An 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 § 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) 1-3,14,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderford (10,450,708) in view of .
Regarding claim 1, Vanderford teaches an apparatus, comprising: a frame (12) configured to be supported by a plurality of ground-contacting motive elements (19); a tub (16) supported on the frame; a hopper (20) supported by the frame and having an upper opening positioned below the tub. Vanderford fails to teach a shock absorber. Arndt teaches a hopper and a shock absorber (74) interconnecting the hopper (87) and the frame (18) such that the hopper is movable relative to the frame in response to movement of the shock absorber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the connection between the frame and the hopper of Vanderford shock absorbers as taught by Arndt as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 2, Vanderford as modified by Arndt teaches the shock absorber comprises a fastener surrounded by a spring (74).
Regarding claim 3, Vanderford as modified by Arndt teaches the hopper moves vertically in response to movement of the shock absorber.
Regarding claim 14, Vanderford teaches a trench filling machine, comprising: a frame (12) supported by a plurality of ground-contacting motive elements (19) configured to move the frame along a ground surface; a tub (16) supported on the frame; a hopper (20) positioned below the tub and supported by the frame. Arndt teaches a hopper and a suspension system (74) interconnecting the hopper (87) and the frame (18) such that the suspension system configured to raise and lower the hopper in response to deviations in the ground surface as the machine moves along the ground surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the connection between the frame and the hopper of Vanderford suspension system as taught by Arndt as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 20, Vanderford as modified by Arndt teaches the hopper comprises a trench guide configured to be disposed within at least a portion of a narrow trench formed in the ground surface (bottom of hopper).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-13, 15-19 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892. White teaches a trenching machine with a pivoting bracket.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL ANNE RISIC whose telephone number is (571)270-7819. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, M-Th.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/ABIGAIL A RISIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 May 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights