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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the reference characters that appear in the specification. In fact, they don’t contain any reference characters. Drawings need to have reference characters. As does the specification. And the two should correspond to each other.
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. 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.
The drawings are also objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show in detail the claimed subject matter, such as:
The hydraulic lift;
The tapered drive shaft;
The straight drive shaft;
The main control panel;
The central control box;
The power unit;
The solenoid;
The shield;
The free running gerotor; and
The fully assembled corral system as described in the specification. Indeed, the closest the drawings come to showing the fully assembled system is Figure 10 which, along with having writing too small and blurry to make out, is such a faraway view as to prevent any details from being seen.
The drawings, at best, show individual parts of the claimed corral, in isolation.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because they are incomplete. 37 CFR 1.83(b) reads as follows:
When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
It is unclear how to make this invention. The claims recite a series of parts, but the disclosure provides no description of how those parts actually go together such that one might be able to make the claimed corral system by reading the disclosure.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
It is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claimed invention(s) are. Where does the drive wheel of claim 1 actually go? What is it attached to? Where does the hydraulic lift in claim 2 go? What is it connected to? What does it lift? Does it lift something?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0334987 to Schwartz (hereinafter “Schwartz”).
-From Claim 1: Schwartz discloses a portable corral system comprising:
a plurality of interconnected fence panels 24;
at least one wheel motor 108, wherein each wheel motor is affixed to a fence panel;
a drive wheel 28 associated with each wheel motor, wherein each drive wheel includes a plurality of treads;
at least one power unit 116; and
a control system (¶90).
-From Claim 3: Schwartz discloses wherein said power unit is connected to each wheel motor by lines routed through the interiors of said fence panels (¶73).
-From Claim 4: Schwartz discloses wherein said plurality of treads of each drive wheel are staggered (see tread pattern in Fig. 4).
-From Claim 5: Schwartz discloses wherein each motor includes a straight drive shaft (see below).
-From Claim 6: Schwartz discloses wherein each motor includes a tapered drive shaft (see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
578
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reproduced from Schwartz (Examiner Annotated)
-From Claim 8: Schwartz discloses wherein each motor is an electric motor (¶71).
-From Claim 9: Schwartz discloses wherein the power unit is a battery (¶74).
-From Claim 10: Schwartz discloses wherein the power unit is gasoline powered (¶74).
-From Claim 11: Schwartz discloses a portable corral system comprising:
a plurality of interconnected fence panels 24;
at least one hydraulic motor 108, wherein each hydraulic motor is affixed to a fence panel with a bracket 106/82/26;
a drive wheel 28 associated with each hydraulic motor, wherein each drive wheel includes a plurality of treads;
at least one power unit 116; and
a control system (¶90).
-From Claim 12: Schwartz discloses a wheel hub (center hub of 28) connected to each drive wheel and each respective bracket 118.
-From Claim 15: Schwartz discloses wherein said power unit is connected to each hydraulic motor by lines routed through the interiors of said fence panels (¶73).
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz.
-From Claim 16: Schwartz does not specifically discloses the hydraulic drive motor having a displacement of 36 CM3/R. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to a particular displacement capacity depending on the size of the panels to be moved, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 2, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz in view of US 2021/0360897 to Wilson (hereinafter “Wilson”).
-From Claim 2: Schwartz does not disclose a hydraulic lift. However, Wilson teaches a portable corral system similar to Schwartz which includes a hydraulic lift 102 (¶27). Wilson further teaches that the hydraulic lift 102 enables the device to change between raised and lowered configurations for transport and use, respectively. (¶29)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Schwartz by adding a hydraulic lift as taught by Wilson in order to allow the device to switch between transport and stationary configurations.
-From Claim 18: Schwartz discloses a method for deploying a portable corral system with an associated hydraulic power supply,
wherein said portable corral system includes a plurality of interconnected fence panels 24 that are folded together when in the stowed configuration, each fence panel including a motor 108 affixed thereto; and
unfolding a first fence panel by activating the motor affixed to the first fence panel. (Abstract)
However, Schwartz does not disclose the method of using the corral including: lowering the portable corral system from a stowed configuration to a deployment area with a hydraulic lift powered by said hydraulic power supply.
However, Wilson teaches a portable corral system similar to Schwartz which includes a hydraulic lift 102 (¶27). Wilson further teaches that the hydraulic lift 102 enables the device to change between raised and lowered configurations for transport and use, respectively. (¶29)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Schwartz by adding a hydraulic lift as taught by Wilson in order to allow the device to switch between transport and stationary configurations.
-From Claim 20: Schwartz discloses unfolding a second fence panel by activating the motor affixed to the second fence panel (Abstract).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz in view of US 2010/0119398 to Orlandi et al. (hereinafter “Orlandi”).
-From Claim 17: Orlandi teaches the advantage of using hydraulic pump having a free running gerotor lies in its ability to produce high flow while minimizing noise and vibration (¶36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Schwartz by utilizing a gerotor pump as taught by Orlandi in order to reduce noise and vibration while maintaining necessary flow rates.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz in view of US 2002/0015635 to Sinn et al. (hereinafter “Sinn”).
-From Claim 7: Schwartz discloses a wireless remote controller (¶87), but does not disclose a central control box with a main panel connected thereto.
Sinn teaches a corral system comprising a control system, wherein the control system includes: a central control box 117 with a main control panel connected to said central control box.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Schwartz by adding a control box with control panel as taught by Sinn in order to provide a backup control system to the wireless remote controller.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz in view of US 2011/0293394 to Koehn et al. (hereinafter “Koehn”).
-From Claims 13 and 14: Schwartz does not disclose a solenoid mounted to the topside of each hydraulic motor, wherein each bracket includes a shield protecting each respective solenoid. Rather, the motor/drive wheel assembly is moved up and down by an operator.
Koehn teaches a solenoid 26 mounted to a bracket, wherein a shield 24 protects the solenoid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Schwartz by adding a solenoid to the topside of the motor/wheel as taught by Koehn in order to automate the manipulation of the drive wheel relative to the driven wheel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
-From Claim 19, the prior art is lacking a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify Schwartz such that: (a) it includes a hydraulic lift, and (b) wherein a selector valve is used to transfer the power of the hydraulic power supply from said hydraulic lift to the motor of said first fence panel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, as the cited references include structure similar to that of the presently claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J WILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7324. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm PST.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 5712705281. 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.
/DANIEL J WILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678 12/9/2025