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 .
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.
Claim 14 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 14 recites the limitation "The method according to claim 12". Claim 12 is not directed towards a method, instead being directed towards “the grab device according to claim 1”. For the purposes of examination, examiner will interpret the dependency of claim 14 to be directed towards “the grab device according to claim 12” to maintain antecedent basis for the element of “the rope grab”, which is not present in the language of method claim 13.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-2, 7-8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ichiba et al as part of JP 200025973 A, hereinafter referred to as Ichiba.
Regrading Claim 1: Ichiba teaches of a grab device with a carrier implement and a rope grab arranged thereon, which has:
a grab frame which is held on the carrier implement via a holding rope (Fig. 1, bucket 13 is held onto the excavating machine via support rope 14),
at least two grab shovels which are pivotably supported on a lower end of the grab frame between a closed position and an open position (Fig. 7, bucket 13 is shown to have at least two grab shovels pivotally connected at the lower end),
And an actuating means with an actuating rope for pivoting the grab shovels (Fig. 1, opening/closing drum 2 actuates opening/closing rope 15 to open/close the shovels of bucket 13),
wherein an actuating rope is guided from the carrier implement to the actuating means (Fig. 1, opening/closing rope 15 is guided from the bucket 13 to the opening/closing drum 15 via pulleys shown above bucket 13, which are part of the excavating machine)
and the carrier implement has a driven first rope winch for the holding rope and a driven second rope winch for the actuating rope (Fig. 1, support drum 1 operates support rope 14 and opening/closing drum 2 operates opening/closing rope 15),
a first detection means for detecting a first rope force on the holding rope and a second detection means for detecting a second rope force on the actuating rope are provided (Paragraph 25, an aspect of the invention details a support tension detection unit for the support rope 14 and an opening/closing tension detecting means for the opening/closing rope 15)
and a control means is provided which is connected to the first detection means, the second detection means, the first rope winch and the second rope winch and which, depending on the detected first rope force on the holding rope and the detected second rope force on the actuating rope, is designed to activate the first rope winch and/or the second rope winch according to a control program specification (Paragraph 25-26; Fig. 1, operation control device 13 operates the bucket by signals received from the tension detection units).
Regarding Claim 2: Ichiba teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Ichiba further teaches wherein by the control program specification of the control means a defined ratio between the first rope force in the holding rope and the second rope force in the actuating rope is specified and can be set (Paragraph 25/31, the operational control device comprises a calculating means to compare the opening/closing tension to the supporting rope tension, from which a predetermined closing degree of the bucket is automatically carried).
Regarding Claim 7: Ichiba teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Ichiba further teaches wherein the control means is designed with an automatic program, through which the rope grab can be moved automatically to a removal location (Paragraph 96, The bucket is controlled automatically to close the bucket and raise from its work position to remove the material from the ground).
Regarding Claim 13: Ichiba teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Ichiba further teaches wherein a grab device according to claim 1 is employed, wherein a first rope force on the holding rope is detected by means of a first detection means and a second rope force on the actuating rope is detected by means of a second detection means (Paragraph 25, an aspect of the invention details a support tension detection unit for the support rope 14 and an opening/closing tension detecting means for the opening/closing rope 15),
And the first detection means, the second detection means, the first rope winch and the second rope winch are connected to a control means, by which, depending on the detected first rope force on the holding rope and the detected second rope force on the actuating rope, the first rope winch and/or the second rope winch are activated according to a control program specification (Paragraph 25-26; Fig. 1, operation control device 13 operates the bucket by signals received from the tension detection units).
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.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichiba.
Regarding Claim 3: Ichiba teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
While Ichiba does not specifically teach that the forces in the holding rope and the actuating rope being equal, equations are provided to allow the controller to calculate the tension in the opening/closing rope and adjust the speed of the opening/closing winch in response (Ichiba: Paragraph 78, the tension TK in the rope is calculated and used to control the pressure in open/close motor 4, which operates the opening/closing drum 2; Paragraph 84, this tension is variable, ranging from 0 when the bucket is open to T when it is closed), and as such, the ratio of the value of the tension in the holding rope to the tension in the actuating rope would be a results-effective variable. In light of such a determination, such a system may result in the variable tension in the actuating rope becoming matched with the tension in the holding rope as it is adjusted by the controller, and would come about as the result of routine experimentation and operation of the device as disclosed by Ichiba.
Claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichiba in view of Goto et al as part of US 20210047151 A1, hereinafter referred to as Goto.
Regarding Claim 6: Ichiba teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Ichiba does not specifically mention a at least one further detection means is provided, in particular for detecting a vertical position of the rope grab, a distance and/or an angular position of the rope grab with respect to the carrier implement.
Goto teaches of a crane suspended implement controlled by ropes, wherein a rope is controlled by an actuating means and guided to an implement from a carrier device (Goto: fig. 1, main wire rope 14 is actuated by main winch 13, which is guided from the wight W at the end of the main wire ripe 14 to the body of crane 1), wherein a detection means is provided, in particular for detecting a vertical position of the implement at the end of the rope, and/or a distance of the implement with respect to the carrier implement (Goto: Paragraph 64, a main reeling out detection sensor 29 detects the amount of main wire rope 14 has been let out from main winch 13, and therefore the distance to the body of the crane 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to modify the disclosure of Ichiba to include the detector taught by Goto to allow for multiple length measurements of the rope to be calculated with a single detector (Goto: Paragraph 9, it is advantageous to manufacturing, measurement, and complexity of the system to minimize the number of detectors needed to gather data to perform calculations). Such a modification would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of measuring the vertical position of the rope grab or the distance of the rope grab to the carrier implement ((MPEP 2143, Subsection I, A).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichiba in view of Sirjola as part of US 6023862 A, hereinafter referred to as Sirjola.
Regarding Claim 8: Ichiba teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
While Ichiba does not specify the winding directions of the respective first and second winches.
Sirjola teaches of a cable operated grab device with an actuating rope and a holding rope (Sirjola: Fig. 1-3, rope bucket 5 is supported by hoist ropes 18 and 19 and operated by close ropes 26 and 27), wherein the holding rope and actuating rope have a first driven rope winch and second driven rope winch respectively (Sirjola: Fig. 1-3, closing drums 20 and 21 move the closing ropes 26 and 27, hoist drums 12 and 13 move the hoist ropes 18 and 19), wherein the holding rope on the first rope winch has a first winding which is opposed to a second winding of the actuating rope on the second rope winch (Sirjola: Fig. 1-3, all winding drums are shown to rotate in opposing directions between mechanisms 6 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the unspecified winding direction taught by Ichiba with the specific example of opposing winding directions taught by Sirjola (Fig. 1-3, all winding drums are shown to rotate in opposing directions between mechanisms 6 and 7). Such a modification would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of having a first winch winding direction opposed with a second winch winding direction as part of a rope operated grab bucket apparatus.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichiba in view of Fujioka as part of JP 2004293069 A, hereinafter referred to as Fujioka.
Regarding Claim 9: Ichiba teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
While Ichiba does imply a sliding mechanism connected to the grab shovels of the apparatus in Fig. 7 of the disclosure, no specific details are shared with regard to this structure.
Fujioka teaches of a grab frame which is held on the carrier implement via a holding rope (Fujioka: Fig. 1, upper frame 1 supports lower frame 2 and bucket frame 21 via link arms 4),
at least two grab shovels which are pivotably supported on a lower end of the grab frame between a closed position and an open position (Fujioka: Fig. 1, excavating blades 3 are pivotally supported on the lower end of frame 2),
and an actuating means with an actuating rope for pivoting the grab shovels (Fujioka: Fig. 1, open/close rope 7 moves downward to close the excavating blades 3),
wherein an actuating rope is guided from the carrier implement to the actuating means (Fujioka: Paragraph 27, support rope 6 and open/close rope 7 are wound by an unspecified winding means as part of the larger excavation machine),
wherein the actuating means has an actuating carriage which is connected to the grab shovels via a linkage mechanism and in that the actuating carriage is displaceable along the grab frame for pivoting the grab shovels (Fujioka: Fig. 1, opening/closing rope 7 is connected to an upper frame 1, which is connected to the excavation blades 3 via link arms 4; upper frame 1 is displaceable along the vertical axis of shell 32 along guide posts 8, which operate the opening/closing movement of the excavation blades 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the generic and unspecified bucket structure taught by Ichiba with the specific bucket and actuating carriage structure taught by Fujioka to improve the penetration efficiency of the grab device (Fujioka: Paragraph 8, the structure of the open/closing drive improves the effectiveness of the blades penetrating into the ground). Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of creating an implement with an actuating carriage to operate the open/close mechanism of the bucket (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding Claim 10: Ichiba in view of Fujioka teaches of the apparatus described in claim 9.
In light of the modifications made above in claim 9, Fujioka further teaches wherein on the actuating carriage a pulley block arrangement is provided, with which a force increase for closing and/or opening the grab shovels can be generated (Fujioka: Paragraph 8, an improvement to the opening/closing drive structure is a present feature of the invention, which aids in effectively digging into the ground to improve excavating ability).
Claims 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichiba in view of Rohr as part of US 20050000124 A1, hereinafter referred to as Rohr.
Regarding Claim 11: Ichiba teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
While Ichiba does state that an operator controls the device as part of the disclosure, Ichiba does not disclose any specific detail about operator controls for the apparatus.
Rohr teaches of a grab bucket supported by ropes and operated by an actuating means, characterized in that an operating panel for manual control to actuate the actuating means is provided (Rohr: paragraph 5, the operator of the excavator can control the half scoops manually in the event the half scoops do not close properly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the unspecified operator control means of Ichiba with the specified operator control means disclosed by Rohr to allow an operator to monitor the bucket in real time, allowing for timely reaction to errors (Rohr: Paragraph 5, the display allows the operator to recognize if the half scoops have not completely closed, and allows for proper countermeasures to be initiated). Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of allowing an operator to control the actuation of the rope grab (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding Claim 12: Ichiba teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
While Ichiba does state that an operator controls the device as part of the disclosure, Ichiba does not disclose any specific detail about operator controls for the apparatus.
Rohr teaches of a grab bucket supported by ropes and operated by an actuating means, wherein for operation a display screen for the control means is provided (Rohr: Paragraph 5, Paragraph 22, a screen or display is provided in the operator cabin, connected to the control means).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the unspecified operator control means of Ichiba with the specified operator control means disclosed by Rohr to allow the operator to quickly correct mechanical errors in the bucket (Rohr: Paragraph 5, the operator may initiate countermeasures in the event that the bucket does not close properly). Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of providing a display screen for the control means of the grab device (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding Claim 14: Ichiba in view of Rohr teaches of the apparatus described in claim 12.
Ichiba further teaches wherein by means of the rope grab ground is removed and, in particular, a trench is produced in the ground (Ichiba: Fig. 14, it is shown that after the bucket 13 is wound up, a trench or hole is left behind in the earth).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 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.
Regarding claim 4 and 5, while actuation control methods are well known in prior art, no specific control means for a turning movement of the rope grab along a vertical longitudinal axis was found, nor of a detector for measuring that rotational position or change in rotational position of the rope grab.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Grospas as part of US 3303590 A teaches of a rope grab apparatus, comprising a grab frame held on a carrier implement via a holding rope, at least two grab shovels which are pivotably supported on a lower end of the grab frame between a closed and open position, and an actuating means with an actuating rope for pivoting the grab shovels, wherein an actuating rope is guided from the carrier implement to the actuating means.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN ANTHONY BREGEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0922. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 Eastern, M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher J Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EVAN A BREGEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671