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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a power assist mechanism” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
“a power assist mechanism” is taken to be a cable with a pully winch, a hydraulic ram, or the functional equivalents thereof (para [0042]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Drake (US 2022/0133929).
With regards to claim 1, Drake et al. teaches an apparatus capable of dispensing an air quality control fluid (water/ozone) over refuse (abstract), the apparatus comprising: a base (mobile device 104 that may be a trailer 108; para [0023]; fig 1) supporting a vertical mast (each boom, left and right, are attached to a vertical mast, anchors 1206 of height adjustment means 1104; fig 11-13, para [0039]-[0041]) ; a boom (116) is coupled to the base (boom 116; para [0025], fig 1) coupled to the mast by a pivoting connector (pivots 904 which may include hinges etc. couple to the mast via arms 1202) configured to allow the boom to move between a folded position against the mast (far tips come closer to the mast) and a horizontally extended position (far tips extended away) (fig 9 versus fig 1; para [0037]-[0038]); a container (liquid source 404 that is a tank 414 containing water) capable of holding an air quality control fluid coupled to the base (para [0025]; fig 1); a fluid pump (pump 406) coupled to the container and to an output fluid line (conduits 408) disposed for directing air quality control fluid along the boom (pump sends liquid from the tank to nozzles along the boom) (para [0025]; fig 1, fig 2); and an array of fluid dispensing nozzles (412) extending along a length of the boom and coupled to receive the air quality control fluid from the output fluid line (connected by conduit from pump 406 and manifold 410) (para [0025]; fig 1 and 2).
With regards to claim 9, the apparatus further comprises an electrical system (power supply 306) coupled to the fluid pump (para [0024]; fig 2).
With regards to claim 11, the apparatus has an electrical port for connecting a source of electrical power to the electrical system (a generator is connected to the system via suitable power connectors such as cables or a conventional brake light connector; para [0024]).
With regards to claim 12, the apparatus includes a portable generator coupled to the electrical system via the port (para [0024]).
With regards to claim 13, the boom comprises a truss (each side has a simple single triangle truss (fig 1 and 4).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drake (US 2022/0133929) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beggs (US 2016/0374328).
With regards to claim 2, Drake does not teach a piston driven actuator as claimed. Beggs teaches an extension and suspension mechanism for a boom sprayer that folds inward (abstract; fig 1) which is similar to the folding boom sprayer in Drake. Beggs teaches using a hydraulic cylinder (22) located between the boom (14) and its attachment to the mast/base (vertical bar on tractor) (fig 1A) (para [0041]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used a hydraulic cylinder to cause the boom sprayer to fold into the non-use position in order to allow for powered/automatic (non manual) operation.
A hydraulic cylinder is a type of piston driven actuator.
With regards to claim 3, Drake does not teach segments of the boom coupled together by a hinge. Beggs teaches a similar boom sprayer. Beggs teaches that when putting the boom into the more compact non use position (fig 1) the boom can be folded at a hinge using a hydraulic cylinder (19)(para [0051], [0064], [0065]; fig 1, fig 12-15). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added a hinge operated by a hydraulic cylinder in order to shorten the boom either for storage/transport or for use in narrower areas.
The combination results in a hinge that coupled segments of the boom together, enabling the boom to be folded.
With regards to claim 5, the piston driven actuator is a hydraulic cylinder (see claim 2 above).
With regards to claim 6, a functioning hydraulic cylinder actuator needs a hydraulic system to work. Further, Beggs teaches supplying one to power the actuators that includes a hydraulic motor and lines (para [0041], [0054]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added a hydraulic system coupled to the hydraulic cylinder in order to power the cylinders actuation.
With regards to claim 15, Drake does not teach segments of the boom that fold using a power assist mechanism. Beggs teaches a similar boom sprayer. Beggs teaches that when putting the boom into the more compact non use position (fig 1) the boom can be folded at a hinge using a hydraulic cylinder (19)(para [0051], [0064], [0065]; fig 1, fig 12-15). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added a hinge operated by a hydraulic cylinder in order to shorten the boom either for storage/transport or for use in narrower areas.
The combination results in a power assist mechanism (a hydraulic cylinder) coupled to segments of the boom and configured to supply power for folding the segments of the boom together.
It is noted that hydraulic cylinder and hydraulic ram are often used interchangeably. To the extent there is a technical difference it is additionally presented that a hydraulic cylinder is taken to be within the functional equivalents thereof as the hydraulic cylinder in the prior art is providing the same function of powering the folding of the boom.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drake (US 2022/0133929) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tacoma World.
With regards to claims 7 and 8, Drake does not teach a steel skid plate. Tacoma World teaches adding skids to the bottom of a vehicle to protect the vehicle and slide over rough terrain. Steel is noted to be best for particularly rough or rocky terrain (see whole document). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added a steel skid to the bottom of the support trailer in order to reinforce and protect the trailer while allowing it to slide over rough terrain.
The combination results in at least one skid supporting the base (below the base and supports it as it slides over rough terrain) that is a steel plate.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drake (US 2022/0133929).
With regards to claim 10, Drake teaches allowing the user to operate components of the device (ozone generator and liquid pump) using conventional control mechanisms (para [0027] and [0029]). Thus, there are controls for the user connected to the electrical system, but it is not specified that it is a control panel. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used conventional control mechanisms including a control panel in order to allow the user to control the device.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drake (US 2022/0133929) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grossman (US 2020/0121816).
With regards to claim 14, Drake teaches that the container is mounted to the base (para [0025], fig 1) but does not specify that the container is plastic. Grossman teaches a portable spraying trailer (abstract and fig 1) and teaches that the supply tank can be made of any suitable material including plastic tanks which are noted as being especially suitable (para [0072]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have made the container out of plastic as it is an especially suitable supply container material for a spraying trailer.
Claim(s) 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Provenzano “Odor Control Best Practices” in view of Drake (US 2022/0133929).
With regards to claim 16, Provenzano teaches controlling odor with misters (working face bullet 1; picture at top) including a water truck (bullet point 3 second indent). Also a water truck can be used for occasional odors at landfills (landfill section).
Provenzano does not provide the specifics of the structure for the sprayer. Drake et al. teaches an apparatus capable of dispensing an air quality control fluid (water/ozone) over refuse (abstract), the apparatus comprising: a base (mobile device 104 that may be a trailer 108; para [0023]; fig 1) supporting a vertical mast (each boom, left and right, are attached to a vertical mast, anchors 1206 of height adjustment means 1104; fig 11-13, para [0039]-[0041]) ; a boom (116) is coupled to the base (boom 116; para [0025], fig 1) coupled to the mast by a pivoting connector (pivots 904 which may include hinges etc. couple to the mast via arms 1202) configured to allow the boom to move between a folded position against the mast (far tips come closer to the mast) and a horizontally extended position (far tips extended away) (fig 9 versus fig 1; para [0037]-[0038]); a container (liquid source 404 that is a tank 414 containing water) capable of holding an air quality control fluid coupled to the base (para [0025]; fig 1); a fluid pump (pump 406) coupled to the container and to an output fluid line (conduits 408) disposed for directing air quality control fluid along the boom (pump sends liquid from the tank to nozzles along the boom) (para [0025]; fig 1, fig 2); and an array of fluid dispensing nozzles (412) extending along a length of the boom and coupled to receive the air quality control fluid from the output fluid line (connected by conduit from pump 406 and manifold 410) (para [0025]; fig 1 and 2).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used the apparatus of Drake in order to supply a spray of air quality (odor) control fluid onto a refuse pile (landfill) motivated by an expectation of successfully controlling odors.
The combination results in placing the claimed apparatus on or adjacent a refuse pile; providing the air quality fluid in the container (either water or another fluid); powering the pump (cause flow of fluid from tank to spray nozzles); and dispensing the fluid from the array of spray nozzles as claimed.
With regards to claim 20, Provenzano teaches misting and the nozzles of Drake would produce at least some mist. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to dispense a mist motivated by an expectation of spreading the fluid to control odor.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Provenzano “Odor Control Best Practices” and Drake (US 2022/0133929) as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of Beggs (US 2016/0374328).
With regards to claim 17, Drake does not teach a piston driven actuator as claimed. Beggs teaches an extension and suspension mechanism for a boom sprayer that folds inward (abstract; fig 1) which is similar to the folding boom sprayer in Drake. Beggs teaches using a hydraulic cylinder (22) located between the boom (14) and its attachment to the mast/base (vertical bar on tractor) (fig 1A) (para [0041]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used a hydraulic cylinder to cause the boom sprayer to fold into the non-use position in order to allow for powered/automatic (non manual) operation.
A hydraulic cylinder is a type of piston driven actuator.
With regards to claim 18, Drake does not teach segments of the boom coupled together by a hinge. Beggs teaches a similar boom sprayer. Beggs teaches that when putting the boom into the more compact non use position (fig 1) the boom can be folded at a hinge using a hydraulic cylinder (19)(para [0051], [0064], [0065]; fig 1, fig 12-15). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added a hinge operated by a hydraulic cylinder in order to shorten the boom either for storage/transport or for use in narrower areas.
The combination results in a hinge that coupled segments of the boom together, enabling the boom to be folded and results in folding the boom for storage etc.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Provenzano “Odor Control Best Practices” and Drake (US 2022/0133929) as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of Tacoma World.
With regards to claim 19, Drake does not teach a steel skid plate. Tacoma World teaches adding skids to the bottom of a vehicle to protect the vehicle and slide over rough terrain. Steel is noted to be best for particularly rough or rocky terrain (see whole document). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added a steel skid to the bottom of the support trailer in order to reinforce and protect the trailer while allowing it to slide over rough terrain.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to drag the apparatus on a skid to access all the terrain of the landfill needing odor reduction.
The combination results in at least one skid supporting the base (below the base and supports it as it slides over rough terrain) and dragging the apparatus on a skid (when dragging over the rough terrain of the landfill).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not teach that the hinge is spring loaded to assist in folding the boom. The prior art as a whole teaches spring biasing in the opposite direction (to hold in the extended position). For example, Williams et al. (US 4,044,952) states “The mounting arrangement is such, however, that the boom will be spring loaded into such normal laterally extending position and will have only a very limited tendency to wiggle or oscillate during operation even when the sprayer is driven over rough and uneven terrain.” (column 1, lines 55-60). Given the teaching of Williams that it is beneficial to spring bias int eh extended position and the taught use of hydraulics in Breggs to cause the folding, the prior art does not provide a teaching or motivation to have springs to assist in folding the boom along with the claimed piston actuator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD R SPAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9-5.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571)272-1374. 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.
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799