DETAILED ACTION
This action is a first action on the merits. The preliminary amendment filed on Oct 25, 2023 has been entered. Claims 1-15 are pending and addressed below.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
This action is a 371 National Stage Entry of PCT No.EP2022/025166 filed April 21, 2022 and claims foreign priority to United Kingdom Patent Application No. GB210592.9 filed April 26, 2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on October 25, 2023 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The recitation of “the dump body” in line 3 should likely be --the body-- to provide proper antecedent basis with “A body” as recited in line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: The recitation of “the dump body” in line 3 should likely be --the body-- to provide proper antecedent basis with “A body” as recited in line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 11, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kempf, DE 10 2018 122 542 A1 (hereinafter Kempf) (all citations are to the English translation dated 2025).
Claim 1: Kempf discloses body (tipping bridge 1) for a machine (commercial vehicle 2), the body comprising:
a front wall (flat side 7 against cab shown in Fig 1) at a front end of the body (see Fig 1, 5a);
first and second side walls (flat walls 4, 5) extending from the front wall (7) to a rear end (at 6) of the dump body (see Fig 1, 2 6), the first and second side walls (4, 5) each comprising a top side rail (support elements 13); and
a base (flat bottom 3) extending from the front wall (7) to the rear end (at 6) and between the first and second side walls (4, 5) such that the front wall (7), first and second side walls (4, 5) and base (3) at least partially form a body cavity (loading space 8) for receiving material (for receiving bulk goods, see abstract, Fig 1-2, 6), wherein:
each top side rail (13) comprises an upper side surface (top part of side walls 4, 5, Fig 2) and a flange (transition area 13d and overlap area 13f) extending upwardly from the upper side surface adjacent to the body cavity (8), the upper side surface extending downwardly and outwardly away from the flange (13d, 13f) for directing material from the top side rail and away from the body cavity (8) (as shown in Fig 2, 3b top part of side walls 4, 5, would necessarily direct material away from the loading space 8).
Claim 3: Kempf discloses wherein the first and second side walls (4, 5) each comprise an inner side plate (inner plate 9) bounding the body cavity (8), the inner side plate (9) extending beyond the upper side surface to form the flange (13d) (as shown in Fig 2).
Claim 5: Kempf discloses wherein the upper side surface (top part of side walls 4, 5, Fig 2) extends downwardly and outwardly away from the flange (13d) at an angle greater than 90 degrees to the flange (as shown in Fig 2).
Claim 6: Kempf discloses the dump body (1) comprises a longitudinal axis extending from the front end (side 7) to the rear end (side 6) (parallel to arrow L,F, see Fig 1, 4a, 5a) and a lateral axis (parallel to cross section shown in Fig 2) perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (see Fig 1) and along which the first side wall (4) is separated from the second side wall (5) (as shown in Fig 2).
Claim 7: Kempf discloses the in the upper side surface (top part of side walls 4, 5, Fig 2) extends outwardly away from the flange (13d, 13f) and downwardly at an acute upper side surface angle to the lateral axis (from side wall 4 to side wall 5 as shown in Fig 2) for directing material off the top side rail and away from the body cavity (as shown in Fig 2, material would necessarily by directed off the top part of side walls 4, 5, due to the surface angle).
Claim 11: Kempf discloses the first and second side walls (sides 4, 5) each comprise an outer side surface (outer wall element 11), the upper side surface (top part of side walls 4, 5, Fig 2) extending from the flange (13d) to the outer side surface (10) (as seen in Fig 2).
Claim 13: Kempf discloses wherein the first and second side walls (4, 5) each comprise an outer side plate (outer wall elements 10 is at least an insulating layer 11), the outer side plate (10) comprising the upper side surface (top part of side walls 4, 5, Fig 2) and outer side surface (10) (as shown in Fig 2, 3b).
Claim 14: Kempf discloses wherein the body (1) comprises a dump body or an ejector body (tipping bridge 1, see abstract, Fig 1, pg 1-2).
Claim 15: Kempf discloses machine comprising a body (tipping bridge 1) mounted to a chassis (commercial vehicle 2, as shown in Fig 1), the body comprising:
a front wall (flat side 7 against cab shown in Fig 1) at a front end of the body (see Fig 1, 5a);
first and second side walls (flat walls 4, 5) extending from the front wall (7) to a rear end (at 6) of the dump body (see Fig 1, 2 6), the first and second side walls (4, 5) each comprising a top side rail (support elements 13); and
a base (flat bottom 3) extending from the front wall (7) to the rear end (at 6) and between the first and second side walls (4, 5) such that the front wall (7), first and second side walls (4, 5) and base (3) at least partially form a body cavity (loading space 8) for receiving material (for receiving bulk goods, see abstract, Fig 1-2, 6), wherein:
each top side rail (13) comprises an upper side surface (top part of side walls 4, 5, Fig 2) and a flange (transition area 13d and overlap area 13f) extending upwardly from the upper side surface adjacent to the body cavity (8), the upper side surface extending downwardly and outwardly away from the flange (13d, 13f) for directing material from the top side rail and away from the body cavity (8) (as shown in Fig 2, top part of side walls 4, 5, would necessarily direct material away from the loading space 8).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kempf in view Lemstrom, EP 3072738 A1 (hereinafter Lemstrom).
Claim 2: Kempf is silent as to the flange comprises hardened steel.
Lemstrom discloses a body comprised of high-strength steel, and inner surface plate (41) of hardened steel (hardened wear-resistant steel, par [0040]) and lower surface plate (21) of hardened steel (such as hardened high-strength steel, par [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the material of the flange to be comprised of hardened steel as disclosed by Lemstrom, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and choosing a hardened steel for the flange would have yielded the predictable results of increasing the strength and wearability of the flange.
Claim 4: Kempf is silent as to each inner side plate comprises hardened steel.
Lemstrom discloses a body comprised of high-strength steel, and inner surface plate (41) of hardened steel (hardened wear-resistant steel, par [0040]) and lower surface plate (21) of hardened steel (such as hardened high-strength steel, par [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the material of the inner side plate to be comprised of hardened steel as disclosed by Lemstrom, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and choosing a hardened steel for the inner side plate would have yielded the predictable results of increasing the strength and wearability of the flange.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kempf.
Claim 9: Kempf disclose the upper side surface angle (see Fig 2)
Kempf is silent as to the upper side surface angle is in the range from 20 degrees to 40 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the upper side surface angle of Kempf to be on a range from 20 to 40 degrees as selecting a given upper side surface angle would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success as there are but finite number of identified predictable potential solutions.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kempf in view of Hyde et al., US 2014/0054925 (hereinafter Hyde).
Claim 12: Kempf fails to disclose an outer upper side surface edge between the upper side surface and outer side surface is curved.
Hyde discloses a truck body (200) with first and second side walls (left side wall 222, right side wall 224). Each of the first and second side walls (left side wall 222, right side wall 224) comprise an outer upper side surface (top rail or top edge 250) that curves downwardly from the highest point near the payload bed (212) to a lowest point at or near the rear of the payload bed (212) (see par [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the outer upper side surface edge of Kempf to be curved as disclosed by Hyde, as this modification would have yielded the predictable results of a curved outer upper side surface to help prevent contact and any resultant damage between loading machinery and the side walls as well as improving loading efficiency, reducing lifting requirements and decreasing loading cycles (see Hyde, par [0059]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 10 includes allowable subject matter over the closest prior art as discussed above.
Kempf fails to disclosed wherein the flange is harder than the upper side surface.
In particular, the flange (13d) and the upper side surface (top part of side walls 4, 5, Fig 2) of Kempf appear to be made from the same material. As both components are subject to high wear and abrasion from falling material , it would be not have been obvious to make the flange harder than the upper side surface.
Lemstrom discloses an upper side surface (43) made of hardened high strength steel such as S650 (par [0038]), but does not disclose a flange. Further, although Lemstrom discloses the use of different hardened high-strength steel, it does not disclose the use of multiple materials of different hardness on the upper side surface.
Kempf and Lemstrom fails to suggest alone, or in combination, the limitations of claim 10.
Conclusion
Claims 1-9 and 11-15 are rejected. Claims 1, 6, and 10 is objected to. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE N BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1623. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 pm 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, Tara E Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/CAROLINE N BUTCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676