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 § 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 1-3, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gray (US 477,361).
Regarding claim 1, Gary discloses a hopper comprising: a body (B or a portion there of) defining a flat medial surface (a surface of one of the four sidewalls of B, for example the right wall as seen in Fig. 1), the flat medial surface being angled 45 degrees or less relative to a vertical axis (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 2, a front plate (one of the four walls of A, for example the right wall in Fig. 1) extends vertically along the vertical axis, wherein the body extends rearward from the front plate and the flat medial surface extends downwards and forwards past the front plate (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, the body has a U-shape (the combination of 3 adjacent walls of B, for example the right wall in Fig. 1 plus the two adjacent walls) comprising a plurality of discrete flat surfaces (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 15, Gary discloses a hopper comprising: a body (B or a portion there of) defining a flat medial surface (a surface of one of the four sidewalls of B, for example the right wall as seen in Fig. 1) being angled 45 degrees or less relative to a vertical axis (see Fig. 1); and a front plate (one of the four walls of A, for example the right wall in Fig. 1) extending vertically along the vertical axis, wherein the body extends rearward from the front plate and the flat medial surface extends downwards and forwards past the front plate.
Regarding claim 16, the body has a U-shape (the combination of 3 adjacent walls of B, for example the right wall in Fig. 1 plus the two adjacent walls) comprising a plurality of discrete flat surfaces (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oury (US 2,678,197).
Regarding claim 1, Oury discloses hopper (48) for a mixer vehicle, the hopper comprising: a body defining a flat medial surface (the rear surface of 48; see Figs. 1-4) for transfer of material into a mixer drum of the mixer vehicle, the flat medial surface being angled 45 degrees or less relative to a vertical axis (see Fig. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 8, Oury discloses a mixer vehicle comprising: a chassis (see col. 2, lines 17); a mixer assembly coupled with the chassis, the mixer assembly comprising a mixer drum (10); and a hopper configured to direct material into the mixer drum, the hopper (48) comprising: a body defining a flat medial surface (the rear surface of 48; see Figs. 1-4) for transfer of material into the mixer drum of the mixer vehicle, the flat medial surface being angled 45 degrees or less relative to a vertical axis (see Fig. 1 and 2).
Claims 1-5 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brock (US 4,867,572):
Regarding claim 1, Brock discloses hopper (60,62) comprising: a body defining a flat medial surface (a surface of the right side of the hopper as seen in Fig. 1; see also Fig. 2) for transfer of material into a mixer drum of the mixer vehicle, the flat medial surface being angled 45 degrees or less relative to a vertical axis.
Regarding claim 2, front plate extending vertically along the vertical axis, wherein the body extends rearward from the front plate and the flat medial surface extends downwards and forwards past the front plate (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, the body has a U-shape comprising a plurality of discrete flat surfaces (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, a bottom plate (a bottom portion of 62) is positioned at an end of the flat medial surface, wherein a transition between the flat medial surface and the bottom plate is forwards of the front plate (see Figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 5, the bottom plate is oriented at an angle of at least 20 degrees relative to the flat medial surface (see Figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 15, Brock discloses a hopper (60,62) comprising: a body defining a flat medial surface (a surface of the right side of the hopper as seen in Fig. 1; see also Fig. 2) being angled 45 degrees or less relative to a vertical axis (see Fig. 1); and a front plate extending vertically along the vertical axis, wherein the body extends rearward from the front plate and the flat medial surface extends downwards and forwards past the front plate (see Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 16, the body has a U-shape comprising a plurality of discrete flat surfaces (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, a bottom plate (a bottom portion of 62) is positioned at an end of the flat medial surface, wherein a transition between the flat medial surface and the bottom plate is forwards of the front plate (see Figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 18, the bottom plate is oriented at an angle of at least 20 degrees relative to the flat medial surface (see Figs. 1 and 5).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brock (US 4,867,572) in view of Pinto (US 2012/0086235). The hopper of Brock was discussed above. Hardness is not quantified. Pinto teaches making a hopper of a nominal hardness of at least 400 Brinell Hardness (see [0007]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the hardness at least 400 Brinell Hardness to resist abrasion.
Claim 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray (US 477,361) in view of Hawkins (US 20170334639). The hopper of Gray was discussed above. A camera is not disclosed. Hawkins teaches providing a hopper with a camera (see [0047] and [0048]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the hopper with a camera as taught by Hawkins to monitor material level.
Claim 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brock (US 4,867,572) in view of Hawkins (US 20170334639). The hopper of Brock was discussed above. A camera is not disclosed. Hawkins teaches providing a hopper with a camera (see [0047] and [0048]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the hopper with a camera as taught by Hawkins to monitor material level.
Claim 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oury (US 2,678,197) in view of Brock (US 4,867,572). Both references were discussed above:
Regarding claim 9, Oury further discloses a front plate extending vertically along the vertical axis, wherein the body extends rearward from the front plate and the flat medial surface extends downwards and forwards (see Figs. 1 and 2). However, extending the medial surface beyond the front plate is not disclosed. Brock teaches extending a medial surface beyond a front plate (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have extended the medial surface beyond the front plate to better direct material to the interior of the drum.
Regarding claim 10, Brock further teaches that the body has a U-shape comprising a plurality of discrete flat surfaces (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Brock further teaches a bottom plate (a bottom portion of 62) is positioned at an end of the flat medial surface, wherein a transition between the flat medial surface and the bottom plate is forwards of the front plate (see Figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 12, Brock further teaches that the bottom plate is oriented at an angle of at least 20 degrees relative to the flat medial surface (see Figs. 1 and 5).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oury (US 2,678,197) in view of Brock (US 4,867,572) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Pinto (US 2012/0086235). Hardness is not quantified by Oury or Brock. Pinto teaches making a hopper of a nominal hardness of at least 400 Brinell Hardness (see [0007]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the hardness at least 400 Brinell Hardness to resist abrasion.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oury (US 2,678,197) in view of Brock (US 4,867,572) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hawkins (US 20170334639). A camera is not disclosed by Oury or Brock. Hawkins teaches providing a hopper with a camera (see [0047] and [0048]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the hopper with a camera as taught by Hawkins to monitor material level.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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, 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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights