DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 21 November 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the references therein has not been considered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology (“means”) and “[t]he disclosure relates to” (lines 1 and 7-8) is redundant to the purpose of the abstract and should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-18 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 1 recites a road making machine as intended use in line 1, then further limits this machine in line 2. It is unclear if this machine is or is not a positively claimed part of the invention.
The recitation of “designed to form an air barrier” is narrative and indefinite. This has been treated essentially as, “capable of forming an air barrier.”
The recitation of “at least partially designed as a modular attachment apparatus” in line 6 of claim 1 is vague and indefinite. What is and is not within the scope of “partially designed” is unclear.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear what specific structure(s) or lack thereof are required in order for the apparatus to be installed without tools.
Claims 2-10 and 12-18 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1.
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)(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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Wilbourn et al. (U.S. Patent 8,702,481).
Wilbourn teaches a blower apparatus (10) including a blower (18) for creating an airflow and forming an air barrier (50). Because the device is placed on an existing vehicle, it meets the recitation regarding the modular, removable attachment apparatus. While Wilbourn is not a road making machine, the removable, modular arrangement would be capable of positioning as claimed, which is sufficient to meet the intended use recitations.
Regarding claim 2, Wilbourn is a centrifugal fan (24) having a filter (30).
The power unit is operable in each of the configurations of claim 3 (column 2, lines 40-42, for example).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, the apparatus includes an air directing unit which forms a housing (Figures 1 and 2, for example).
Regarding claim 8, there is an exit nozzle (26) arranged as claimed (Figure 2, for example).
Regarding claim 15, the apparatus could be attached in the manner claimed, which is sufficient to meet claim recitations.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilbourn et al. (U.S. Patent 8,702,481), as applied above, and further in view of Johnstone (U.S. Patent 11,970,049) and Anup (EP 3 239 400 A1).
As discussed previously, the road making machine is recited as intended use. Further, Johnstone teaches a blower apparatus (160) for creating an airflow at a work machine control station (Figure 1, for example) to prevent ingress of toxic fumes (column 5, lines 51-53). Anup teaches fumes from road building to be toxic to the machine operators (paragraph 4 of the attached translation). Because the purpose of Wilbourn is to prevent entry of fumes into an area occupied by people, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the apparatus on a road finishing machine’s operator cabin, since Johnstone teaches uses a blower for preventing fumes to a machine operator and Anup teaches fumes to be toxic to operators of road finishing machines.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Wilbourn is silent regarding the material. The examiner takes Official notice that plastic is a well-known material of construction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used plastic in order to obtain an inexpensive apparatus.
Regarding claim 9, the examiner takes Official notice that it is known to provide rotatable air discharge units (automobile interior vents, for example) in order to direct air as desired. For this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Wilbourn as claimed.
Regarding claim 10, the examiner takes Official notice that telescopic designs are well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Wilbourn as claimed in order to alter the proximity of the air as desired.
Regarding claim 11, Wilbourn is silent regarding tools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any type of installation deemed best suited to a particular application. Especially given the lack of recitations regarding the connection, there is no patentable distinction between these in this instance.
Claim 12 recites only a light source with no arrangement with respect to the remainder of the apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a light source in order to obtain data (power on, for example) or to provide visual assistance in a darkened location, for example.
Regarding claim 13, given the inclusion of the apparatus in a road making machine, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have enabled control by an operator panel in order to enable an operator to control its function, as machine control is the purpose of a machine operator.
Regarding claim 14, the examiner takes Official notice that it is known to use multiple stages (high and low speeds, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included this in order to more easily control air flow as desired.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, given the attachment to a paving machine, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged Wilbourn as claimed in order to prevent fumes from reaching an operator.
Given the inclusion of Wilbourn with a road making machine, claim 18 limitations would be met in use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach blower apparatuses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
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.
GARY S. HARTMANN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3671
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671