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 .
Drawings
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 tensioning mechanism of claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 1-19 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 1 recites the limitation "the telescoping tower" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note claim 1 line 4 only sets forth the tower being extendable, which is not equivalent to telescoping.
Claim 16 similarly recites "the telescoping tower" in lines 9-10 and is therefore rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
By virtue of their dependence on claim 1 and 16, this basis of rejection also applies to dependent claims 2-15 and 17-19.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the tensioning mechanism" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note a tensioning mechanism is positively set forth in claim 4.
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, 7, 9-10, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stanners et al. (US 20050091957 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stanners discloses an apparatus for use in harvesting tall growing crops (para. [0001]), the apparatus comprising:
a) a vehicle (1), the vehicle comprising a propulsion mechanism configured to propel the vehicle (implicit from “self-propelled” vehicle, para. [0058]);
b) an extendable tower (3) disposed on the vehicle, the extendable tower configured to raise and lower between a lower (“retracted”) position (Fig. 2) and a raised (“extended”) position (Fig. 1);
c) an operator platform (4) operatively coupled to an upper end of the telescoping tower (Fig. 1) via an articulated arm mechanism (“multi-jointed boom 8”, para. [0061]), the extendable tower configured to move the operator platform between the lower position (Fig. 2) and the raised position (Fig. 1);
d) a stabilizing mechanism (34) operatively coupled between the vehicle and the upper end of the extendable tower (as seen in Fig. 16-17, stabilizers 34 extend between vehicle base 2 and extendable tower 3. Note a direct coupling to the upper end of tower 3 is not required by the claim), the stabilizing mechanism configured to stabilize the extendable tower when in the raised position (para. [0058] “tower 3 resists swaying movement by the stabilizing effects of hydraulic cylinders 34”);
e) a tray (11 + 12) for receiving the crops harvested, the tray further comprising a gate (19) configured to open and release the crops harvested (para. [0066]);
f) a plurality of outrigger jacks (17) disposed around a perimeter of the vehicle (Fig. 1, outriggers 17 disposed along edge of vehicle perimeter) for stabilizing the vehicle in a substantially level configuration when the apparatus is used for harvesting the tall growing crops (para. [0065] “two outriggers 17 are also provided, for lateral stability”); and
g) a control system (PLC) for controlling the operation of one or more of the vehicle, the extendable tower, the stabilizing mechanism, the operator platform, the tray, the gate, and the plurality of outrigger jacks (para. [0069]).
Regarding claim 7, Stanners discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein the articulated arm mechanism (8) is configured to move the operator platform (4) away and towards the upper end of the extendable tower (3) (Figs. 3-5,22-23 and para. [0061, 0063-0064] combination of actuators 10, 15, and 24 control platform movement).
Regarding claim 9, Stanners discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 7, wherein the articulated arm mechanism (8) moves on a substantially horizontal plane (Figs. 3-5, “horizontal boom”).
Regarding claim 10, Stanners discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 7, wherein a first end of the articulated arm mechanism (8) is pivotally attached to the upper end of the extendable tower (3) with a pivotal attachment (10), and wherein a second end of the articulated arm mechanism (8) is pivotally attached to the operator platform (4) with another of the pivotal attachment (15), the pivotal attachment configured to rotate about a substantially vertical axis (Figs. 3-6).
Regarding claim 15, Stanners discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein the tall growing crops comprises fresh fruit bunches (FFB) from oil palm trees (para. [0003-0005]).
Regarding independent claim 16, Stanners discloses a method for harvesting tall growing crops (para. [0001]), the method comprising:
a) moving an apparatus near a tree (14) comprising a tall growing crop (para. [0022]), the apparatus comprising: the apparatus as set forth in claim 1;
b) moving the operator platform (4) near the tall growing crop to be harvested (para. [0023-0024]);
c) harvesting the tall growing crop from the tree (para. [0025]); and
d) placing the harvested crop into the tray (11,12) (para. [0063] basket holds cut fruit).
Regarding claims 17-18, Stanners discloses the method as set forth in claim 16, further comprising repeating the steps therein until the tray is full of a plurality of the harvested crop, as per claim 17, and emptying the tray, as per claim 18 (para. [0065] operator can actuate trap door 19 which to dump the collected fruit while traveling between palms).
Regarding claim 19, Stanners discloses the method as set forth in claim 16, wherein the tall growing crops comprises fresh fruit bunches (FFB) from oil palm trees (para. [0003-0005]).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanners as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Stanners discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein the stabilizing mechanism comprises a pair of telescoping support arms (34) disposed between the vehicle (vehicle base 2) and the upper end of the telescoping tower (3) (Fig. 16-17, two stabilizers 34 extend between vehicle base 2 and extendable tower 3. Note a direct coupling to the upper end of tower 3 is not required by the claim).
Stanners fails to disclose wherein each telescoping support arm (34) comprises a second parallel telescoping support arm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an additional parallel support arm for either or both of the telescoping support arms, in order to strengthen the support foundation of the tower, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.B.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanners as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Schutz (US 2448630 A).
Regarding claim 3, Stanners discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 2, but fails to discloses wherein each of the pair of substantially parallel telescoping support arms comprises a collar configured to prevent the pair of substantially parallel telescoping support arms from telescoping when the extendable tower has raised the operator platform to the raised position.
Schutz in a similar field of teaches a fruit picking tower comprising telescoping support arms (8,9,10,11) for stabilizing upstanding vertical posts (4,6) (Fig. 1), wherein adjustment of the telescoping support arms allowing the tower to remain vertical when the moving or operating over uneven or hilly ground (col. 2 lines 31-38), and wherein each of the pair of telescoping support arms comprises a clamping collar (21) configured to prevent the arms from telescoping when the extensible tower and operator platform (28) are at selected operating positions (col. 2 line 45 – col. 3 line 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the hydraulic stabilizing cylinders of Stanners with telescoping support arms as taught by Schutz, as a mere simple substitution of one stabilizing means for maintaining vertical alignment on uneven ground for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Stanners in view of Schutz discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 3. Schutz further teaches a tensioning mechanism (23) for placing tension in the stabilizing mechanism when the operator platform is in the raised position (Schutz col. 3 lines 2-6).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanners as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rempel (US 3878957 A).
Regarding claim 5, Stanners discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly detail wherein the propulsion mechanism comprises an engine operatively coupled to a hydraulic fluid system operatively coupled to a hydraulic fluid vehicle drive mechanism.
However, such a drive arrangement is old and well-known. In the same field of endeavor, Rempel discloses an apparatus for harvesting tall growing crops comprising a similar vehicle having an engine operatively coupled to a hydraulic fluid system (col. 4 lines 32-34 “housing 33 enclosing a suitable internal combustion engine and hydraulic pumps driven by the engine”) operatively coupled to a hydraulic fluid vehicle drive mechanism (col. 4 lines 34-47 hydraulic pumps supply hydraulic fluid under pressure to each a respective variable speed fluid torque motor for driving each wheel 35,37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the propulsion mechanism of Stanners as an engine driving a hydraulic motive mechanism, as taught by Rempel, as an obvious means for providing propulsion to the vehicle to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Stanners in view of Rempel discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 5. Rempel further teaches wherein the hydraulic fluid mechanism is configured for operating the gate mechanism (Stanners at para. [0066] teaches trap door 19 may be automatically operated, Rempel at col. 7 lines 40-48 teaches conduit 130 carries power lines from pumps to hydraulic cylinders for operating trap door 58 and/or hopper 40).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanners as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Gerrans (US 3056465 A).
Regarding claim 8, Stanners discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 7, wherein the articulated arm mechanism (8) further comprising a pivotal attachment (10,15) configured to rotate about a substantially vertical axis (Figs. 3-6, para. [0062-0063]), but does not explicitly detail wherein the articulated arm mechanism comprises a plurality of arm segments pivotally attached together in a sequential configuration via the pivotal attachment.
In the same field of endeavor, Gerrans discloses a similar apparatus for harvesting tall growing crops wherein an operator platform (40) is attached to an upper end of a tower (8) via an articulated arm mechanism (A) comprising a plurality of arm segments (20,21) pivotally attached together in a sequential configuration (Fig. 9) by pivotal attachment configured to rotate about a substantially vertical axis (33) for movement on a substantially horizontal plane (col. 3 lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the articulated arm mechanism of Stanners to comprise a plurality of sequential arm segments pivotally attached together, as taught by Gerrans, in order to provide an increased degree of flexibility for maneuvering around the tree. (Gerrans at col. 4 lines 7-10 and 38-49).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanners as applied to claim 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Raymond (US 8443936 B1).
Regarding claims 11-12, Stanners discloses apparatus as set forth in claim 10, wherein the pivotal attachment (10,15) comprises a fluid motor (para. [0062-0063]) instead of an electric motor mechanism, as per claim 11, comprising a direct current servo electric motor, as per claim 12.
Raymond discloses a similar rotary actuator (10) for swiveling an operator platform (11) through 180 degree rotation (Fig. 13) powered by a self-contained electrical and/or hydraulic power package including a direct current battery pack 13 and a direct current motor (col. 18 lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a dc servo electric motor mechanism for the pivotal attachment as taught by Raymond, as a mere simple substitution of one known mechanism for providing orbital motion for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, Stanners discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein the control system comprises a controller disposed on the vehicle and a controller disposed on the operator platform, each controller configured to control the operation of one or more of the vehicle, the extendable tower, the stabilizing mechanism, the operator platform, the tray, the gate, and the plurality of outrigger jacks (para. [0070] “in general, the worker on the platform 4 will have some controls, and the vehicle driver will have some controls…so that either person could control any function”).
Stanners does not explicitly detail wherein the vehicle controller comprises a main controller and the platform controller comprises a slave controller.
Raymond discloses a similar lift system for an operator platform (11) comprising a ground-operated master controller (having the same functions as control box 17 on operator platform 11) and a slave controller (16) to allow personnel on the ground to remotely conduct leveling and rotation operations of the operator platform attachment 11 with or without personnel onboard (Fig. 13, col. 11 lines 15-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the control system of Stanners in a similar manner as taught by Raymond, in order to allow personnel on the ground to control leveling and rotation operations for the operating platform and ensure aerial lift safety codes are met (Raymond col. 22 lines 25-28).
Regarding claim 14, Stanners in view of Raymond discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 13. Raymond further discloses wherein the operator platform comprises one or more of a joystick controller, a steering controller, at least one push button switch, a mode selection switch, at least one visual indicator, and a visual display screen operatively coupled to the slave controller (Raymond at col. 7 lines 38-44 and col. 18 lines 7-10 platform comprises hand-operated electric joy sticks and switches).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wiegel (US 2953229 A) discloses a fruit picking apparatus. Grant (US 2969849 A) discloses an orchard vehicle. Stanhope (US 3568796 A) discloses a fruit workers platform. Grove (US 3841436 A) discloses an aerial platform for fruit picking. Wilcox (US 3987608 A) discloses a fruit picking apparatus. Cullity (US 4271926 A) discloses a rotatable work platform. McDermott et al. (US 4575976 A) discloses an extension and retraction system for fruit harvesting. Fulton (US 5196998 A) discloses an adaptive control system. Mckenna (US 5205677 A) discloses a fruit harvesting machine. Roberts et al. (US 8056677 B1) discloses a lift system with articulable joined subchassis. Gerogiano (US 20130209109 A1) discloses a bucket truck application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (571) 272-8971. 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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights