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”.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-11, drawn to trailer dump beds with an electromagnetic ram, classified in B60P1/162.
II. Claims 12-20, drawn to a trailer with eddy tubes, classified in B60P1/283.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination II has separate utility such as a trailer with eddy tubes. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
--the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Rowan Smith on 7/7/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-11. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Claims 12-20 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 7 and 11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the first hydraulic actuator" and also “the second hydraulic actuator” both of which lack antecedent basis in the claim. There is no previous recitation to either of “a first” or “a second” hydraulic actuator in the claims from which this claim depends.
Claim 11 is unclear in that the claim recites “an second” electromagnetic ram without reciting “a first” electromagnetic ram and further because the claim ends with a semi-colon on the last line and not a period as is typical. It is unclear if the claim is intended to end at the semi-colon or if additional subject matter and limitations were inadvertently left out.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sockwell et al. in view of Denne (5440183).
For claims 1, 2, and 11, Sockwell et al. (4830436) disclose a trailer, comprising:
a frame (Abstract) of metal (implicit);
a first dump bed (18,20) coupled to the frame substantially near a forward end of the frame;
a first hydraulic actuator coupled to the first dump bed and being configured to selectively control a position of the first dump bed;
a second dump bed (22) coupled to the frame substantially near a rearward end of the frame; and
a second hydraulic actuator (36) coupled to the second dump bed and being configured to selectively control a position of the second dump bed.
PNG
media_image1.png
213
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sockwell et al. lack the hydraulic actuators being electromagnetic rams.
Denne teaches an electromagnetic piston and cylinder device as broadly recited and interpreted.
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 in place of the hydraulic actuators of Sockwell et al. electromagnetic rams as taught by Denne as an obvious expedient to achieve the same predictable result of lifting/dumping the dump beds.
The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR, 550 US at 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR) supports this rationale of a simple substitution.
Courts have recognized that it would have been obvious to substitute one known element for another that performs the same function, where the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See, e.g., Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Circ. 2008) (concluding that the claims were obvious, noting that “[t]he asserted claims simply substitute a resistive electrical switch for the mechanical pressure switch").
Moreover, applicant’s own admission anticipates alternatives. Specifically, as seen from paragraph [0047] of the current invention, the lift mechanism “may each be a hydraulic lift, hydraulic actuator, pneumatic lift, pneumatic actuator, electromagnetic actuator, electromagnetic ram actuator or any other kind of lift” thus making the record clear that alternatives are possible.
For claim 3, the first dump bed is coupled to the metal frame by a first hinge (not shown but implicit from the description/disclosure of Sockwell et al. at Col 2, lines 46-54) and the second dump bed is coupled to the metal frame by a second hinge (Sockwell et al., Col 3, lines 6-15) and a first axis of the first hinge is perpendicular to a second axis of the second hinge (FIG.1).
For claim 5, the first dump bed and the second dump bed are independently controlled (Col 2, lines 32-34).
For claim 6, the first dump bed is a side-dumping dump bed and the second dump bed is a rear-dumping dump bed.
For claim 8, the first dump bed includes a first plurality of walls and a first wall of the first plurality of walls includes a first door (“gate”),
the first wall of the first plurality of walls being parallel to a length of the trailer.
For claim 9, the second dump bed includes a second plurality of walls and a second wall of the second plurality of walls includes a second door (tailgate), the second wall of the second plurality of walls being perpendicular to the length of the trailer.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sockwell et al., as modified above, and in view of CN 203558379 (CN 379).
For claim 4, Sockwell et al., as modified, is silent on the trailer having a loading chute.
This feature is known from CN 379 which teaches a loading chute (“hopper”) hingedly coupled to the frame forward of a dump bed, wherein the loading chute is coupled to the frame by one or more hinges such that the loading chute may be selectively placed in a lowered position and in a raised position substantially above the first bed.
PNG
media_image2.png
503
766
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 the success to have provided a hinged front-loading chute as taught by CN 379 to the first dump bed of Sockwell et al., as modified, in order to assist in loading the bed.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sockwell et al., as modified above, and in view of Davis et al. (2022/0410782).
For claim 7, Sockwell et al., as modified, lack the recited control interface, a feature taught by Davis et al. as seen with controller (142) ([0043] and [0045]) which includes a control interface configured to selectively operate either the first or second dump bed.
PNG
media_image3.png
564
786
media_image3.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 included with Sockwell et al., as modified, a controller interface as taught by Davis et al. in order to allow for control of the dump beds independently.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sockwell et al.
For claim 10, Sockwell et al., as modified, disclose a maximum distance between the first wall of the first dump bed (20) and the second wall of the second dump bed (22) as is evident from the drawing figures.
When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977). Looking to Fig.1, a PHOSITA can see the beds (20 and 22) are adjacent one another without a substantial gap therebetween.
Sockewell et al., as modified, fail to provide the maximum distance between the beds being less than 3 feet. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the beds (20 and 22) of Sockwell et al., as modified, to have a maximum distance less than 3 feet 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 the instant case, the beds of Sockwell et al., as modified, would not operate differently with the claimed distance. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rexus et al. (6206477) teach a loading chute (hopper 90) coupled to the frame of a dump bed, wherein the loading chute is coupled to the frame by one or more hinges such that the loading chute may be selectively placed in a lowered position and in a raised position substantially above the first bed (FIG.3).
PNG
media_image4.png
468
650
media_image4.png
Greyscale
CN 103496533 (CN 533) teaches a loading chute (“hopper”) coupled to the frame forward of a dump bed, wherein the loading chute is coupled to the frame by one or more hinges such that the loading chute may be selectively placed in a lowered position and in a raised position substantially above the first bed.
PNG
media_image5.png
264
501
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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