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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/6/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-21 remain pending in the application.
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 pin-locked holes (see at least claim 21) 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 8, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6: “it comprises” should read “the device further comprises”
Claim 8: “the height” should read “a height”
Claim 21: as currently recited, the structures which are claimed are not completely clear. As best understood, it is interpreted that the claim requires a support mechanism that comprises two opposing handles connected by struts, the struts comprise toothed racks with holes that allow for slidable positioning, the handles comprise profiled handle connectors which connect to the struts, and the profiled handle connectors comprise pin-locked holes. For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as described above. Examiner recommends amending claim to more clearly recite the structures and their relationships to each other.
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 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:
• “locking mechanism” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “locking”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “locking” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the mechanism)
• “blocking member” as recited in at least claim 2 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “blocking”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “blocking” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the member)
• “support member” as recited in at least claim 4 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “support”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “support” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the member)
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (CN 210734716) in view of Barr (US 3724721), further in view of Song (CN 110721630), and further in view of Feng (CN 112021291).
Regarding claim 1, Cai discloses a device for opening bags containing loose materials, consisting of sharp-pointed elements (cutting tools 10; see figs. 2 and 4) mounted in at least one row and fixed on at least one profile (cutting tools 10 are mounted in multiple rows and columns across second cross supporting steel bars 9; see paragraph [0027] and figs. 2, 4), characterized in that the sharp-pointed elements are shaped like arrowheads (each cutting tool 10 has a point with a quadrangular prism/arrowhead shape; see paragraph [0027] and fig. 1) and ends of at least one profile in which they are embedded are attached to a perimeter of a lower frame of the device (cutting tools 10 are supported by second cross supporting steel bars 9 which are fixed in casing 1; see fig. 1 and paragraph [0027]), with a movable frame placed above the lower frame (support frame 5 is located above second cross supporting steel bars 9; see fig. 1), movably connected to the lower frame (lifting cylinder 8 drives support frame 5 to move up and down; see paragraphs [0027, 0035]) by means of pins placed at corners of the frames (connecting blocks 7; see fig. 1 and paragraph [0027]) and containing at least one profile with holes adapted to the various dimensions of the sharp-pointed elements (the gaps between first cross supporting steel bars 6 are positioned such that holes are created to allow cutting tools 10 to pass through; see fig. 4) and positioned over the profile with the sharp-pointed elements (the gaps between first cross supporting steel bars 6 are positioned above second cross supporting steel bars 9, which support cutting tools 10; see figs. 3 and 4).
Cai does not explicitly disclose wherein the sharp-pointed elements shaped like arrowheads are of alternating dimensions.
Barr discloses wherein the sharp-pointed elements shaped like arrowheads are of alternating dimensions (large teeth 27 and small teeth 28 alternate in a row; see fig. 2 and col. 2, line 64-col. 3, line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Cai in view of Barr to include alternating dimensions of the sharp-pointed elements. Barr discloses that the large teeth (large teeth 27) create tension by pulling or stretching the bag. The increased tension facilitates cutting by the small teeth (small teeth 28) in order to increase the overall cutting efficiency (col. 3, lines 3-9). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this teaching can be applied to the device of Cai to result in arrowheads with alternating dimensions in order to achieve the same effect.
Cai as modified does not explicitly disclose a locking mechanism.
Song discloses a locking mechanism (springs 409 are located on the bottom of support platform 407; see fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cai in view of Song to include a locking mechanism. Song discloses a mechanism which allows for elastic connection of the upper surface and the lower surface (see figs. 3-4). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that repeated loading of a heavy bag onto the machine would introduce stress into the upper and lower frames. Thus, it would be obvious to try various structural modifications to reduce internal stresses, such that machine failure is avoided. As further modified to include the mechanism of Song, the device of Cai would have a stronger overall structure that could better withstand the working loads of the device.
Cai as modified does not explicitly disclose handles attached to the lower frame.
Feng discloses handles (handrail 17; see fig. 1) attached to the lower frame (handrail 17 is attached to base 1, which corresponds to the lower frame; see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cai in view of Feng to include a handle attached to the lower frame. Attaching a handle to the frame of a device is a commonly known technique that can aid a user in maneuvering the device. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a handle, as taught by Feng, to the similar modified device of Cai. The yielded result of improved maneuverability would be expected by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Cai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Cai as modified further discloses that the movable frame comprises reinforcing ribs (first cross supporting steel bars 6; see fig. 4) disposed between an internal surface of the moveable frame (support frame 5 comprises first cross supporting steel bars 6; see fig. 4 and paragraph [0027]) and at least two surfaces of at least two profiles (see annotated portion of fig. 2 below) disposed perpendicularly to one another (the at least two profiles are disposed perpendicular to one another; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
507
683
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cai as modified does not explicitly disclose that the reinforcing ribs are disposed diagonally.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cai to make the reinforcing ribs diagonal since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). In the instant case, it does not appear that rearranging the reinforcing ribs to be diagonal would have any effect on the device’s ability to support and puncture bags. Therefore, such a modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Cai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Feng further discloses that the lower frame comprises support members (see annotated portion of fig. 1 below) positioned at the corners (supports are fixed to four corners of the base; see paragraph [0009]).
PNG
media_image2.png
270
581
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cai in view of Feng to include support members. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that support members provide a foundation for the lower frame. In the instant case, including the support members as taught by Feng would provide reinforcement to the modified device of Cai. Such a benefit would be useful because the improved reinforcement would better support heavy loads during operation.
Regarding claim 5, Cai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Cai as modified further discloses that the pins are ended on one side with a spherical swelling or a joint (connecting blocks 7 act as a joint between the lower frame and movable frame; see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Cai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Song further discloses that the locking mechanism is in the form of at least two springs (at least two springs are included in the mechanism; see fig. 4 and paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cai in view of Song to include a locking mechanism in the form of springs. Song discloses a mechanism which allows for elastic connection of the upper surface and the lower surface (see figs. 3-4). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that repeated loading of a heavy bag onto the machine would introduce stress into the upper and lower frames. Thus, it would be obvious to try various structural modifications to reduce internal stresses, such that machine failure is avoided. As further modified to include the mechanism of Song, the device of Cai would have a stronger overall structure that could better withstand the working loads of the device.
Regarding claim 11, Cai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Song further discloses that it comprises four springs (four springs are included in the mechanism, two on each respective support platform 407; see fig. 4 and paragraph [0059]) arranged between the lower frame and the movable frame, at the corners (the springs 409 are located between the moving material rack 401 and blanking plate 1; see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cai in view of Song to include a locking mechanism in the form of springs. Song discloses a mechanism which allows for elastic connection of the upper surface and the lower surface (see figs. 3-4). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that repeated loading of a heavy bag onto the machine would introduce stress into the upper and lower frames. Thus, it would be obvious to try various structural modifications to reduce internal stresses, such that machine failure is avoided. As further modified to include the mechanism of Song, the device of Cai would have a stronger overall structure that could better withstand the working loads of the device.
Regarding claim 12, Cai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Song further discloses that the pins connecting the lower frame to the movable frame are located inside springs arranged at the corners of the frames (springs 409 are wrapped around a positioning rod that passes through support platform 407; see fig. 4 and paragraph [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cai in view of Song to position the pins inside springs at the corners of the frames. Song discloses a mechanism which allows for elastic connection of the upper surface and the lower surface (see figs. 3-4). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that repeated loading of a heavy bag onto the machine would introduce stress into the upper and lower frames. Inclusion of springs at the connection point of the frames (pins arranged at the corners) will reduce the amount of stress in the machine. As further modified to include the mechanism of Song, the device of Cai would have a stronger overall structure that could better withstand the working loads of the device.
Regarding claim 13, Cai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Cai as modified further discloses that the device has two rows of sharp-pointed elements (cutting tools 10 are arranged in multiple rows; see figs. 2 and 4), the rows being at right angles to each other (the rows of cutting tools 10 are at right angles to one another; see figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 14, Cai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Barr further discloses that the sharp-pointed elements have alternating angle tip sizes from one another (large teeth 28 and small teeth 28 alternate, such that the size of the blade tips alternate relative to one another; see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Cai in view of Barr to include alternating dimensions of the sharp-pointed elements. Barr discloses that the large teeth (large teeth 27) create tension by pulling or stretching the bag. The increased tension facilitates cutting by the small teeth (small teeth 28) in order to increase the overall cutting efficiency (col. 3, lines 3-9). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this teaching can be applied to the device of Cai as modified to result in arrowheads with alternating angle tip sizes in order to achieve the same effect.
Regarding claim 15, Cai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Barr further discloses that sharp-pointed elements with a larger arrowhead angle and pointed elements with a smaller arrowhead angle are arranged alternately in a row (large teeth 27 and small teeth 28 alternate in a row; see fig. 2 and col. 2, line 64-col. 3, line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Cai in view of Barr to include alternating dimensions of the sharp-pointed elements. Barr discloses that the large teeth (large teeth 27) create tension by pulling or stretching the bag. The increased tension facilitates cutting by the small teeth (small teeth 28) in order to increase the overall cutting efficiency (col. 3, lines 3-9). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this teaching can be applied to the device of Cai as modified to result in arrowheads with alternating dimensions in order to achieve the same effect.
Regarding claim 19, Cai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Cai as modified does not explicitly disclose that the lower frame and the moveable frame are square-shaped.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cai to make the lower and movable frames square-shaped. Cai discloses a rectangular-shaped frame, as shown in figs. 2-5. It is noted that there is no clearly disclosed benefit to having a square-shaped frame, and thus it appears to be a simple design choice. Further, it has been held that changes in shape are “a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed [shape] was significant” (see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). Since there is no evidence indicating that the square shape of the frame is beneficial over that of the prior art, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find the modification obvious.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (CN 210734716) in view of Barr (US 3724721), further in view of Song (CN 110721630), further in view of Feng (CN 112021291), and further in view of Correale (US 20160027228).
Regarding claim 2, Cai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Cai as modified does not explicitly disclose that at least one foldable blocking member of the movable frame is mounted on at least one side of the lower frame.
Correale discloses that at least one foldable blocking member (locking bar 34; see paragraph [0029] and figs. 3, 3A) of the movable frame is mounted on at least one side of the lower frame (locking bar 34 is mounted on frame 12 and pivots into gate path 25 to block loading gate 20 from moving; see paragraph [0029] and figs. 3, 3A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cai in view of Correale to include a foldable blocking member. As taught by Correale, industrial machinery can be dangerous, thus prompting the inclusion of safety devices (see paragraph [0003]). The blocking member (locking bar 34) is part of a larger safety system designed to prevent unauthorized personnel from operating a potentially hazardous machine. The modified device of Cai is similar in that it has a frame with a movable portion, and so it is reasonable to include a similar safety feature that can prevent unwanted movement. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include the known blocking member of Correale in the modified device of Cai. The safer device yielded as a result would be readily predictable to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (CN 210734716) in view of Barr (US 3724721), further in view of Song (CN 110721630), further in view of Feng (CN 112021291), and further in view of Gao (CN 110143335).
Regarding claim 6, Cai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Cai as modified does not explicitly disclose that it comprises a bumper fixed to the lower frame.
Gao discloses that it comprises a bumper (support mechanism 300; see figs. 1-2) fixed to the lower frame (support mechanism 300 is affixed to tray 200; see figs. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cai in view of Gao to include a bumper. Gao further discloses that bags are hung on the bumper (support mechanism 300) in order to suspend the bag and facilitate unloading (see paragraphs [0028-0029]). Further, this eliminates the need for a gantry crane or other auxiliary equipment to manage the bags (see paragraph [0028]). Further, by adding a spring as taught by Song, the internal stresses applied to the bumper can be reduced. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably include a damping element, specifically a spring, to reduce stresses and reduce wear on the bumper.
Regarding claim 7, Cai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Cai as modified does not explicitly disclose that a bumper is in the form of a vertical section which is attached to the lower frame on one side and includes a bracket on a second side.
Gao discloses that a bumper is in the form of a vertical section (support mechanism 300; see figs. 1-2) which is attached to the lower frame on one side (support mechanism 300 is affixed to tray 200; see figs. 1 and 3) and includes a bracket on a second side (support mechanism 300 comprises hook 320; see figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cai in view of Gao to include a bumper. Gao further discloses that bags are hung on the bumper (support mechanism 300) in order to suspend the bag and facilitate unloading (see paragraphs [0028-0029]). Further, this eliminates the need for a gantry crane or other auxiliary equipment to manage the bags (see paragraph [0028]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably seek to include a bumper in order to reduce the number of auxiliary components necessary during operation.
Regarding claim 8, Cai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Cai as modified does not explicitly disclose that a bumper folds at the height of the movable frame.
Gao discloses that a bumper (support mechanism 300; see figs. 1-2) folds at the height of the movable frame (support mechanism 300 comprises pillar 310, which can be rotated to a point where it is level with respect to pallet 200; see fig. 3 and paragraphs [0031-0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cai in view of Gao to make the bumper foldable. Gao further discloses that the ability of the bumper (pillar 310) to fold reduces the amount of space that is occupied (see paragraph [0032]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the bumper in this way so as to save space.
Regarding claim 9, Cai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Cai as modified does not explicitly disclose a bumper.
Gao discloses a bumper (support mechanism 300; see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cai in view of Gao to include a bumper. Gao further discloses that bags are hung on the bumper (support mechanism 300) in order to suspend the bag and facilitate unloading (see paragraphs [0028-0029]). Further, this eliminates the need for a gantry crane or other auxiliary equipment to manage the bags (see paragraph [0028]). Further, by adding a spring as taught by Song, the internal stresses applied to the bumper can be reduced. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably include a damping element, specifically a spring, to reduce stresses and reduce wear on the bumper.
Cai as modified does not explicitly disclose that the bumper comprises a damping element in the form of a rubber element or at least one spring.
Song discloses a damping element in the form of a rubber element or at least one spring (springs 409; see fig. 4 and paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cai in view of Song to include a damping element. Song discloses a spring (springs 409) which acts as a damping element. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that damping elements such as springs are useful for reducing the strain on structural elements under load. In the instant case, when a bag is loaded onto the device, a load is applied to the bumper (support mechanism 300). Including a spring as part of the bumper would reduce the chance of damage to the machine due to heavy loads.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (CN 210734716) in view of Barr (US 3724721), further in view of Song (CN 110721630), further in view of Feng (CN 112021291), and further in view of Lutzow (US 20200354099).
Regarding claim 16, Cai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Cai as modified does not explicitly disclose that the sharp-pointed elements are detachably mounted on the profile.
Lutzow discloses that the sharp-pointed elements are detachably mounted on the profile (blade 24 may be removably attached to top surface 30; see paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cai in view of Lutzow to include detachably mounted sharp-pointed elements. Lutzow further discloses that removably attached blades allow for easy replacement (see paragraph [0025]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that making the sharp-pointed elements of Cai as modified would result in the same benefit, thus making the modification obvious.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (CN 210734716) in view of Barr (US 3724721), further in view of Song (CN 110721630), further in view of Feng (CN 112021291), and further in view of Baxter (US 20190210239).
Regarding claim 17, Cai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Cai as modified does not explicitly disclose that the sharp-pointed elements are mounted on the profile movably in relation to the holes.
Baxter discloses that the sharp-pointed elements are mounted on the profile movably in relation to the holes (knife insert 60 is movable within slot 74; see figs. 7-8 and paragraph [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cai in view of Baxter to make the sharp-pointed element movably mounted. As shown in figs. 7-8 of Baxter, it is known within the art to have movable blades that are not dislodged during operation (see paragraph [0035]). It would be a simple substitution of cutting elements for a person having ordinary skill in the art to replace the completely stationary blades of Cai for the movable blades of Baxter.
Regarding claim 18, Cai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Cai as modified does not explicitly disclose that the sharp-pointed elements are made of steel.
Baxter discloses that the sharp-pointed elements are made of steel (insert 60 is preferably made from materials resistant to cracking, chipping, and corrosion, such as 17-4 or 410 stainless steel; see paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cai in view of Baxter to make the sharp-pointed elements from steel since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416). Baxter discloses that knives are preferably made from materials that are resistant to cracking, chipping, and corrosion (see paragraph [0049]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a type of stainless steel as disclosed by Baxter in the modified device of Cai, since it is desirable to use a material resistant to wear.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (CN 210734716) in view of Barr (US 3724721), further in view of Song (CN 110721630), further in view of Feng (CN 112021291), and further in view of Breitkrentz (US 1656415).
Regarding claim 20, Cai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Cai as modified does not explicitly disclose that the device comprises a support mechanism enabling the device to be mounted on a container or a semi-trailer.
Breitkrentz discloses that the device comprises a support mechanism (main frame 4; see fig. 2) enabling the device to be mounted on a container or a semi-trailer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cai in view of Breitkrentz to include a support mechanism on the device. The support mechanism improves handling of the device by making it more maneuverable, particularly during use (see pg. 1, lines 81-84). Further, the structure disclosed by Breitkrentz is known in the art and thus would be useful for improving the similar modified device of Cai in the same way. A person having ordinary skill in the art would expect the inclusion of a support mechanism to improve handling (as disclosed by Breitkrentz), thus prompting the modification to the similar device of Cai.
Examiner notes that the recitation regarding the support mechanism enable the device to be mounted on a container or semi-trailer appears to be intended use and does not impose any structural limitations.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (CN 210734716) in view of Barr (US 3724721), further in view of Song (CN 110721630), further in view of Feng (CN 112021291), further in view of Breitkrentz (US 1656415), and further in view of Hutchison (US 20080264284).
Regarding claim 21, Cai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 20 as described in the rejection above.
Breitkrentz further discloses that the support mechanism of the device comprises two opposing handles connected by struts (handles 9 are connected via main frame 4; see fig. 1-2) with holes slidably positioned in toothed racks (slots 5 are positioned in main frame 4, which allows for small frame D to be repositioned; see figs. 2 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cai in view of Breitkrentz to include a support mechanism on the device. The support mechanism includes handles which improve handling of the device by making it more maneuverable, particularly during use (see pg. 1, lines 81-84). Further, the structure disclosed by Breitkrentz is known in the art and thus would be useful for improving the similar modified device of Cai in the same way. A person having ordinary skill in the art would expect the inclusion of a support mechanism to improve handling (as disclosed by Breitkrentz), thus prompting the modification to the similar device of Cai.
Cai as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the handles comprise profiled handles connectors with the struts, which connectors comprise pin-locked holes.
Hutchison discloses wherein the handles comprise profiled handles connectors with the struts, which connectors comprise pin-locked holes (handles 98 have a portion which is detachably secured to plate 81 via bolts; see paragraph [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Cai in view of Hutchison to include handles with pin-locked holes. Hutchison further discloses that the handles can be attached to an alternate location of the plate or can be left off entirely (see paragraph [0080]). This allows for a user to modify the support structure as needed and thus, would be an obvious modification to a person having ordinary skill in the art in order to improve versatility of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571)272-4502. 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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724