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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “comprising a actuating means” in line 6 should be amended to read –comprising an actuating means--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "said apertures" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said air coupling" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumoto (JP 2012065562).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto discloses a ground aeration device comprising:
an air supply connector for receiving pressurised air from a source (130);
a first supporting element for supporting a drill element for insertion into the ground and a Hydraulic hammer means (first supporting element 152; drill 140);
said drill element further comprising a cavity operably connected to an air aperture (drill tip 142);
a pneumatic means operably connected to said air supply comprising an actuating means for controlling supply of pressurised air through the drill element (pneumatic means 131 and actuating means 134 signaled by 158A and 158B);
said pneumatic means is arranged on said first supporting element (131 is connected to 152);
characterized in that the aeration device further comprising a second supporting element, slidably attached to said first supporting element (second supporting element 151);
a hydraulic means attached to said first and second supporting elements (153 is connected to 152 and 151);
said first supporting element being movable via said hydraulic means from an initial parked position to a first position relative to said second supporting element, where said actuating means cooperates with a first actuating element of said second supporting element to enable a first flow of pressurised air through said drill element and said air aperture (152 moves by 153 from an initial position to a first position at first actuating element 158A relative to 151; signal from 158A enables flow of air through drill).
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto discloses the device wherein said first supporting element is movable via said hydraulic means to a second position relative to said second supporting element, wherein said actuating means cooperates with a second actuating element of said second supporting element to enable a second flow of pressurised air through said drill element (152 moves by 153 to a second position at second actuating element 158B relative to 151; signal from 158B enables a second flow of air through drill).
Regarding claim 3, Matsumoto discloses the device wherein said movement of the first supporting element relative to the second supporting element is along a vertical axis (Fig 1 depicts 152 and 151 moving along a vertical axis).
Regarding claim 4, Matsumoto discloses the device wherein said first and second actuating elements are arranged in a linear array on said second supporting element (158A and 158B are considered to be in a linear array on 151).
Regarding claim 10, Matsumoto discloses the device wherein said apertures further comprises an indicator which is indicative of the depth at which the compressed air will flowing through the drill element and subsequently aerate the compacted ground (Matsumoto states the switches set the penetration depth; para [0024]).
Regarding claim 11, Matsumoto discloses the device wherein said air coupling is attached to the second supporting element (130 is attached to the second supporting element 151).
Regarding claim 12, Matsumoto discloses the device wherein said second supporting element is an element of a supporting frame which is operably attachable to a vehicle (151 is operably attached to vehicle 110).
Regarding claim 14, Matsumoto discloses a method of aerating compacted subterranean layers soil comprising use of the aerating device to aerate soil (Matsumoto discloses a method of using the machine).
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Knight (US 20200137941).
Regarding claim 13, Matsumoto fails to specifically disclose the device wherein said second supporting element is an element of a supporting frame which is operably attachable to a handcart device.
However, Knight discloses a similar aeration device with a supporting element (Fig 1; supporting element 17) and teaches the aeration device where the element 17 is attached to a handcart 1.
Matsumoto and Knight are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of ground aeration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matsumoto to incorporate the teachings of Knight and combined the use of a handcart to attached to the second supporting element of Matsumoto. One would have made this combination to position the device as well as control air supply by hand (Knight; para [0041]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of HiLetgo (NPL reference 1).
Regarding claim 5, Matsumoto discloses the use of limit switches as the first and second actuating elements, but is silent on the specific structure of these switches.
However, HiLetgo depicts one such limit switch with the use of an arm pivotally attached at one end that cooperates with the switch itself (see Annotated Figure 1). Matsumoto and HiLetgo are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of using limit switches. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matsumoto to incorporate the teachings of HiLetgo and combined the use of an arm that cooperating with the switch. One would have made this combination to properly stop the actuator of Matsumoto when the actuator activates the arm of the switch. The arm of HiLetgo is also considered to have a roller prevents damage to the arm or switch during activation.
PNG
media_image1.png
357
343
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sasai (FR 2572241).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto discloses the device wherein said second supporting element comprises an element for attachment of said actuating element (claim language is broad; elements 157 assist in the attachment of the actuating element 134 to the machine).
Matsumoto fails to specifically disclose a support element aperture as claimed; however, as claimed, it appears the support element aperture only functions in the assembly of the machine. Therefore, this is an issue of connecting two elements together and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to connect the actuating device to the second supporting element by the use of fasteners that fit through apertures to connect the two elements, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose other than connecting the two elements. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by using fasteners and support element apertures to connect the elements.
For the sake of argument, Sasai discloses a similar aerating device (Fig 1 and Fig 5) and teaches the use of bolts 241 that would have to go through some kind of supporting element aperture to attach the actuating element.
Matsumoto and Sasai are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of ground aeration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matsumoto to incorporate the teachings of Sasai and combined the use of bolts and apertures to attach the actuating element. One would have made this combination to easily remove the actuating element by removing the bolts.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Matsumoto and Sasai discloses the device wherein second supporting element further comprises a linear array of said support element apertures, arranged along a vertical axis (Sasai; Fig 5 depicts bolts 241 and the corresponding apertures forming a linear array along a vertical axis).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Matsumoto Sasai discloses the device wherein said support element aperture is an elongate slot extending along a vertical axis (claim language is broad; any aperture would have a component of the aperture that is an elongated slot in any direction).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Matsumoto and Sasai discloses the device wherein said actuating element further comprises a threaded element which cooperates with a threaded element of said support element aperture (Sasai; threaded bolts 241 have to thread into something in order for the connection to exist).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hargreaves et al. (US 20060185567) discloses an aeration device with structure that is similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE SCOVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30-6 (ET).
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571) 272-0547. 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.
/BLAKE E SCOVILLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671