DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This Final action is in reply to the amendment 17956172 filed on 08/19/2025.
Claims1, 8 and 14 are amended
Claims 1 – 20 are pending and examined
Response to Arguments
112a rejection
The applicant has amended the claims, the rejection is obviated.
103 rejection
The examiner states that the applicants amendment for independent claim that include the housing having a lower hollow frame and a top hollow frame is still not persuasive. Based on broadest reasonable interpretation, bennet still discloses of the frame structure of a lower frame and top frame as stated in the rejection below. REED discloses of the material construction of which the material is hollow. Such that based on the current combination of references of BENNETT / LANDRY and REED, the frames are still hollow at the lower and top parts of the frame. The rectangular rod is supported directly by the lower hollow frame as show in figure 1.
The applicant argues that the BENNETT / LANDRY do not disclose a rectangular rod supported directly by the lower hollow frame. This is not persuasive based on the current combination of references. LBENNETT / LANDRY / REED discloses the lower hollow frame, as BENNETT discloses the lower portion of the frame made from steel, and REED discloses steel that explicitly discloses hollow steel frame.The applicant argues that BENNET cannot be combined with the box blade from LANDRY because 107 extends below the frame 103.
This is not persuasive because based on the combination, the box blade would attach to the frame itself in place of the teeth 107 extending below the frame 103 as taught in the 103 combination below.
The applicant argues that the references do not disclose of a rectangular rod attached to the bottom hollow frame of the housing. The examiner states that BENNETT discloses of the bottom frame portion and REED discloses the hollow frame. Based on the combination below, the examiner states that the limitations are still taught by the existing combination.
Claim 14 also discloses of rectangular rod supported directly by the bottom hollow frame and states that this is also taught by the above reasons.
The applicant argues that BENNETT , LANDRY , REED does not teach of a device wherein the rectangular rod us supported directly by the lower frame. This is not persuasive as for the reasons above.
The examiner states that the applicants amendments and subsequent arguments are not persuasive for the reasons stated above.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by US Patent 10688905 – Bennett et al. hereinafter as BENNETT in view of US PG Pubs 20110217152 – Landry et al. hereinafter as LANDRY in view of in view of US Patent 8001708 – Reed et al. hereinafter REED
Regarding Claim 1:
Bennett discloses:
A device comprising:
a housing having an open top, the housing having a lower
a protection screen having a meshed surface(protection screen 117), the protection screen is attached to the housing(screen 117 is attached to fig. 1 - 103, which is connected to the rest of the housing), and a chain storage rack (chain is stored on the winch, figure 14) secured inside the housing;
an attachment plate positioned on the back side of the housing; ( 111 is a rear plate on frame 103. Has 113 and 115 mounting apertures and mounting lips to attach to skid steer 100, see figure 3)
a winch assembly attached to the housing, the winch assembly includes a winch and a rectangular rod having a guiding structure, the rectangular rod supported directly by the lower
a
a plurality of gripper steel teeth attached to the
a plurality of D-rings attached to the housing. ( 152 Rings attached to housing, figure 1 and D-Rings – col 5 line 55- 56)
BENNETT does not disclose:
boxed blade
hollow frame
BENNETT does disclose of a blades 107 that’s attached to the front of the apparatus, Landry discloses a ground engaging blade for moving earth, wherein the blade is a boxed blade (Figure 1 – where in the box blade has two bucket sides, a bucket top and a bucket bottom)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute the blades mechanism on the box of BENNETT for the boxed blade mechanism to be attached to the front of the apparatus as taught by LANDRY. Doing so merely constitutes the substitution of one known work vehicle attachment mechanism for another to produce the predictable result of a scooping shovel (MPEP 2143, subsection I, B).
PNG
media_image1.png
504
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
720
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
4201
5104
media_image3.png
Greyscale
REED is generally directed to a skid loader lift attachment frame, REED further discloses:
Hollow frame (hollow steel tubing ( col 3 line 53 – wherein the frame is made of steel tube)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute the steel frame on BENNETT / LANDRY for the steel square tubing as taught by REED. Doing so merely constitutes the substitution of one known work vehicle attachment mechanism for another to produce the predictable result of using an alternate frame shape (MPEP 2143, subsection I, B).
Regarding Claim 2:
BENNETT / LANDRY / REED discloses:
The device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the chain storage rack includes multiple compartments divided by a plurality of steel walls. (159 has steel surface is a utility box side plate 155 with support structure surrounding 155 creates multiple compartments)
Regarding Claim 3:
In view of the modification made in relation to Claim 1 to utilize the boxed blade, Landry further discloses
wherein, the boxed blade includes a bucket with two bucket sides, a bucket top and a bucket bottom. (Figure 1 – where in the box blade has two bucket sides, a bucket top and a bucket bottom)
PNG
media_image4.png
278
336
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4:
In view of the modification made in relation to Claim 3 to utilize the boxed blade, Landry further discloses: wherein the two bucket sides include one or more angled portions. (Figure 1 – angled portions)
Regarding Claim 5:
In light of the modification to utilize the boxed blade previously in claim 3, Bennett further teaches that the blade is equipped with: edge of the bucket bottom ( figure 1 – edge of bucket bottom) .
Regarding Claim 6:
BENNETT / LANDRY / REED discloses:
BENNETT discloses:
The device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the winch is a hydraulic winch. (wherein winch 141 – is a hydraulic winch and col 4 line 34 - 36)
Regarding Claim 7:
BENNETT / LANDRY / REED discloses:
BENNETT discloses:
The device as claimed in claim 1, wherein one end of the rectangular rod is attached to the housing. (figure 1 rectangular rod – 121 is attached to housing)
Claim(s) 8 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by US Patent 10688905 – Bennett et al. hereinafter as BENNETT in view of US PG Pubs 20110217152 – Landry et al. hereinafter as LANDRY in view of US Patent 8001708 – Reed et al. hereinafter REED in further view of WO2021105700 – Bradshaw et al. hereinafter as BRADSHAW
Regarding Claim 8:
Bennett discloses:
8. A device comprising:
a housing including:
a top
a bottom
a plurality of corner supports connecting the top
a plurality of side bars attached to sides of the housing ( see figure 1) wherein the side bars connecting the corner supports of the housing, ( where in supports for the corner are show in figure 1)
a protection screen having a meshed surface, (screen 117 is attached to fig. 1 - 103 and wherein high strength mesh is supported in the frame, wherein which is connected to the rest of the housing)
the protection screen is attached to the top
a chain storage rack
the chain storage rack is attached the bottom
a winch assembly that includes a winch and a rectangular rod having a guiding structure,
the rectangular rod attached the bottom
a
a plurality of gripper steel teeth attached to the
a plurality of D-rings attached to the housing. ( 152 Rings attached to housing, figure 1 and D-Rings – col 5 line 55- 56)
Bennett does not disclose:
Hollow frame
Boxed blade
a chain storage rack having a meshed surface.
BENNETT does disclose of blades 107 that’s attached to the front of the apparatus, Landry discloses a ground engaging blade for moving earth, wherein the blade is a boxed blade (Figure 1 – where in the box blade has two bucket sides, a bucket top and a bucket bottom)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute the blade 107 mechanisms on the box of BENNETT for the boxed blade mechanism to be attached to the front of the apparatus as taught by LANDRY. Doing so merely constitutes the substitution of one known work vehicle attachment mechanism for another to produce the predictable result of a scooping shovel (MPEP 2143, subsection I, B).
REED is generally directed to a skid loader lift attachment frame, REED further discloses:
Hollow frame (hollow steel tubing ( col 3 line 53 – wherein the frame is made of steel tube)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute the steel frame on BENNETT / LANDRY for the steel square tubing as taught by REED. Doing so merely constitutes the substitution of one known work vehicle attachment mechanism for another to produce the predictable result of using an alternate frame shape (MPEP 2143, subsection I, B).
Bradshaw discloses a work vehicle frame for use with an excavator comprising a storage compartment wherein the storage compartment has:
a chain storage rack having a meshed surface.( page 14 line 21 – 23 – mesh panel)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute steel panel on the chain storage rack / compartment on BENNETT for the mesh panel on a storage compartment by BRADSHAW. Doing so merely constitutes the substitution of a one known work vehicle attachment mechanism for another to produce the predictable result of frame and work vehicle storage configuration (MPEP 2143, subsection I, B).
PNG
media_image1.png
504
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9:
BENNETT / LANDRY / REED / BRADSHAW discloses claim 8:
BENNETT discloses:
9. The device as claimed in claim 8, wherein the chain storage rack includes multiple compartments divided by a plurality of steel walls. (159 has steel surface is a utility box side plate 155 with support structure surrounding 155 creates multiple compartments)
Regarding Claim 10:
In view of the modification made in relation to Claim 8 to utilize the boxed blade, Landry further discloses: wherein, the boxed blade includes a bucket with two bucket sides, a bucket top and a bucket bottom. (Figure 1 – where in the box blade has two bucket sides, a bucket top and a bucket bottom)
PNG
media_image4.png
278
336
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11:
In view of the modification made in relation to Claim 10 to utilize the boxed blade, Landry further discloses: wherein the two bucket sides include one or more angled portions. (Figure 1 – angled portions)
Regarding Claim 12:
In view of the modification made in relation to Claim 10 to utilize the boxed blade, Landry further discloses: edge of the bucket bottom ( figure 1 – edge of bucket bottom).
Regarding Claim 13:
BENNETT / LANDRY / REED / BRADSHAW discloses:
BENNETT discloses:
13. The device as claimed in claim 8, wherein the winch assembly is a hydraulic winch. (wherein winch 141 – is a hydraulic winch and col 4 line 34 - 36)
Regarding Claim 14:
BENNETT discloses:
14. A device comprising:
a housing including: a top
a bottom
a plurality of corner supports connecting the top hollow frame and the bottom hollow frame; (wherein corner supports are the structure indicated in figure 1 below)
a plurality of side bars attached to sides of the housing connecting the corner supports of the housing, ( see figure 1 – side bar and corner supports)
a protection screen having a meshed surface, the protection screen is attached to the top
a chain storage rack
an attachment plate positioned on the back side of the housing, ( 111 is a rear plate on frame 103. Has 113 and 115 mounting apertures and mounting lips to attach to skid steer 100, see figure 3)
a winch assembly attached to the housing, the winch assembly includes a winch and a rectangular rod having a guiding structure, the rectangular rod supported directly by the bottom
a
a plurality of gripper steel teeth attached to the
a plurality of D-rings attached to the housing. . ( 152 Rings attached to housing, figure 1 and D-Rings – col 5 line 55- 56)
Bennett does not disclose:
Hollow frame
Boxed blade
a chain storage rack having a meshed surface.
BENNETT does disclose of a blade that’s attached to the front of the apparatus, Landry discloses a ground engaging blade for moving earth, wherein the blade is a boxed blade (Figure 1 – where in the box blade has two bucket sides, a bucket top and a bucket bottom)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute the blade mechanism on the box of BENNETT for the boxed blade mechanism to be attached to the front of the apparatus as taught by LANDRY. Doing so merely constitutes the substitution of one known work vehicle attachment mechanism for another to produce the predictable result of a scooping shovel (MPEP 2143, subsection I, B).
REED is generally directed to a skip loader lift attachment frame, REED disclose:
Hollow frame (hollow steel tubing ( col 3 line 53 – wherein the frame is made of steel tube)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute the steel frame on BENNETT / LANDRY for the steel square tubing as taught by REED. Doing so merely constitutes the substitution of one known work vehicle attachment mechanism for another to produce the predictable result of using an alternate frame shape (MPEP 2143, subsection I, B).
Bradshaw discloses a work vehicle frame for use with an excavator comprising a storage compartment wherein the storage compartment has:
a chain storage rack having a meshed surface.( page 14 line 21 – 23 – mesh panel)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute steel panel on the storage compartment on BENNETT for the mesh panel on a storage compartment by BRADSHAW. Doing so merely constitutes the substitution of one known work vehicle attachment mechanism for another to produce the predictable result of a vented panel (MPEP 2143, subsection I, B).
PNG
media_image1.png
504
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15:
BENNETT / LANDRY / REED / BRADSHAW discloses:
15. The device as claimed in claim 14, wherein the chain storage rack includes multiple compartments divided by a plurality of steel walls. (159 has steel surface is a utility box side plate 155 with support structure surrounding 155 creates multiple compartments)
Regarding Claim 18:
In view of the modification made in relation to Claim 14 to utilize the boxed blade, Landry further discloses: edge of the bucket bottom ( figure 1 – edge of bucket bottom)
Regarding Claim 19:
BENNETT / LANDRY / REED / BRADSHAW discloses:
BENNETT discloses:
19. The device as claimed in claim 14, wherein the winch is a hydraulic winch. (wherein winch 141 – is a hydraulic winch and col 4 line 34 - 36)
Regarding Claim 20:
BENNETT / LANDRY / REED / BRADSHAW discloses:
BENNETT discloses:
20. The device as claimed in claim 14, wherein one end of the rectangular rod is attached to the bottom
BENNETT does not disclose:
Hollow frame
REED disclose:
Hollow frame (hollow steel tubing ( col 3 line 53 – wherein the frame is made of steel tube)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute the steel frame on BENNETT for the steel square tubing as taught by REED. Doing so merely constitutes the substitution of one known work vehicle attachment mechanism for another to produce the predictable result of using an alternate frame shape (MPEP 2143, subsection I, B).
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 ALFRED H TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-9511. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached on 5712720547. 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.
/A.H.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671