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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first and second annular races of the axial bearing of claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 3, lines 10-11, “the means in the” should be replaced with “a means for movement of a work platform in a”;
Page 3, line 16, “in the” should be replaced with “for movement of the work platform in a”; and,
Page 5, line 6, “The means” should be replaced with “A means for movement of a work platform”.
Page 5, line 10, “means” should be replaced with “the means for movement of the work platform”
Page 6, line 15, “main arm 6” should be replaced with “appendage 6a”.
The specification is replete with instances where “main arm 6” should be replaced with “appendage 6a”, including at pg. 6, line 30, pg. 7, lines 7, 25, and 26, pg. 8, lines 26 and 29, pg. 9, line 12, pg. 9, line 19, pg. 12, line 3, etc.
Pg. 8, line 23, “configuration” should be inserted between “both” and “the”.
Pg. 10, line 1, “they” should be replaced with “the means”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4, “which are” should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “movement of said platform in a plurality of different work positions”, “support of said platform in a plurality of different work positions”, and “supported rotatably by said main arm by way of an axial bearing” in claim 10.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 13 is 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. The recitation of “said apparatus being preferably of a hydraulic type” in claim 13 does not appear to narrow the scope of the claim and it is indefinite whether ‘a hydraulic type’ limitation is required by the scope. Additionally, it is indefinite as to what ‘type’ encompasses. This phrase includes exemplary language which is improper, see MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 16 is 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 16 recites an auxiliary telescopic arm with the “possibility” of coaxial rotation with respect to the post. The term “possibility” is vague and thus renders the claim indefinite.
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 10, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Araki (US20190256335).
Re claim 10, a self-propelled work vehicle (Fig. 1), comprising at least one vehicle (1), which can move over ground and supports at least one main telescopic arm (63), which is coupled, directly or indirectly, with a first end to said vehicle (1) and supports a work apparatus (64) at an opposite end, wherein said apparatus comprises moving means (64, 70) for moving a work platform (10) which are adapted to accommodate at least one operator, said moving means (64, 70) being configured for a movement of said platform (10) with respect to said main arm (63) and for a support of said platform (10) in a plurality of different work positions, said moving means (64, 70) being supported rotatably by said main arm by way of an axial bearing (para. [0033]: “a rotating platform 32 that allows the third boom 63 to rotate” – note that to the extent that the claimed axial bearing is not explicitly recited by the quoted portion of Araki, an axial bearing is nonetheless anticipated by Araki per MPEP 2112.IV, specifically an axial bearing is necessarily present in Araki because the rotating platform allows the third boom to rotate), which is configured to support said moving means (64, 70) in one configuration chosen among at least one first working configuration and one second working configuration (see lower portion of Fig. 1), which is configured to be obtained from said first configuration with a rotation of said means (64, 70) with respect to said main arm (63) equal to a predefined angle.
Re claim 13, the vehicle according to claim 10, further comprising an apparatus for actuating the rotation of said moving means between said configurations, said apparatus being preferably of a hydraulic type (see para. [0037]: “The rotating mechanism 30, the extension mechanism 40, and the derricking mechanism 50 of the arm mechanism 60 include a hydraulic driving device, such as a hydraulic cylinder or a hydraulic motor, or an electric driving device”).
Re claim 18, a work apparatus installable on self-propelled work vehicles (see para. [0039]: “The structure of the arm mechanism 60 is a mere example applied to a bridge inspection vehicle. The number of booms or the arrangement of the mechanisms 30, 40, and 50 for coupling the booms is not limited to the number or the arrangement described in this embodiment, and may be determined appropriately to enable movement of the distal end of the arm mechanism 60 to an intended position), which comprise at least one vehicle (20) which can move over ground and supports at least one main telescopic arm (62), which is coupled, directly or indirectly, with a first end to the vehicle (20), further comprising moving means (64, 70) for moving a work platform (10) which is configured to accommodate at least one operator, said moving means (64, 70) being configured for a movement of said platform (10) with respect to the at least one main telescopic arm (62) and for a support of said platform in a plurality of different work positions, said moving means (64, 70) being supportable rotatably by said at least one main telescopic arm (63) by way of an axial bearing (para. [0033]: “a rotating platform 32 that allows the third boom 63 to rotate” – note that to the extent that the claimed axial bearing is not explicitly recited by the quoted portion of Araki, an axial bearing is nonetheless anticipated by Araki per MPEP 2112.IV, specifically an axial bearing is necessarily present in Araki because the rotating platform allows the third boom to rotate), which is configured to support said moving means (64, 70) in one configuration chosen among at least one first working configuration and one second working configuration (see lower portion of Fig. 1), which is configured to be obtained from said first configuration with a rotation of said means (64, 70) with respect to said main arm (63) equal to a predefined angle.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki (US20190256335) in view of Nakagawa et al. (JPH10184679).
Re claim 11, Araki fails to disclose the vehicle according to claim 10, wherein said axial bearing is a center bearing. Nakagawa teach, in the context of a jib crane (see e.g., Fig. 3 and para. [0003] of the MT of Nakagawa), wherein an axial bearing is a center bearing (see e.g., para. [0007]: “self-aligning thrust roller bearing”). It 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 to have included the center bearing of Nakagawa in the moving means support of Araki in order to reduce “wear due to sliding of the spherical rollers, thereby improving the bearing life” (para. [0013] of the MT of Nakagawa et al.).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki (US20190256335) in view of Cella (WO8902410).
Re claim 12, the vehicle according to claim 10, wherein said predefined angle is equal to 180 degrees, see Fig. 1, note that means 64, 70 appear to be indicated by the circular arrows as being capable of 360 degrees of movement. Additionally, Cella teaches, in the context of aerial platforms, wherein said predefined angle is equal to 180 degrees (“The aim has been achieved by inserting, at an intermediate point of the boom supporting an aerial platform, a pivot means that allows rotation (preferably 360°) around an axis contained in the plane of the boom”, see pg. 2, lines 12-15 of Cella). It 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 to have included wherein said predefined angle is equal to 180 degrees in a vehicle disclosed by Araki according to the teachings of Cella in order to “provide a crane capable of allowing an aerial work bucket to reach positions hitherto inaccessible” (see pg. 2, lines 8-10).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki (US20190256335) in view of Radenslaben (US12187589).
Re claim 14, Araki fails to disclose the vehicle according to claim 10, wherein said moving means comprise a post (64) which is anchored with a first end portion to a supporting element (54) which is integral with a first annular race of said axial bearing, which is configured to rotate with respect to a second annular race of said axial bearing, which is integral with a second end of said main arm, opposite to said first end. Radenslaben teaches, in the context of ariel platforms, wherein moving means comprise a post (130 in Fig. 1A) which is anchored with a first end portion to a supporting element (see the gear teeth) which is integral with a first annular race of said axial bearing (128, see col. 5, line 64 to col. 6, line 2), which is configured to rotate with respect to a second annular race of said axial bearing, which is integral with a second end of said main arm 52, opposite to said first end). It 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 to have included the moving means comprising a post which is anchored with a first end portion to a supporting element which is integral with a first annular race of said axial bearing, which is configured to rotate with respect to a second annular race of said axial bearing, which is integral with a second end of said main arm, opposite to said first end according to the teachings of Radenslaben in order to rotatably couple the post (64) to the main arm (63) (see col. 5, lines 66-67 of Radenslaben).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki (US20190256335) in view of Radenslaben (US12187589) and further in view of Stewart (US20130313044).
Re claim 15, Araki in view of Radenslaben fails to disclose the vehicle according to claim 14, wherein said moving means comprise an auxiliary telescopic arm which is configured for the movement and a direct or indirect support of said platform. Araki does disclose that “In some embodiments, the work cage may include a traversing mechanism movable lateral direction to further widen the operating range” (see para. [0086] of Araki). Additionally, Stewart teaches (see e.g., Fig. 1) said moving means comprise an auxiliary telescopic arm (22) which is configured for the movement and a direct or indirect support of said platform (16). It 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 to have included the moving means comprise an auxiliary telescopic arm which is configured for the movement and a direct or indirect support of said platform in a vehicle disclosed by Araki in view of Radenslaben according to Stewart in order to “provide greater reach of the apparatus 10 around different types of bridge structures” (see para. [0016] of Stewart).
Re claim 16, Araki in view of Radenslaben and further in view of Stewart disclose the vehicle according to claim 15, wherein said auxiliary telescopic arm is articulated to a footing which is rotatably coupled to said post with a possibility of coaxial rotation with respect to said post (see para. [0100] of Araki: “the support post 70 includes the rotating post 71, which rotates about a vertical axis. Thus, the direction of the suspension frame 80 is changeable about the vertical axis by rotating the rotating post 71 to adjust the orientation of the work cage 10 for performing operations on, for example, wall surfaces”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki (US20190256335) in view of Priestley et al. (EP1026120).
Re claim 17, the vehicle according to claim 10, wherein said platform is associated with said moving means (64, 70) by way of a rotating stand (71), which is configured to support said platform in at least one first orientation, which can be adopted in said first working configuration, and in a second orientation, which can be adopted in said second working configuration (see para. [0100] of Araki: “the support post 70 includes the rotating post 71, which rotates about a vertical axis. Thus, the direction of the suspension frame 80 is changeable about the vertical axis by rotating the rotating post 71 to adjust the orientation of the work cage 10 for performing operations on, for example, wall surfaces”)
Araki fails to disclose wherein said second orientation can be obtained from said first orientation with a 180 degree rotation of said rotating stand. Priestley et al. teach, in the context of ariel platforms, wherein said second orientation can be obtained from said first orientation with a 180 degree rotation of said rotating stand (see para. [0021] of Priestley: “The platform 136 of the machine will rotate 90° in either direction in a level plane as indicated by arrows 150 and will move up and down with the jib boom 138 as indicated by arrows 152”). It 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 to have included wherein said second orientation can be obtained from said first orientation with a 180 degree rotation of said rotating stand in a vehicle disclosed by Araki according to the teachings of Priestley et al. in order to rotate the rotating stand about the moving means “while maintaining it in a substantially horizontal position”, see para. [0021] of Priestley et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ai et al. (US9360045) disclose a double row tapered roller thrust bearing for improved loading capacity. Blomqvist et al. (US4209210) disclose a self-aligning two row thrust roller bearing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ben Pezzlo whose telephone number is (571)272-9656. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 7 to 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 Daniel Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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.
/BAP/
Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634