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 .
Status of Claims
Currently claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: biasing component in claims 1 and 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In the instant application, applicants’ specification discloses the biasing component is a spring.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 5 and 9-13 is 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.
The term “generally” in claims 5 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “a generally parallel orientation to the finger” with respect to the auger has been rendered indefinite by use of the term “generally” as it is unclear how offset from parallel the orientation can be and be considered to still be “generally” parallel. For example, if the finger is 5 degrees off from being parallel with respect to the auger, are they still considered to be “generally” parallel.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a door” in line 2, this is double inclusion as claim 13 depends off of claim 8 and off of claim 1, where the door was already given antecedent basis.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a storage tote” in line 2, this is double inclusion as the storage tote is understood being “the tote” already claimed in claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 14-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kinkead (U.S. 6,817,552).
With respect to claim 14, Kinkead discloses a storage tote for a granular, spreadable material (figure 1, #30 comprising material stored therein) comprising:
a housing (30) comprising:
walls including a side wall (sidewall adjacent to the spinners);
a cavity enclosed by the walls (where the material to be spread is located); and
an opening extending through the side wall and connecting to the cavity (opening at gate 72);
a door (gate 72) rotatably coupled to the housing (see figure 6); and
a biasing component (having spring of plunger 182)) having a first end coupled to the housing (coupled at 178) and a second end coupled to the door (end coupled to the closure plate at 172 of the gate 72, opening the gate itself when the handle and plunger rotate); wherein the door is rotatable between a first position in which the door is positioned along the side wall of the housing such that the opening is covered (gate is closed, see figure 6), and a second position in which the door is positioned away from the side wall of the housing such that the opening is uncovered (where the gate is opened and the handle is moved down, pivoting the gate open, where the noted spring with the plunger 182 would then bias it back to closed).
With respect to claim 15, Kinkead discloses the door is in the first position, the biasing component provides a force on the door such that the door blocks the opening and further comprising the granular spreadable material positioned within the cavity (column 6 rows 48-65, where the gate is shut when the spring has the gate via the plunger biased shut, which blocks the opening and any material from flowing).
With respect to claim 16, Kinkead discloses the granular, spreadable material is an ice melt material (background of the invention discloses the material being for icy drive ways, its well understood such broadcast spreaders apply not only sand but also salt).
With respect to claim 17, Kinkead discloses the door is in the second position, the housing is open such that a material positioned within the cavity is removable from the housing (i.e. the gate opens and material goes to the broadcast spreaders from the container).
With respect to claim 18, Kinkead discloses the side wall with the opening is a front wall and the walls further include a rear wall (see figure 1).
With respect to claim 20, Kinkead discloses the biasing component is a torsion spring (figure 6, column 6 48-60, discloses a spring that would be a torsion spring, understood being a helical spring, as shown between 184 and 182 within the housing of 180 in figure 5).
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.
Claim(s) 14, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strelcheck (U.S. 2018/0106005) in view of Kinkead.
With respect to claim 14, Strelcheck discloses a storage tote for a granular, spreadable material (16) comprising:
a housing (shown in figure 19) comprising:
walls including a side wall (sidewall 50));
a cavity enclosed by the walls (42); and
an opening extending through the side wall and connecting to the cavity (opening with plug 94);
a door (plug 94) rotatably coupled to the housing (as the plug can rotate within the housing); but fails to disclose a biasing component having a first end coupled to the housing and a second end coupled to the door; wherein the door is rotatable between a first position in which the door is positioned along the side wall of the housing such that the opening is covered, and a second position in which the door is positioned away from the side wall of the housing such that the opening is uncovered.
Kinkead discloses a biasing component (having spring of plunger 182)) having a first end coupled to the housing (coupled at 178) and a second end coupled to the door (end coupled to the closure plate at 172 of the gate 72, opening the gate itself when the handle and plunger rotate); wherein the door is rotatable between a first position in which the door is positioned along the side wall of the housing such that the opening is covered (gate is closed, see figure 6), and a second position in which the door is positioned away from the side wall of the housing such that the opening is uncovered (where the gate is opened and the handle is moved down, pivoting the gate open, where the noted spring with the plunger 182 would then bias it back to closed). Kinkead discloses such gate allows for metering of the material out of the container (abstract) while also preventing the wanted movement of it (column 3 rows 25-30) while also having a gate that can control the spread mode (column 3 rows 40-55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the biasing component and door (gate) of Kinkead into the structure Strelcheck allowing for a metering gate that can both prevent unwanted movement while also allowing for different spread modes (light and heavy) of the material to a distributor.
With respect to claim 18, Strelcheck discloses the side wall with the opening is a front wall and the walls further include a rear wall (as seen in figures 2 and 19).
With respect to claim 19, Strelcheck discloses pivoting lids (46, pivoting, paragraph 0040) coupled to and extending between the front wall and the rear wall covering a filling opening (figures 2 and 19, paragraph 0040).
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strelcheck (U.S. 2018/0106005) in view of Johnson (U.S. 2024/0065136).
With respect to claim 9, Strelcheck discloses a spreading frame (figure 1, the frame at 14, being frame 130) configured to be engaged with a spreading vehicle (vehicle 12) and a tote (16) carrying a granular, spreadable material (abstract, paragraph 0034) comprising:
a body (body 130 having the body from which 170a and 170b extend from) including a forward-facing surface (facing the tote); an upper support arm (170b) coupled to and extending outward from the body (130);
a lower support arm (170b) coupled to and extending outward from the body (of 130); and
an auger (140) coupled to the body and extending outward from the body (as shown in figure 1), the auger positioned between the upper support arm and the lower support arm (as shown in figure 1). Strelcheck fails to disclose a finger coupled to and extending outward from the forward-facing surface of the body, the finger positioned between the upper support arm and the lower support arm and the auger being generally parallel in orientation to the finger.
Johnson discloses, figure 2, guide pins 158 for guiding the noted tank 112 to that of the frame 104, paragraphs 0064-0065).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill I the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include guide pins such as Johnson into the structure of Strelcheck, allowing for the tank/tote to have further elements allowing for the tank/tote to be properly connected and the connected to having further guidance when the tank/tote is being brought into contact with the frame. Furthermore, it could be understood that duplication of the support arms of Strelcheck could also be done, where said duplication includes a middle set of support arms that would also then read on being the claimed finger, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI-B). Such duplication allows further connection and guidance of the tote/tank with that of the frame that’s lifting it.
With respect to claim 10, Strelcheck discloses wherein the spreading frame is coupled to a vehicle coupling interface that connects the spreading frame to the spreading vehicle (as shown in figure 1, where 130 is connected).
With respect to claim 11, Strelcheck discloses the finger extends a first distance from the forward-facing surface of the body (where the noted guidance pins, or duplicated frame arms extend) and wherein the auger extends a second distance from the forward-facing surface of the body (being the distance the auger extends).
With respect to claim 12, Strelcheck discloses the first distance is greater than the second distance (where duplicated frame arms would extend further then the auger, as shown in figure 1, another set of arms extends far past that of 140).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 allowed. Note the above 112(b) rejections of claims 5 and 13.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art fails to disclose “ a finger coupled to and extending outward from the body, the finger positioned between the upper support arm and the lower support arm; wherein, when the spreading frame is disengaged from the tote, the biasing component provides a closing force on the door such that the door is moved toward the closed position blocking the opening; and wherein, when the spreading frame is engaged with the tote, the tote is positioned in the gap between the upper support arm and the lower support arm, and the finger presses against the door of the tote, providing a force on the door such that the door is rotated away from the opening to the open position such that the opening is unblocked by the door.” Such limitations were not found in the prior art, nor would the applied references to claims 9 and 14 be obvious to combine to create such a combination of structure. The finger and door are disclosed, but such interaction between them specifically is not find the prior art with a biasing element further used.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Arthur Hall can be reached at 571-270-1814. 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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752