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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the amendments filed on 26 June 2025. Claims 1-2, 5 and 7 are presently pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
Prior Art Rejection
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 26 June 2025, with respect to rejection (s) of claim 1, 2, 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the rejection reconstructs the subject matter of claim 1 by selectively combining features from unrelated references without any real teaching or motivation in the prior art to do so. Applicant argues that claim elements:
a bucket and a lifting device that is configured to move the bucket between a lowered position and a raised position, the lifting device being powered by a power source; wherein, in a transversal direction of the tipper truck, the predetermined distance is at least equal to a maximal height of the bucket in the raised position,
in the claimed combination are not described by the cited references.
Yoon discloses a tipper truck comprising a bucket and a lifting device configured to move the bucket between a lowered position and a raised position, the lifting being powered by a power source. Yoon also discloses a safety device that allows to allow or disconnect the power supply to the hydraulic actuating means (40) in accordance with the change of the contact point of the switching contact (32c) [Claim 3].
Yoon discloses first detecting an obstacle in the vicinity of the deck when ascending, and then artificially controlling the operation of the deck according to the presence or absence of the obstacle, the driver alone The purpose is to ensure that the deck can be raised and lowered safely [0018]. Thus, Yoon anticipates bucket being in the lower position and the detection system to scan for obstruction prior to the raising of the bucket.
While Yoon discloses the safety device to be triggered by a mechanical boom, Imaizumi teaches the use of electronic, non-contact proximity sensors.
Applicant agrees that the proximity sensors for object detection around a work vehicle are taught by Imaizumi, but argues that it is directed to a wheel loader and not a tipper truck. Imaizumi teaches a work vehicle periphery monitoring system that includes alarm range storage unit that stores an alarm range (peripheral distance / detection range) and an alarm control unit that causes an alarm device to output an alarm when an object is present in the alarm range. For a person skilled in the art, a tipper truck is a work vehicle and teachings of Imaizumi fall within the related art. Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant that Imaizumi is not related art.
Applicant argues that the requirement that the cut-off means only activate when both the bucket is in the lowered position and a foreign body is detected within a zone defined by the maximal bucket height in the transversal direction is a significant safety improvement. Imaizumi teaches peripheral detection of foreign body within a predetermined distance and the triggering of a safety device. Imaizumi teaches [Col 5, line 27-29] A plurality of non-contact sensors 22 are mounted on the wheel loader 1 and detect an object present in the periphery of the wheel loader 1, and [Col 4, Line 47-51] The wheel loader 1 includes a periphery monitoring system 100 that monitors the periphery of the wheel loader 1 and makes the driver recognize a situation in the periphery of the wheel loader 1. The periphery monitoring system 100 includes an object detection device 20). Imaizumi teaches using a predetermined distance to generate an alert (see at least [Col 6, line 25-27] an alarm range specifying unit 75 as described later specifies an alarm range TA in the detection region D, and an alarm range storage unit that stores an alarm range (predetermined distance)).
Applicant accepts that CCAA Guidelines suggest setting-up exclusion zones for safety around a tipper truck, but argues that CCAA does not teach technical means for implementing such zones. Imaizumi teaches setting up of the zone (see at least [Col. 1, Line 59-63] an alarm range storage unit that stores an alarm range, in which an alarm output is required when an object is present, in a detection range of an object detection device that detects an object present in a periphery of a work vehicle).
One of ordinary skill in the art can combine Yoon's safety device with electronic proximity sensors, alarm storage unit to store the predetermined distance and the alarm/alert system as taught by Imaizumi and use the CCAA's exclusion zone recommendations as the predetermined distance.
Therefore applicants’ arguments are not persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 100401831 B1 Yoon Tae-soo et. al (“Yoon”) in view of US 11,562,635 Imaizumi et. al (“Imaizumi”) and CCAA Guidelines for End Tipper Unloading Exclusion Zones, NPL (“CCAA”).
As per Claim 1,
Yoon discloses
the tipper truck comprises a bucket and a lifting device that is configured to move the bucket between a lowered position and a raised position ([0015] sand loading area of deck (Deck) of the truck there is to be raised or lowered to the loading easier, which is of the hydraulic cylinder the lifting device and [Fig. 1])
lifting device being powered by a power source, ([0019] and the power energization increases the deck via a power supplied from a means of orientation for achieving the object as described above, and [0024] the second switching relay 31 and the connection relay 33 is connected to each to form a battery 21and a separate power supply circuit.)
characterized in that the safety device comprises cut-off means configured to cut-off the lifting device from the power source (see at least [0019] allow the relay to disconnect the power supply to the energization of the hydraulic operation means, and [Claim 3] which allows to cut off the energization of power to the hydraulic drive unit (40)) when the bucket is in the lowered position and when the safety device is in the triggered state (see at least [0039] in addition, the rise of the deck 12 through the above process as the time to the process is terminated, and then lowering the deck, shown in Figure 5, and [0039] raising operation of the deck (12) to the hydraulic actuation means 40, the medium is unable to be performed).
Yoon does not disclose,
comprises proximity sensors, configured to detect a foreign body within a predetermined distance of the tipper truck, the safety device being in a triggered state when a foreign body is detected within the predetermined distance by at least one of the proximity sensors.
Imaizumi teaches,
the safety device comprises proximity sensors, configured to detect a foreign body within a predetermined distance of the tipper truck, (see at least [Col 5, line 27-29] A plurality of non-contact sensors 22 are mounted on the wheel loader 1 and detect an object present in the periphery of the wheel loader 1, and [Col 4, Line 47-51] The wheel loader 1 includes a periphery monitoring system 100 that monitors the periphery of the wheel loader 1 and makes the driver recognize a situation in the periphery of the wheel loader 1. The periphery monitoring system 100 includes an object detection device 20)
the safety device being in a triggered state when a foreign body is detected within the predetermined distance by at least one of the proximity sensors, ([Col 6, line 25-27] Further, an alarm range specifying unit 75 as described later specifies an alarm range TA in the detection region D)
Thus, Yoon discloses a tipper truck with safety device to cutoff power to the lifting device and Imaizumi teaches safety device comprises proximity sensors to detect foreign body.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the invention as disclosed as disclosed by Yoon with safety device comprising of peripheral sensors as taught by Imaizumi, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it makes the driver recognize a situation in the periphery of the wheel loader [Col. 4, Line 49-51]).
Yoon does not disclose,
wherein, in a transversal direction of the tipper truck, the predetermined distance is at least equal to a maximal height of the bucket in the raised position.
CCAA teaches,
wherein, in a transversal direction of the tipper truck, the predetermined distance is at least equal to a maximal height of the bucket in the raised position (see at least [Page 3] CCAA proposes a standard 15 metre Exclusion Zone at all times for all personnel and plant to the sides of the tipper truck to be enforced only when it is actually tipping/unloading material. The 15 metre End Tipper Unloading Exclusion Zones provides for a safe environment even for semi’s which have the highest tipping height of typically 10 metres, [Page 4] Fall Zone : At no time should the End Tipper Unloading Exclusion Zone by less than the fall zone of the truck/trailer with the body raised. This fall zone varies with truck/tipper configuration. Typical elevated height for various truck configurations are provided, and Figure: End Tipper Unloading Exclusion Zones – side view : No Go Zone at least the fall zone of the truck/trailer with the body raised)
PNG
media_image1.png
313
495
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, Yoon discloses a tipper truck with safety device to cutoff power to the lifting device and CCAA teaches a No Go / Exclusion Zone at least equal to the maximal height of the bucket in the raised position.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the invention as disclosed as disclosed by Yoon with the exclusion zone in the transversal direction at least equal to a maximal height of the bucker in the raised position as taught by CCAA, with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an essential safety procedure to enforce the End Tipper Unloading Exclusion Zones for all personnel during the unloading process[Page 1]).
As per Claim 2,
Yoon discloses,
the safety device according to claim 1, wherein the cut-off means are an air-gap switch (see at least [0023] switching takes place via a change of the switching contact (32c) and [Figure 2] switching contact 32.)
As per Claim 5,
Yoon does not disclose,
the predetermined distance varies according to an orientation around the tipper truck.
CCAA teaches,
the predetermined distance varies according to an orientation around the tipper truck (see at least [Page 2]: Standard end tipper unloading exclusion zones = 15 metres to the side, 5 metres to the rear and 5 metres in front, [Page 3] Recommended CCAA end tipper unloading exclusion zones and Figure: End Tipper Exclusion Zones – helicopter view)
PNG
media_image2.png
380
489
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, Yoon discloses a tipper truck with safety device to cutoff power to the lifting device and CCAA teaches a predetermined distance that varies according to an orientation around the tipper truck.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the invention as disclosed as disclosed by Yoon with the exclusion zones as taught by CCAA, with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an essential safety procedure to enforce the End Tipper Unloading Exclusion Zones for all personnel during the unloading process[Page 1]).
As per Claim 7,
Yoon discloses,
The tipper truck according to claim 1, wherein: the lifting device is linked to the power source by an electrical connection, the cut-off means are arranged on the electrical connection and are configured to physically open the electrical connection. (see at least [0019] allow the relay to disconnect the power supply to the energization of the hydraulic operation means, and [Claim 3] which allows to cut off the energization of power to the hydraulic drive unit (40)).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ASHUTOSH PANDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6269. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00am -5:00 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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 5712721516. 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.
/A.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668