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.
Claims 7-14 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the sidewall” in Line 4 of the Claim. It is not clear whether “the sidewall” is referencing “a first sidewall”, “a second sidewall” or “a third sidewall” rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes “the sidewall” is being interpreted as “ the first, second or third sidewall”.
Claims 8-14 are rejected because they depend on rejected Claim 7.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-12, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lavoie et al. 2022/0127087.
In Re Claim 1, Lavoie et al. teach a quick-attach hopper device comprising: a hopper body (12) comprised of an interior space formed by a sidewall and a bottom wall; (Fig. 1) a quick-attach plate (23, Fig. 7a-8b) positioned on an exterior surface of the sidewall; and a fork pocket (52) comprised of an opening (52, Paragraph 65).
In Re Claim 2, Lavoie et al. teach wherein the body is comprised of a stiffening angle (3 stiffening angles on shown on side in Fig. 1).
In Re Claim 3, Lavoie et al. teach wherein the body is comprised of a curved lip (lip around edge of body, Fig. 1).
In Re Claim 4, Lavoie et al. teach wherein the bottom wall (angled wall shown in Fig. 1) is angled.
In Re Claim 5, Lavoie et al. teach wherein the bottom wall forms an angle between 0 and 180 degrees. (Fig. 1, 7a, 7b show that angle is between 0 and 180 degrees)
In Re Claim 7, as best understood, Lavoie et al. teach quick-attach hopper device comprising: a hopper body (12) comprised of an interior space formed by a first sidewall, a second sidewall, a third sidewall, and a bottom wall; (Fig. 1) a quick-attach plate (23, Fig. 7a-8b) positioned on an exterior surface of the sidewall; and a fork pocket (52) comprised of an opening (52, Paragraph 65).
In Re Claim 9, Lavoie et al. teach wherein the body is comprised of a stiffening angle (3 stiffening angles on shown on side in Fig. 1).
In Re Claim 10, Lavoie et al. teach wherein the body is comprised of a curved lip (lip around edge of body, Fig. 1).
In Re Claim 11, Lavoie et al. teach wherein the bottom wall (angled wall shown in Fig. 1) is angled.
In Re Claim 12, Lavoie et al. teach wherein the bottom wall forms an angle between 0 and 180 degrees. (Fig. 1, 7a, 7b show that angle is between 0 and 180 degrees)
In Re Claim 15, Lavoie et al. teach a method of using a quick-attach hopper device (10), the method comprising the following steps: providing a quick-attach hopper device comprised of a hopper body (12) comprised of an interior space formed by a first side wall, a second side wall, and a bottom wall, (Fig. 1) a fork pocket (52), and a quick-attach plate (23); filling the interior space with a material; (Paragraph 60, Material is received in the receptacle) attaching the quick-attach hopper device to a piece of machinery; (Paragraph 91) and manipulating the quick-attach hopper device via the piece of machinery such that the hopper body is tilted and the material is dumped. (Fig. 9 and 10)
In Re Claim 18, Lavoie et al. teach wherein the piece of machinery is comprised of a forklift (18, fig. 9).
In Re Claim 19, Lavoie et al. teach wherein the forklift attaches to a forklift pocket (52, Paragraph 65) of the quick-attach hopper device.
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 6, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie et al. and in view of Bonilla et al. 2024/0025598.
In Re Claims 6, 14 and 20, Lavoie et al. teach the device of Claims 1, 7 and 15 as discussed above.
Lavoie et al. do not teach wherein the hopper body is comprised of a safety label.
However, Bonilla et al. teach a body (Fig. 1) that is comprised of a safety label (See Paragraph 30, Label for dangerous material);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a safety label in the device of Lavoie et al. as taught by Bonilla et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to identify material being handled allow proper personal protection equipment to be used if needed.
Claims 8, 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie et al. and in view of Drexelius et al. 2006/0073004.
In Re Claims 8, 13, 16 and 17, Lavoie et al. teach the device of Claims 7 and 15 as discussed above.
Lavoie et al. do not teach wherein the exterior surface is comprised of a gusset.
However, Drexelius et al. teach wherein the exterior surface is comprised of a gusset; (3 gussets shown at the top of 12, Fig. 1) and wherein the quick-attach plate receives a skid-steer (30); and wherein the skid steer attaches to a quick-attach plate (horizontal plate shown welded to 14a and 14b, Fig. 3) of the quick-attach hopper device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a gusset to the device of Lavoie et al. as taught by Drexelius et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to make a stronger container.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Mendez, Genter et al. and Haven et al. teach a quick attach hopper device comprising fork pockets for a forklift and the hopper device it tiltable to dump contents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
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 571-272-7097. 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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3652