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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, 19, and 20 in the reply filed on 06/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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, 4-9, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rumph (US 6964511, hereinafter Rumph).
Regarding claim 1, Rumph discloses a fluid moving device for manure agitation in a pit located beneath a confinement building, the device comprising:
a boom (figure 4, item 104) configured to extend vertically into a pump-out wall of the pit (at opening 102); and
a mechanism (figure 3, mixing unit 14) for extending horizontally (see movement of unit 14 in figure 3) into a main chamber of the pit (figure 4, tank 110) to provide agitation.
Regarding claim 4, Rumph disclose a self-propelled mechanism (figure 4, truck 100) for moving the fluid moving device along a surface.
Regarding claim 5, Rumph discloses a frame (figure 3, mixing unit 14) that moves from a retracted position to an extended position horizontally into the main chamber of the pit (see movement depicted in figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, Rumph discloses the frame pivots, telescopes, or accordions from the retracted position to the extended position (see pivoting movement depicted in figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, Rumph discloses an agitation device (figure 1, propellers 82 and 84) at a distal end of the mechanism.
Regarding claim 8, Rumph discloses the agitation device is rotatable relative to the mechanism (figure 1, propellers 82 and 84 would be rotatable as recited).
Regarding claim 9, Rumph discloses the agitation device includes a propeller (figure 1, propellers 82 and 84) or nozzle.
Regarding claim 19, Rumph discloses a fluid moving device for manure agitation in a pit located beneath a confinement building, the device comprising:
a boom (figure 4, item 104) configured to extend vertically into a pump-out wall of the pit; and
a self-propelled mechanism (truck 100) for moving along a surface.
Regarding claim 20, Rumph discloses a mechanism (figure 3, mixing unit 14) for extending horizontally into a main chamber of the pit to provide agitation (see figure 4), wherein the mechanism includes a frame that pivots, telescopes, or accordions from a retracted position to an extended position (see pivoting motion depicted in figure 3).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rumph (US 6964511, hereinafter Rumph) in view of Nuhn (US PGPub 2017/0118907, hereinafter Nuhn).
Regarding claim 2, Rumph is silent to a pump. Nuhn teaches a fluid moving device having a pivoting pipe (nozzle 22) and a boom that includes a pump (figure 4, pump 10). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Rumph with the pump of Nuhn because the substitution of the pump for the propellers of Rumph would have provided only the predictable result of agitating fluid in the pit, as evidenced by the references. See KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter because it recites a load stand that is not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited prior art generally discloses mixers mounted on booms for use in slurry pits.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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 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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights