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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “having chute” should read --having a chute--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “the auger” should read --the mixing auger--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 8-10 and 17-20 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 2 recites the limitation, “a second position” in lines 3-4. It is unclear whether “a second position” of lines 3-4 is the same or different as “a second position” as recited in line 3 of the claim. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the chute assembly" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 9 and 10 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 8.
Claim 17 recites the limitation, “a connection frame attached to an end of the mixing auger, the connection frame having a first wing facing a first side of the mixing auger and a second wing facing a second side of the connection frame” in lines 3-5. It is unclear how the second wing can face a second side of the connection frame which the second wing appears to be part of the second side of the connection frame and faces a second side of the mixing auger. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 18-20 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 17.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elkin (U.S. Patent No. 4,768,884).
Regarding claim 1, Elkin discloses a volumetric mixer (column 1, lines 54-64; figure 1) comprising:
a mixing auger (second mixing auger 42 with chute 60 and bowl 66 connected and part of mixing auger. column 4, lines 4-9); and
a chute (third mixing auger 68) pivotally connected to the mixing auger such that a pivot axis of the chute is substantially horizontal (pivot 74; column 4, lines 18-28).
Regarding claim 2, Elkin discloses wherein the pivot axis is located above an exit of the mixing auger (pivot 74 is above exit from bowl 66 which is a part of the mixing auger).
Regarding claim 4, Elkin discloses wherein the chute is also configured to pivot about a substantially vertical axis (swivel 78; column 4, lines 28-30).
Regarding claim 5, Elkin discloses a connection frame attached to the mixing auger (chute 60 and bowl 66); and a chute assembly having the chute (third mixing auger 68), the chute assembly having a first side member and a second side member pivotally connected to the connection frame (see figures 1-3, two side walls of third mixing auger 68, not labeled, with pivot 74 with wall/side member connected to each side wall of third mixing auger 68 and connected to bowl 66).
Regarding claim 6, Elkin discloses wherein the pivot axis passes through the first and second side members of the chute assembly (figures 1 and 3, pivot axis 74 passes through connection side walls of chute 68; see marked up figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
733
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Elkin discloses wherein the pivot axis also passes through the connection frame (figures 1 and 3, pivot axis 74 passes through connection frame 66).
Regarding claim 8, Elkin discloses at least one biasing member configured to bias the chute assembly (hydraulic cylinder 76).
Regarding claim 9, Elkin discloses wherein the at least one biasing member is at least one of a torsion spring and actuator (hydraulic cylinder 76 considered an actuator).
Regarding claim 10, Elkin discloses wherein the actuator is one of a hydraulic cylinder, a pneumatic cylinder and an electric actuator (hydraulic cylinder 76).
Claim(s) 1 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chavez (U.S. Patent No. 11,833,714).
Regarding claim 1, Chavez discloses a volumetric mixer (abstract; mixer 10) comprising: a mixing auger (hopper 12 with hopper auger assembly 60); and a chute(chute 18) pivotally connected to the mixing auger (figure 1, mount 130) such that a pivot axis of the chute is substantially horizontal (figure 21, pivot axis along bolts 140; column 7, lines 50-67).
Regarding claim 5, Chavez discloses further comprising: a connection frame attached to the mixing auger (vertical tabs 132); and a chute assembly (figure 21) having the chute (chute 18), the chute assembly having a first side member and a second side member pivotally connected to the connection frame (vertical tabs 134; column 7, lines 50-63).
Regarding claim 6, Chavez discloses wherein the pivot axis passes through the first and second side members of the chute assembly (figure 21, pivot axis through 140 pass through side members 134).
Regarding claim 7, Chavez discloses wherein the pivot axis also passes through the connection frame (figure 21, pivot axis through 140 passes through 132).
Regarding claim 8, Chavez discloses further comprising at least one biasing member configured to bias the chute assembly (hydraulic piston 182; columns 7-8, lines 64-6).
Regarding claim 9, Chavez discloses wherein the at least one biasing member is at least one of a torsion spring and actuator (hydraulic piston 182; columns 7-8, lines 64-6).
Regarding claim 10, Chavez discloses wherein the actuator is one of a hydraulic cylinder, a pneumatic cylinder, and an electric actuator (hydraulic piston 182; columns 7-8, lines 64-6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 3 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elkin in view of Hilkemeier (U.S. Patent No. 2,488,292).
Regarding claim 3, Elkin discloses all the limitations as set forth above. While Elkin further discloses wherein the chute is configured to be locked in a first position to receive concrete from the mixing auger and rotatable about a horizontal axis to move the chute to a second position where the chute can be locked in a second position (see figures 1 and 3, with solid line and dotted lines indicating chute 68 rotatable about horizontal axis 74 in first position (dotted lines) and second position (solid lines) with hydraulic cylinder 76 locking the chute in position; column 4, lines 10-28); however does not explicitly disclose the second position allows concrete flowing out an exit of the mixing auger without contact the chute.
Hiklemeier teaches another concrete mixer with discharge chute (title; figure 1; column 1, lines 1-18) wherein the chute is configured to be locked in a first position to receive concrete from the mixing auger (figures 2 and 3) and rotatable about a horizontal axis to move the chute to a second position where the chute can be locked in a second position to allow concrete flowing out an exit of the mixing auger without contact the chute (figures 1 and 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the second position of Elkin to allow concrete flowing out an exit of the mixing auger without contact the chute, as taught by Hiklemeier. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach cement/concrete mixers with discharge chutes. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because there are many instances where it is desirable to discharge the concrete directly, and without the use of a chute, int high forms or into buckets and high hoppers, and while the chute should be carried as a standard piece of equipment on the machine because of the many jobs where it will be used, it should be maneuverable to a non-operating position where it will not interfere with a direct pour (Hiklemeier column 1, lines 24-33).
Regarding claim 11, Elkin discloses all the limitations as set forth above; however does not explicitly disclose at least one pin configured to lock the chute in one of two positions. Hiklemeier teaches another concrete mixer with discharge chute (title; figure 1; column 1, lines 1-18) further comprising at least one pine configured to lock the chute in one of two positions (pin 38 through channels 34 or pin 33 through channel 32 or chain 53 with hook/pin; columns 2-5, lines 64-36). It is well known in the art that the chute can be locked in multiple different positions by multiple different ways, including by a pin, as evidenced by Hiklemeier. It would have been obvious ton one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the pin locking mechanism taught by Hiklemeier to lock to the chute of Elkin, because selecting one of known designs for locking a chute/locking a pivoting movement would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing and because said additional pin locking mechanism would provide added security to maintaining the chute in the desired position with less risk of failure.
Regarding claim 12, Elkin discloses a volumetric mixer (column 1, lines 54-64; figure 1) comprising:
a mixing auger (second mixing auger 42 with chute 60 and bowl 66 connected and part of mixing auger column 4, lines 4-9); and
a chute assembly having chute (third mixing auger 68), the chute assembly being configured to pivot the chute about a horizontal axis (pivot 74) and a vertical axis (swivel 78; column 4, lines 28-32).
While Elkin further discloses wherein the chute is configured to be locked in a first position to receive concrete from the mixing auger (see figures 1 and 3, with solid line and dotted lines indicating chute 68 rotatable about horizontal axis 74 in first position (dotted lines) and second position (solid lines) with hydraulic cylinder 76 locking the chute in position; column 4, lines 10-28); however does not explicitly disclose the second position allows continuous pour of concrete out of the mixing auger.
Hiklemeier teaches another concrete mixer with discharge chute (title; figure 1; column 1, lines 1-18) wherein the chute is configured to be locked in a first position to receive concrete from the mixing auger (figures 2 and 3) and rotatable about a horizontal axis to move the chute to a second position where the chute can be locked in a second position to allow continuous pour of concrete out of the mixing auger (figures 1 and 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the second position of Elkin to allow concrete flowing out an exit of the mixing auger without contact the chute, as taught by Hiklemeier. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach cement/concrete mixers with discharge chutes. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because there are many instances where it is desirable to discharge the concrete directly, and without the use of a chute, int high forms or into buckets and high hoppers, and while the chute should be carried as a standard piece of equipment on the machine because of the many jobs where it will be used, it should be maneuverable to a non-operating position where it will not interfere with a direct pour (Hiklemeier column 1, lines 24-33).
Regarding claim 13, Elkin as modified by Hiklemeier discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Elkin as modified by Hiklemeier further discloses wherein the horizontal and vertical axis each pass through an end of the mixing auger (figures 1 and 3, pivot axis 74 passes through chute 68 which is connected to mixing auger 42 and makes up the end of the mixing auger; similarly pivot 78 passes through end of chute 66; see marked up figure 3 above).
Regarding claim 14, Elkin as modified by Hiklemeier discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Elkin as modified by Hiklemeier further discloses wherein the chute assembly includes a collar to allow the chute to pivot about a vertical axis (swivel 78).
Regarding claim 15, Elkin as modified by Hiklemeier discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Elkin as modified by Hiklemeier further discloses wherein the chute assembly includes side members arranged at sides of the mixing auger and the horizontal axis passes through the side members (see figures 1-3, two side walls of third mixing auger 68, not labeled, with pivot 74 with wall/side member connected to each side wall of third mixing auger 68 and connected to bowl 66; see marked up figure 3 above).
Regarding claim 16, Elkin as modified by Hiklemeier discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Elkin as modified by Hiklemeier further discloses a connection frame attached to the mixing auger (bowl 66), the connection frame connecting the chute assembly to the auger and having wings through which the horizontal axis passes (bowl 66 connects 68 to 60 which is part of auger and pivot 74 passes through 66) (it is noted that “wings” has not been limited by any specific structure, and the bowl 66 extends out like wings).
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavez in view of Gerst (U.S. Patent No. 2,672,966).
Regarding claims 17, 19 and 20, Chavez discloses a volumetric mixer (abstract; mixer 10) comprising:
a mixing auger (hopper 12 with hopper auger assembly 60);
a connection frame attached to an end of the mixing auger, the connection frame having a first wing facing a first side of the mixing auger and a second wing facing a second side of the connection frame (figure 21, two wings 132); and
a chute assembly (chute 18) pivotally attached to the connection frame (figure 1, mount 130) , the chute assembly including a first side member pivotally connected to the first wing of the connection frame at a first pivot point and a second side member pivotally connected to the second wing of the connection frame at a second pivot point (figure 21, two first side members 134 each pivotally connected to 134 through 138, 140 and 142; column 7, lines 50-63), and
an actuator configured to pivot the chute assembly with respect to the connection frame (hydraulic piston 182; columns 7-8, lines 64-4).
However, Chavez does not explicitly disclose the first side member of the chute assembly having a first hole offset from the first pivot point and a second hole offset from the first pivot point, the first hole being alignable with a first hole of the first wing of the connection frame and the second hole being alignable with a second hole of the first wing of the connection frame and the pin passing theough the hole.
It is well known in the art that the chute can be locked in multiple different positions by multiple different ways as evidenced by the many embodiments of Gerst, including by a pin through first holes or second holes of the wings/side members, as evidenced by Gerst figures 5 and 6, holes 152 and pin 154 through holes in side members 142 to align with holes in wings 126; columns4- 5, lines 42-31). It would have been obvious ton one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the pin and multiple hole locking mechanism taught by Gerst to lock to the chute of Chavez, because selecting one of known designs for locking a chute/locking a pivoting movement would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing and because said additional pin and hole locking mechanism would allow for manual adjustment of the chute vertical position while still providing a secure connection and chute fixation (Gerst column 5, lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 18, Chavez in view of Gerst discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Chavez as modified by Gerst further discloses wherein the actuator is a hydraulic cylinder having a barrel attached to the mixing auger and a rod attached to the first side member of the chute assembly (figures 1 and 7, hydraulic piston 182).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
