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, 6, 7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pino (US 2021/0270009).
As concerns claim 1, Pino shows a system (Fig. 1, 4 & 5) for vacuum excavation of local transmission (abstract), comprising: an end effector (2) coupled (via vacuum hose attachment 6) to a vacuum hose (50); the end effector comprising: a manifold (20) coupled to one or more valves (24); one or more pipes (Fig. 27: tubular member between valve 24 & nozzle 22) coupled to the one or more valves (Fig. 1 & 27); and an excavator head (4) including a nozzle array (plurality of nozzles 22) coupled to the one or more pipes (Fig. 1 & 27), wherein the nozzle array includes one or more nozzles (22), each coupled to a pipe of the one or more pipes (Fig. 1 & 27).
As concerns claim 6, Pino shows wherein the one or more valves are provided in a form of a pilot solenoid valve (paragraph 0063).
As concerns claim 7, Pino shows wherein the one or more valves are provided in a form of an air logic control valve (paragraph 0063).
As concerns claim 9, Pino shows wherein the one or more valves are configured such that only one nozzle of the one or more nozzles exhausts air at one time (paragraph 0049 & 0063).
As concerns claim 10, Pino shows wherein the one or more valves are configured such that only two nozzles of the one or more nozzles exhausts air at one time (paragraph 0049 & 0063).
As concerns claim 11, Pino shows wherein the two nozzles are positioned opposite from each other on the nozzle array (paragraph 0049 & 0063).
As concerns claim 12, Pino shows a method (Fig.1, 4 & 5) for vacuum excavation of local transmission (abstract), comprising: providing one or more nozzles (22) in a form of a nozzle array (plurality of nozzles 22); providing one or more valves (24), wherein each of the one or more nozzles is coupled to a respective valve of the one or more valves (Fig. 1 & 27); actuating the one or more valves such that air is exhausted from the one or more nozzles (paragraph 0049 & 0063), wherein the air agitates material to be excavated (Fig. 4 & 5; paragraph 0047 & 0050); and providing suction (via source of vacuum 52) through a vacuum hose (50) to vacuum the agitated material (Fig. 4 & 5; paragraph 0046, 0047 & 0057).
As concerns claim 13, Pino shows wherein a single valve of the one or more valves is actuated at a time (paragraph 0049 & 0063).
As concerns claim 14, Pino shows wherein two valves of the one or more valves is actuated at a time (paragraph 0049 & 0063).
As concerns claim 15, Pino shows providing a delay between actuating a first set of the one or more valves and actuating a second set of the one or more valves (paragraph 0049 & 0063).
As concerns claim 16, Pino shows providing a delay between actuating a first valve of the one or more valves and actuating a second valve of the one or more valves (paragraph 0049 & 0063).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pino as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hursen (US 7,631,444).
As concerns claim 8, Pino discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the one or more nozzles are each configured to exhaust air at a supersonic speed. Hursen teaches wherein one or more nozzles (1) are each configured to exhaust air at a supersonic speed (claim 1). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Pino, as taught by Hursen, to form the one or more nozzles such that air is exhausted at a supersonic speed for the expected benefit of effectively agitating material to be excavated by the vacuum device. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that forming the one or more nozzles such that air is exhausted at a supersonic speed would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the expected result of this configuration improves versatility/adaptability/efficiency of the system design.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 are allowed over the prior art of record.
Claims 2-5 are 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: the prior art of record does not appear to anticipate and/or render obvious a system for vacuum excavation of local transmission, comprising: an end effector coupled to a vacuum hose, the end effector comprising: an inlet coupled to a top plate of a manifold; one or more valves coupled to a bottom plate of the manifold; one or more pipes each coupled to a valve of the one or more valves; and an excavator head including a nozzle array, wherein the nozzle array includes one or more nozzles, each coupled to a pipe of the one or more pipes.
Pino shows a system (Fig. 1, 4 & 5) for vacuum excavation of local transmission (abstract), comprising: an end effector (2) coupled (via vacuum hose attachment 6) to a vacuum hose (50); the end effector comprising: an inlet (26) coupled to a manifold (20); one or more valves (24) coupled to the manifold (20); one or more pipes (Fig. 27: tubular member between valve 24 & nozzle 22) each coupled to a valve (24) of the one or more valves (Fig. 1 & 27); and an excavator head (4) including a nozzle array (plurality of nozzles 22), wherein the nozzle array includes one or more nozzles (22), each coupled to a pipe (Fig. 27: tubular member between valve 24 & nozzle 22) of the one or more pipes (Fig. 1 & 27). Furthermore, Pino discloses that the manifold (20) comprises a hollow chamber and is configured to contain compressed air (paragraph 0049), and the manifold (20) can be formed from any suitable material and be formed from a steel tube bent into a circular shape (paragraph 0051). However, Pino does not teach or suggest wherein the manifold comprises a top plate and a bottom plate, wherein the inlet is coupled to the top plate and the one or more valves is coupled to the bottom plate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Pino does not disclose one or more pipes coupled to the one or more valves, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Pino shows, in Fig. 27, a tubular member connected to a valve (24), a tubular member connected between the valve (24) and a vibrating device (150), the vibrating device (150) connected to a swivel base (23), and the swivel base (23) connected to a nozzle (22). Furthermore, Pino discloses, in paragraph 0049, that the valve (24) can be used to regulate the amount of compressed air from the manifold (20) to the nozzle (22). Additionally, a definition of pipe is a long tube or hollow body for conducting a liquid, gas, or finely divided solid [www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pipe]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized and interpreted the tubular member between the valve (24) and the nozzle (22) as a pipe coupled to the valve and the nozzle since the tubular member allows compressed air regulated by the valve to flow from the manifold to the nozzle. Therefore, Pino meets the claim language.
In response to applicant’s argument that Pino does not disclose actuating the one or more valves such that air is exhausted from the one or more nozzles, wherein the air agitates material to be excavated, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Pino discloses, in paragraph 0047, that the dirt (62) surrounding the buried utility (64) is often hard to remove, since it can comprise clay, rocks, gravel, organic matter, or other materials, and can be compacted, and the present invention solves this problem by using a spray device configured for spraying compressed air (21), into the dirt to loosen the dirt so that the dirt can be more easily vacuumed into the vacuum nozzle (2), and, in paragraph 0049, that the valve (24) can be used to regulate the amount of compressed air from the manifold (20) to the nozzle (22). Pino further discloses, in paragraph 0050, that the compressed air nozzle (22) can be stationary during use or can have a swivel base (23) to allow the compressed air nozzle to rotate during use so that the flow of compressed air (21) from the compressed air nozzle is moved around in the access hole (60) to break up the dirt (62) surrounding the buried utility (64), and, in paragraph 0063, that if desired the manually operated valves described and shown herein can be replaced with automatic or electronically controlled valves connected to a control system, wherein the flow and pressure of the air (21) can be precisely controlled to avoid damaging the buried utility. Therefore, Pino meets the claim language.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights