasping teeth configured to help grasp and secure the load and a second portion opposite the first portion, and the roller is combined with the second portion of the second tine (see annotated Figure 15 below).
With claim 4, the second tine further includes a forward end having one or more grasping teeth configured to help grasp and secure the load and a rearward end opposite the forward end, and the roller is combined with the rearward end of the second tine.
PNG
media_image1.png
310
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With claim 5, as modified by Mattson et al, the first tine pivots relative to the second tine around a first axis of rotation and the roller is configured to rotate relative to the second tine around a second axis of rotation.
With claim 7, Westendorf et al discloses the claimed invention except for the roller to be made of hardened steel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to specify that the roller to be constructed of hardened steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
With claim 8, Westendorf et al discloses the claimed invention except for the roller to be made of a first material and the loader arm to be made of a different second material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to specify that for the roller to be made of a first material and the loader arm to be made of a different second material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
As to claim 16, the method of using the mechanical grapple could be accomplished based on the obviousness rejection of Westendorf et al in view of Mattson et al as discussed above in claim 1.
With claim 17, Westendorf et al shows moving the grapple assembly to a retracted position to release the load by moving the first tine away from the second tine.
With claim 19, the second tine further includes a forward end having one or more grasping teeth configured to help grasp and secure the load and a rearward end opposite the forward end, and the roller is combined with the rearward end of the second tine (see annotated Figure 15 above).
With claim 20, as modified by Mattson et al, pivoting the first tine relative to the second tine around a first axis of rotation and rotating the roller relative to the second tine around a second axis of rotation, wherein the first axis of rotation is closer to the forward end than the second axis of rotation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-15 are allowed. The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination. In particular, the prior art of record does not teach the mechanical grapple further having a lower tine including a pair of support ears proximate a second portion, wherein the pair of support ears are in spaced relation with each other and having a shaft extending therebetween and being supported by the pair of support ears.
Claims 6, 9, and 18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Allen, Benoit, Ramun, Kehler, and Westendorf’193 are cited as being relevant art, because each prior art discloses a mechanical grapple comprising a grapple assembly and a tine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 pm 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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
STEPHEN VU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3651
/STEPHEN A VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651