DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits addressing the disclosure provided 03 August 2023.
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 .
Disposition of the Claims Presented
Applicant initially presented Claims 1-50 upon filing. A preliminary amendment was filed along with the initial filing indicating the following:
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-15, 17-21, 23, 24, 27 and 29 are pending. Of those
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8-15, 18-21, 24 and 29 are original
Claims 3, 7, 17, 23, 27 are amended
Clams 2, 6, 16, 22, 25, 26, 28, 30-50 are cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements Dated 03 August 2023 and 26 January 2024, are entered. Upon review the examiner was unable to locate reference 5 under the Non-Patent Literature section of the 26 January 2024 IDS titled, “Skid Patecher-10A Asphalt Plant and Recycler…”. Applicant is also encouraged to review Non-Patent Literature reference 3, which references PCT/US2022/15160, whereas applicant provided the written opinion for PCT/US2022/015610.
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 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 27 and 29 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.
Below is a reproduction of the presented claims with the examiner’s comments in bold italics.
Claim 4: The mobile mixing attachment according to claim 3, wherein the slope body (objected to as “sloped body” is previously claimed as opposed to “slope body”) is wider at a forward portion (indefinite as written as this language appears to reference “a forward most portion”, which means this limitation lacks antecedent basis) at the forward scooping lip and more narrow (objected to as “narrower” appears appropriate) at the rear loading end positioned in front of the mouth of the mixing drum.
Claim 5: The mobile mixing attachment according to claim 4, wherein the slope body (objected to as “sloped body” is previously claimed as opposed to “slope body”) comprises curved walls that narrow the slope body (objected to as “sloped body” is previously claimed as opposed to “slope body”) toward the rear loading end positioned in front of the mouth of the mixing drum to form funnel for funneling material from the forward scooping lip to the mouth of the mixing drum.
Claim 7: The mobile mixing attachment according to claim 1, further comprising a mixing drum drive for rotating the mixing drum within the chassis, wherein the mixing drum drive comprises a hydraulic system that includes a hydraulic motor and a dampening block manifold with inlet and outlet connectors for coupling to hydraulic lines to be attached the (objected to and suggested to amend to “attached to the…” hydraulic attachment lines of the skid-steer and inlet and outlet motor connectors for feeding hydraulic fluid to the hydraulic motor of the hydraulic drive system.
Claim 9: The mobile mixing attachment according to claim 8, further comprising a scraper positioned adjacent the tamping roller to remove the sticky asphalt (“the sticky asphalt” lacks antecedent basis) from the tamping roller.
Claim 13: The mobile mixing attachment according to claim 8, wherein the tamping roller comprises about a 4-inch diameter heavy duty pipe (indefinite as to the metes and bounds of what constitutes “heavy duty” with respect to the pipe as claimed) with an axle shaft down the center (indefinite as to the metes and bounds of how “down the center” is interpreted as “down” is a given direction that is constant regardless of an orientation of the limitation claimed) supported by bearings (lacks antecedent basis, e.g., “a plurality of bearings”) within bearing housings (lacks antecedent basis, e.g., “a plurality of bearing housings”) that are affixed to the drum chassis of the mobile mixing attachment for the skid-steer.
Claim 15: The mobile mixing attachment according to claim 8, wherein during compaction operations, the tamping roller is positioned on mobile mixing attachment (“on mobile mixing attachment” lacks antecedent basis) such that, when the mobile mixing attachment is tilted with the drum in an upward facing position and lowered, the tamping roller is configured to engage a surface of the ground beneath the mobile mixing attachment to compact the surface of the ground.
Claim 17: The mobile mixing attachment according to claim 1, wherein the scoop comprises securement arms (“securement arms” lacks antecedent basis, e.g., “a first securement arm and a second securement arm” or equivalent), each securement arm (lacks antecedent basis) having a forward end and a distal end, the securement arms secured on opposing sides of the scoop at the forward ends and attached to the drum chassis on the distal end (indefinite as more than one “distal end” is initially claimed, however now only a single “distal end” is referenced so it is unclear which distal end is referenced); and
wherein the securement arms hold the scoop stationary with the rear loading end positioned in front of the mouth of the mixing drum such that material to be processed picked up by the scoop slides down the scoop into the mouth of the mixing drum.
Claim 19: The mobile mixing attachment according to claim 18, wherein the scoop frame comprises securement arms (lacks antecedent basis, e.g., “two securement arms”, or equivalent), each securement arm (lacks antecedent basis, e.g., “each said securement arm”) having a forward end and a distal end, the securement arms secured on opposing sides of the scoop at the forward ends and attached to the drum chassis on the distal end (indefinite as more than one “distal end” is initially claimed, however now only a single “distal end” is referenced so it is unclear which distal end is referenced).
Claim 21: The mobile mixing attachment according to claim 20, wherein the scoop frame provides a rigidity such that, when the skid-steer to which the mobile mixing attachment is secured is driven into a pile of material, the scoop and scoop frame absorb the impact and not the drum, protecting the drum, shaft and bearings that operate the drum. The language of this claim is indefinite as it is unclear how rigidity results in the claimed absorption; under the rules governing mechanics of materials, vibrations and structural engineering, rigidity would actually permit transmission of forces due to impacts and not absorb them such as would occur through a dampener.
Claim 27: The mobile mixing attachment according to claim 1, wherein the body of the mixing drum comprises a back wall that forms the rear of the internal cavity, the back wall comprising back wall flights that extend outward from the back wall into the internal cavity; and
wherein the back wall flights comprise four back wall flights, each back wall flight (lacks antecedent basis, e.g., “each said back wall flight” or equivalent) having a first portion extending perpendicular from the back wall of the body of the mixing drum and a second portion extending at an angle from the first portion.
Claim 29: The mobile mixing attachment according to claim 1, wherein each of the sidewall flights comprises a barb extending outward at angle from the baffle (lacks antecedent basis) configured to rip open bags of aggregate used in making asphalt.
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) 1, 3-5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0246764 A1)
Claim 1: Fox discloses A mobile mixing attachment (Fig. 1A, 10) for use on a skid-steer (12, however, this is functional language not positively claiming the skid-steer), the mobile mixing attachment comprising:
a rotatable mixing drum (20) comprising a body (22) that forms an internal cavity (24 as shown) and having a forward end (22A) and a bottom end (Fig. 4: 22B), the mixing drum comprising a mouth (26) at the forward end of the body that provides access to the internal cavity of the mixing drum (as shown);
a drum chassis (20A) configured to hold and rotate the mixing drum (as shown and as disclosed generally, see paragraph [0062]);
an attachment plate (42) secured to a rear portion of the drum chassis proximal to the bottom end of the body (as shown), the attachment plate configured to engage one or more attachment couplers (as shown, the attachment plate is “configured to” engage the couplers e.g., 16) on lift arms of a skid-steer.
The embodiment in Fig. 1A does not disclose the scoop, however, the embodiment in Fig. 10 shows a similar system that includes a scoop (Fig. 10: 98) comprising a forward scooping lip (edge distal from the drum) and a rear loading end (edge opposite the scooping lip) positioned in front of the mouth of the mixing drum (as exemplified), the scoop being secured to the drum chassis (as shown). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the scoop on the embodiment in Fig. 1A, as the purpose of the scoop is to facilitate loading material into the drum and the drum is a common feature in both embodiments, resulting in an obvious variant that would perform in the manner as intended.
Claim 3: The obvious modification of Fox provides The mobile mixing attachment according to claim 1, except wherein the forward scooping lip of the scoop comprises a flat edge extending outward across the width of a forward most portion of the scoop with side walls extending upward on either side of the flat edge. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of design choice to have this limitation because a configuration of an invention is a matter of choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed subject matter was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP §2144.04. To have the claimed shape would permit the scoop to function in like manner to the scoop with the arcuate shape as shown in Fig. 10. The result of the obvious modification of the prior art provides wherein the scoop comprises a sloped body that slopes upward from the flat edge to the rear loading end positioned in front of the mouth of the mixing drum (as exemplified in Fig. 10).
Claim 4: the obvious modification of the prior art provides he mobile mixing attachment according to claim 3, wherein the slope body is wider at a forward portion at the forward scooping lip and more narrow at the rear loading end positioned in front of the mouth of the mixing drum (as shown generally in Fig. 10, this limitation is met).
Claim 5: the obvious modification of the prior art provides The mobile mixing attachment according to claim 4, wherein the slope body comprises curved walls that narrow the slope body toward the rear loading end positioned in front of the mouth of the mixing drum to form funnel for funneling material from the forward scooping lip to the mouth of the mixing drum (as shown generally in Fig. 10, the limitation is met with the curved walls that narrow the body).
Claim 17: the obvious modification of the prior art provides The mobile mixing attachment according to claim 1, wherein the scoop comprises securement arms (as rendered obvious in Fig. 10 connecting the scoop 98 to the system), each securement arm having a forward end and a distal end (as shown), the securement arms secured on opposing sides of the scoop at the forward ends (as shown). The embodiment in Fig. 10 does not specifically show the securement arms are attached to the drum chassis on the distal end; however, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the parts as necessary because rearrangement of parts is considered an obvious matter of design choice. (See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)(the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice.) One having ordinary skill in the art would have the arms connected as claimed in order to permit proper function of the system.
The result of the obvious modification of the prior art would permit the securement arms hold the scoop stationary with the rear loading end positioned in front of the mouth of the mixing drum such that material to be processed picked up by the scoop slides down the scoop into the mouth of the mixing drum (as would be the function).
Claim(s) 27 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox in view of Backers Maschinenbau (DE 102015001564, hereafter “Backers” and equivalent)
Claim 27: Fox provides The mobile mixing attachment according to claim 1, wherein the body of the mixing drum comprises a back wall that forms the rear of the internal cavity (as shown generally).
Fox does not provide language directed to the wall flights. Backers teaches a similar system that has the back wall comprising back wall flights (67) that extend outward from the back wall into the internal cavity; and wherein the back wall flights comprise four back wall flights (as shown; the language “comprising” is inclusive and means more than four flights can be present). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include flights in order to aid in facilitating mixing of the materials within the drum. Fox in view of Backers further does not provide each back wall flight having a first portion extending perpendicular from the back wall of the body of the mixing drum and a second portion extending at an angle from the first portion. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of design choice to have this limitation because a configuration of an invention is a matter of choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed subject matter was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP §2144.04. One having ordinary skill in the art would have the shape of the flights in order to maximize mixing efficiency.
Claim 29: the obvious modification of the prior art provides The mobile mixing attachment according to claim 1, except wherein each of the sidewall flights comprises a barb extending outward at angle from the baffle configured to rip open bags of aggregate used in making asphalt. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of design choice to have this limitation because a configuration of an invention is a matter of choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed subject matter was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP §2144.04. One having ordinary skill in the art would have the shape of the flights in order to maximize mixing efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9 (and claim 10 by dependency from claim 9), 13, 15, 19 and 21 (and claim 20 by dependency from claim 19) would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8, 11, 12, 14, 18, 23 and 24 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the art cited by applicant in the two IDS forms, the examiner notes the following:
Norlie et al. (U.S. Patent 4,268,175)
Wagner et al. (U.S. Patent 2,664,276)
Huge (U.S. Patent 2,899,805)
Teagle (GB 895,529)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM V GILBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0800-0430 Eastern.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571.272.6928. 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.
/WILLIAM V GILBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993