Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “200” has been used to different parts in figure 2. 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. 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.
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 2nd collar (201) attached to the attachment (103) (claim 1 and dependent claims at least)must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claims. 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 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.
Claims 1-6 are 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.
Re claim 1, the 2nd collar (201) attached to the attachment (103) is not shown in the figures and it is unclear how it would work as described in the original specification.
For sake of examination, the claims are interpreted as shown in the art rejections below.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2,6-8,13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Seki (US 9,976,286).
Re claim 1, Seki teaches a boom extension (figure 10-13) for a mini excavator 1, comprising: a boom extension 90 positioned between an attachment 33 and a boom 32 of a mini excavator, the boom extension attached to the attachment via a first collar 94 and attached to the attachment via a second collar (94 on other side,39,40A), wherein the attachment of the boom extension permits the normal operation of the mini excavator.
Re claims 2,8, Seki teaches the boom extension is a pin-on boom extension.
Re claim 6, Seki teaches the attachment is pivotally engaged to the boom extension via a pin (94,41A).
Re claim 7, Seki teaches a boom extension (figure 10-13) for a mini excavator 1, comprising: a boom extension 90 to extend the length of a boom of a mini excavator, the boom extension positioned between an attachment 33 and a boom 32 of a mini excavator; a first collar 94 to attach a first end of the boom extension to the attachment; a second collar 39,40A to attach a second end of the boom extension to the boom; wherein the attachment of the boom extension permits the normal operation of the mini excavator.
Re claim 13, Seki teaches an inherent method for attaching a boom extension (figures 10-13 vs figures 1,6) to a mini excavator, comprising: removing an attachment pin 39 and a cylinder pin 36B (see figures) to disengage an attachment 33 from a boom 32 of a mini excavator 1; installing a boom extension 90 to the boom at a second end of the boom extension; and re-engaging the attachment to a first end of the boom extension.
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 3,5,9,14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki (US 9,976,286).
Re claims 3,9,14, Seki does not limit the length / size and changes in size / proportion are an obvious modification (MPEP 2144, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) , n Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Seki as claimed in order to have the desired reach for a given application and environment to best and most effectively operate and accomplish the necessary tasks for efficiency, available space, reduced wear and tare, etc.
Re claim 5, Seki teaches a plurality of connections (figure 10, 93A,92A) which appear to be machined bosses each of which to accept a bolt shank but Seki does not appear to mention whether they have been machined nor use the terms bosses nor bolt shanks. However, official notice is given that machining is a well-known means of manufacturing & boss and bolt shanks are well-known means of pivotal connections in the art. Also substituting equivalent for the same purpose (of creating pivotal connections) is an known obvious modification (MEPE 2144, In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958); Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980); In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the prior to filing to have modified Seki to use machined bosses accepting bolt shanks as claimed in order to use a well-known and thus easily sourced means of making and connecting the parts for ease of manufacturing and maintenance (at least over developing new means of doing so).
Claims 4,10-12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki (US 9,976,286) in view of Ellerbroek (US 3,249,244).
Re claims 4,10, Seki teaches a plate 40 positioned between the boom extension and a rod 92 but does not mention the material type nor whether the plate is bent. Ellerbroek teaches a boom extension (figure 1) with a bent plate (link) to move the attachment 54 in a desired way. Official notice is given that making excavator part out of metal is well known as metal is strong and easily made into desired shapes. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is an obvious modification (MPEP 2144, In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Seki as claimed in order to move the attachment in a desired way for the needs of a given environment and use and to use a well-known and available material that is strong and easily made into the desired shape needed.
Re claim 11, Seki teaches a plurality of connections (figure 10, 93A,92A) which appear to be machined bosses each of which to accept a bolt shank but Seki does not appear to mention whether they have been machined nor use the terms bosses nor bolt shanks. However, official notice is given that machining is a well-known means of manufacturing & boss and bolt shanks are well-known means of pivotal connections in the art. Also substituting equivalent for the same purpose (of creating pivotal connections) is an known obvious modification (MEPE 2144, In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958); Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980); In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the prior to filing to have modified Seki to use machined bosses accepting bolt shanks as claimed in order to use a well-known and thus easily sourced means of making and connecting the parts for ease of manufacturing and maintenance (at least over developing new means of doing so).
Re claim 12, Seki teaches the attachment is pivotally engaged to the boom extension via a pin (94,41A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoshikawa teaches (cover) use of round pin bosses 18 to connect excavator boom parts together.
Deneve teaches (cover) boom arms with frame pin bosses 190,198 made from steel (metal) or any other suitable material for pivotal connections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LOWE whose telephone number is (571)272-6929. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling M,Th,F & alternating W 6:30am-6:30pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 5712727097. 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.
MICHAEL S. LOWE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/MICHAEL S LOWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652