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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Chile. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. it is noted that Applicant has filed an interim copy, however this is not a certified copy.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include reference numbers to the following elements from the specification:
Ore unloading mat, length, width, upper/working face, gradient, coating, structural surface, floor, structural frame, dump truck hopper, lower/support face, set of ropes or support bands, opening, fixing and tensioning device, transfer chute, structural walls, outlet, core, rear part, unloading position, and front edge all lack reference numbers in the drawings.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Ore unloading mat, length, width, upper/working face, gradient, coating, structural surface, floor, structural frame, dump truck hopper, lower/support face, set of ropes or support bands, opening, fixing and tensioning device, transfer chute, structural walls, outlet, core, rear part, unloading position, and front edge all lack reference numbers in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Medel (Patent No. 7,025,407).
Re: claim 1, Medel teaches an ore unloading mat (Annotated Fig. 7) formed by a rubber body (150) having a length (length) and a width (width); wherein the rubber body comprises an upper face or working face (upper/working face) and an outlet end (outlet end); wherein the working face corresponds to a zone of the rubber body that is in contact with an ore at least during a circulation of said ore over the rubber body (See Fig. 1 for communication with the dump body); wherein the outlet end corresponds to an edge of the rubber body where the circulating ore is no longer in contact with the working face (Annotated Fig. 7 – outer end), heading out of the unloading mat; CHARACTERIZED in that the rubber body has at least two portions, a first portion having a substantially uniform thickness (Annotated Fig. 7 – First portion) and a second portion having a variable thickness (Annotated Fig. 7 – Second Portion) wherein the variable thickness of the second portion generates a thickness gradient that increases towards the outlet end (Annotated Fig. 7 – Gradient), wherein said thickness gradient is formed by three or more thicknesses (Annotated Fig. 7 – Varying Thickness) distributed in a direction of the ore circulation.
It is noted by the examiner that the points annotated for thickness on Fig. 7 are arbitrary, but an infinite number of points can be selected along the second portion to show varying thickness as a gradient is present throughout the entire portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
410
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 2, Medel teaches the rubber body (150) forms a coating (See Fig. 1) wherein the rubber body is fixed to a structural surface (Fig. 3 – 310) that supports the unloading mat (Fig. 7).
Re: claim 3, Medel teaches the rubber body (Fig. 1 - 150) forms a floor (See 150 on Fig. 1) of a dump truck hopper (100) wherein the rubber body is arranged hanging or suspended (Fig. 1 – 160) on a structural frame (Fig. 3 - 310) that forms the hopper.
Re: claim 4, Medel teaches the rubber body (Fig. 1 – 150) is fixed to the structural frame (Fig. 3 – 310) by connecting two or more edges of the rubber body with said structural frame (See Fig. 7 & 8 then 9 – 160), leaving free the edge corresponding to the output end (Annotated Fig. 7 – Outlet end) of said rubber body (150).
It is noted by the examiner that the plurality of elastomeric ropes is connected to the width edges of the rubber mat which are connected to the frame of the mining hopper of Medel.
Re: claim 5, Medel teaches the rubber body (150) comprises a lower face or support face (Annotated Fig. 8 – lower/support face) opposite to the working face, wherein said support face is connected to the structural frame (Annotated Fig. 8 – Frame & Fig. 3 – 310) by means of a set of ropes or support bands (Fig. 8 – 160) which have two ends that are releasably attached (Annotated Fig. 8 – attachment points) to the structural frame (Annotated Fig. 8 – Frame) (See Also Col. 3 – Lines 22-28).
PNG
media_image2.png
386
547
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 7, Medel teaches the ends of the ropes or support bands (160) are formed by an alloy of materials to improve their resistance, said alloy of materials includes Kevlar or another fiber-reinforced composite material (Col. 5 – lines 1-2 – polyester fibers covered with rubber).
Re: claim 8, Medel teaches the ends of each rope or support band (160) form an opening (See Fig. 8) that is connected to the structural frame (Annotated Fig. 8 – Frame) by means of a fixing and tensioning device (Annotated Fig. 8 – tensioning device) (See also Col. 5 – lines 44-54). Re: claim 9, Medel teaches the thickness gradient (Annotated Fig. 7 - Gradient) presents a continuous variation of the thickness of the rubber body (See Annotated Fig. 7), so that a transition between the first portion of substantially uniform thickness and the second portion of variable thickness is not abrupt (Annotated Fig. 7 – Division between 1st and 2nd portion) (See Also Col. 3 – lines 33-36).
Re: claim 10, Medel teaches a transfer chute (Fig. 1 – 100) comprising structural walls (120 & 310), an inlet (Annotated Fig. 1 – inlet) and an outlet (Annotated Fig. 1 – outlet), the transfer chute CHARACTERIZED in that it comprises at least one unloading mat according to claim 1 (See Rejection of claim 1), arranged as a covering of at least one of the structural walls (310), so that the outlet end (Annotated Fig. 7 – outlet end) of the unloading mat (Fig. 7) is arranged towards the outlet of the chute (Annotated Fig. 1 – outlet).
PNG
media_image3.png
470
716
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medel in view of Hood (Patent No. 3,911,785).
Re: claim 6, Medel teaches the ropes or support bands (160) are formed by a core (Col. 5 – line 1-2) wrapped in elastomeric material (Col. 3 – Lines 22-28 & Col. 5 – lines 1-2). Medel is silent on the elastomeric material being neoprene.
However, Hood teaches a yarn rope (10) with a neoprene coating (20).
Medel and Hood are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of ropes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Medel’s elastomeric ropes with those of Hood’s neoprene coating in order to provide for a system that is more resistant to abrasion and degradation by ultraviolet light (See in Hood – Col. 3 – Lines 57-59).
Claim(s) 11-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medel in view of Hagenbuch (Patent No. 9,216,680).
Re: claim 11, Medel teaches a dump truck hopper (Fig. 1 – 100) comprising a rear part (Annotated Fig. 1 – outlet), the dump truck hopper CHARACTERIZED in that it comprises an unloading mat according to claim 1 (See Rejection of claim 1), arranged so that the outlet end (Annotated Fig. 7 – outlet end) of the unloading mat (Fig. 7) is arranged towards the rear of the dump truck hopper (Annotated Fig. 1 – outlet). Medel fails to teach whereby material within the hopper exits the hopper when tilted into an unloading position.
However, Hagenbuch teaches whereby material within the hopper exits the hopper when tilted into an unloading position (See Fig. 2) (See Also Col. 5 – lines 10-13).
Medel and Hagenbuch are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of dump trucks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Medel’s dump body with those of Hagenbuch’s unloading position in order to provide for a more varied and productive system (i.e. Alternate positions allowing the ability to remove material without the need of manual labor allows for work sites to relocate material faster).
Re: claim 12, Medel teaches the unloading mat (Fig. 7) is arranged covering a floor (110) of the dump truck hopper (100).
Re: claim 13, Medel teaches the unloading mat (Fig. 7) is arranged to form a floor of the dump truck hopper (See Fig. 1), wherein the unloading mat comprises lateral edges (Annotated Fig. 1 – lateral edges) and a front edge (Annotated Fig. 1 – front edge) that are fixed to a structural frame (310) of the dump truck hopper (100), leaving free the edge corresponding to the outlet end (Annotated Fig. 7 – outlet end) of said rubber body.
Re: claim 14, Medel teaches the rubber body (150) comprises a lower face or support face (Annotated Fig. 8 – lower/support face) opposite to the working face, wherein said support face is connected to the structural frame (Annotated Fig. 8 – Frame & Fig. 3 – 310) by means of a set of ropes or support bands (Fig. 8 -160) having two ends that are releasably attached (Annotated Fig. 8 – attachment points) to the structural frame (Annotated Fig. 8 – Frame) (See Also Col. 3 – Lines 22-28).
Re: claim 16, Medel teaches the ends of each rope or support band (160) form an opening (See Fig. 8) that is connected to the structural frame (Annotated Fig. 8 – Frame) by means of a fixing and tensioning device (Annotated Fig. 8 – tensioning device) (See also Col. 5 – lines 44-54).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medel in view of Hagenbuch in further view of Hood (Patent No. 3,911,785).
Re: claim 15, Medel teaches the ropes or support bands (160) are formed by a core (Col. 5 – line 1-2) wrapped in elastomeric material (Col. 3 – Lines 22-28 & Col. 5 – lines 1-2), the ends of the ropes or support bands (160) are formed by an alloy of materials to improve their resistance, said alloy of materials includes Kevlar or another material with similar mechanical behavior (Col. 5 – lines 1-2 – polyester fibers covered with rubber). Medel is silent on the elastomeric material being neoprene.
However, Hood teaches a yarn rope (10) with a neoprene coating (20).
Medel and Hood are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of ropes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Medel’s elastomeric ropes with those of Hood’s neoprene coating in order to provide for a system that is more resistant to abrasion and degradation by ultraviolet light (See in Hood – Col. 3 – Lines 57-59).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kelsey (Patent No. 2,584,025) discloses an elevator bucket with suction barrier, having a rubber chute lining.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP C ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 4:00 CT.
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, Amy R Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/PHILIP CHARLES ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612