The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The specification is objected to since the written description only implicitly or inherently discloses the structure, material, or acts for performing the function recited in a claim limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph.
Specifically, Claims 1 and 6 contain element "operation means", Claim 1 contains element “constraining means”, and Claim 10 contains element “tilting means”. These elements are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Rather than clearly linking a specific scope of structural features related to the claim limitations, the written description only implicitly or inherently sets forth the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function. Specifically, the specification states: “the operation means 5 preferably comprises at least an actuator 50” and “the operation means 5 could include movable trolleys which can be operated, for example, by electro-mechanical motor” Therefore, the Specification does not provide a clear boundary for the interpretation of the operation means and therefore the specification does not allow the scope of the claims to be bounded. Regarding the “constraining means”/“constraining mechanism” and “tilting means”, the Specification is silent as to corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function and therefore the specification does not allow the scope of the claims to be bounded.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181, applicant should:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(c) State on the record what corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function.
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, 3, and 6-10, and therefore dependent Claims 2, 4, and 5, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said constraining means". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since a “constraining means" has not been previously claimed.
Claim 3 recites the limitations "said secondary plane" and "said main plane". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims since neither a “secondary plane" nor a “main plane" have been previously claimed.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "said first end" and "said second end". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims since neither a “first end" nor a “second end" have been previously claimed.
Claim 8 recites the limitations "said tank" and "said main surface". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims since neither a “tank" nor a “main surface" have been previously claimed.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "said ground" and "said main plane". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims since neither a “ground" nor a “main plane" have been previously claimed.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "said tilting axis". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since a “tilting axis" has not been previously claimed.
Claims 1, 6, and 10, and therefore dependent Claims 2-5 and 7-9, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim elements “operation means”, “constraining means”/“constraining mechanism”, and “tilting means” are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function. The written description only implicitly or inherently sets forth the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function, however, the claim elements are not specifically and distinctly identified and tied to the specific structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function. Therefore, the specification does not provide a clear boundary for the interpretation of the “operation means”, “constraining means”/“constraining mechanism”, and “tilting means” and therefore the specification does not allow the scope of the claims to be bounded. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite since it is not specifically bounded.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant may:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links or associates the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a) ); or
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(c) State on the record where the corresponding structure, material, or acts are set forth in the written description of the specification and linked or associated to the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.175(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181 .
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
As previously presented, the claim elements presented in Claims 1, 6, and 10 cannot be properly interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the specification does not provide a clear boundary regarding the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For the purpose of examination of Claims 1, 6, and 10, the Examiner will attempt, as best understood, to match the claim elements to structure in the prior art that is similar to the Applicant's device with similar/equivalent operation.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claims 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sickinger DE 102020122822 A1 (hereafter Sickinger).
Regarding Claim 1, Sickinger anticipates:
1. Loading area (filter holder 164, lifted as shown in Figure 12) for road sweeper (self-propelled sweeper 10) comprising:
a tub (dirt collecting device 68) capable of containing waste and defining at least:
an opening (opening 84) through which said waste can escape from said tub (dirt collecting device 68), and
a complementary surface (frontmost edge of opening 84, Figure 11) adjacent to said opening (opening 84),
a lid (closure 86) configured to occupy, on command, said opening (opening 84);
a constraining mechanism (strut 116 and pivot bearing 90 arranged to actuate closure 86) constraining in a compliant way said lid (closure 86) to said tub (dirt collecting device 68) in such a manner as to determine at least:
a closing configuration (closed position 110, Figure 10) in which said lid (closure 86) entirely occupies said opening (opening 84), and
an opening configuration (open position 112, Figure 11) in which said lid (closure 86) entirely frees said opening (opening 84); characterised by comprising
operation means (drive 114) operatively connected to said constraining means (strut 116 and pivot bearing 90 arranged to actuate closure 86) and configured to bring said constraining means (strut 116 and pivot bearing 90 arranged to actuate closure 86) from said closing configuration (closed position 110, Figure 10) to said opening configuration (open position 112, Figure 11) or vice versa; and by
said constraining mechanism (strut 116 and pivot bearing 90 arranged to actuate closure 86) is connected to said tub (dirt collecting device 68) at said complementary surface (frontmost edge of opening 84, Figure 11) and is configured so that, in said opening configuration, said lid (closure 86) is at least partially superimposed on said complementary surface (frontmost edge of opening 84, Figure 11)(shown in Figure 10).
Regarding Claim 5, Sickinger anticipates:
5. Loading area according to claim 1, wherein said constraining mechanism (strut 116 and pivot bearing 90 arranged to actuate closure 86) comprises at least one pair of connectors (pivotal connection between strut 116 and drive 114 on both sides) each constrained in a compliant way to said complementary surface (frontmost edge of opening 84, Figure 11) so as to be able to rotate with respect to said complementary surface (frontmost edge of opening 84, Figure 11) about its own first axis of rotation (axis of pivot bearing 90) normal to a movement plane (plane of strut 116, Figure 9) on which said predetermined trajectory (pivotal trajectory about pivot axis 90) lies and each one is constrained in a compliant way to said lid (closure 86) in such a way that it can rotate with respect to said cover (closure 86) about its own second axis of rotation (axis of pivotal connection between strut 116 and drive 114) normal to said movement plane (plane of strut 116, Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 6, Sickinger anticipates:
6. Loading area according to claim 1, wherein said operation means (drive 114) comprise at least one linear actuator (hydraulic cylinder, electric motor, or pneumatic cylinder) operably connected between said complementary surface (frontmost edge of opening 84, Figure 11) and at least one said connector (pivotal connection between strut 116 and drive 114 on both sides).
Regarding Claim 7, Sickinger anticipates:
7. Loading area according to claim 5, wherein said actuator (hydraulic cylinder, electric motor, or pneumatic cylinder) is expandable between said first end (end of hydraulic cylinder, electric motor, or pneumatic cylinder nearest strut 116, Figure 9) and said second end (end of hydraulic cylinder, electric motor, or pneumatic cylinder nearest holding device 70, Figure 12) opposite said first end (end of hydraulic cylinder, electric motor, or pneumatic cylinder nearest strut 116, Figure 9), constrained in a compliant way at said first end (end of hydraulic cylinder, electric motor, or pneumatic cylinder nearest strut 116, Figure 9) to said complementary surface (frontmost edge of opening 84, Figure 11) so as to be able to rotate about a third axis of rotation (pivotal connection to holding device 70, Figure 12) parallel to said first axis of rotation (axis of pivot bearing 90) and constrained in a compliant way at said second end (end of hydraulic cylinder, electric motor, or pneumatic cylinder nearest holding device 70, Figure 12) to said connector (pivotal connection between strut 116 and drive 114 on both sides) so as to be able to rotate about a fourth axis of rotation (axis of rotation between end of hydraulic cylinder, electric motor, or pneumatic cylinder and strut 116, Figure 9) parallel to said third axis of rotation (pivotal connection to holding device 70, Figure 12).
Regarding Claim 8, Sickinger anticipates:
8. Loading area according to claim 1, wherein said tub (dirt collecting device 68) further comprises a bottom (underside 126, Figure 6) extending on one side of said loading area (filter holder 164, lifted as shown in Figure 12) opposite said opening (opening 84) and said complementary surface (frontmost edge of opening 84, Figure 11)(underside 126 extends rearward away from opening 84, Figure 6), and a side wall (side wall of debris collection chamber 68 best shown in Figures 9 and 12) extending from said bottom (underside 126, Figure 6) to said opening (opening 84) and said complementary surface (frontmost edge of opening 84, Figure 11) and comprising a rear portion (rear wall of debris collection chamber 68 labeled “68” and includes first strut 80a and second strut 80b as shown in Figure 5) diverging outwardly from said bottom (underside 126, Figure 6) to said opening (opening 84) and suitable for allowing the sliding of said waste from said tank (dirt collecting device 68) outwardly when said loading area (filter holder 164, lifted as shown in Figure 12) is overturned and said main surface (plane extending along the width of the sweeper 10 as shown and labeled “main plane” in attached Figures 10 and 11) is transverse to a ground.
PNG
media_image2.png
700
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Sickinger anticipates:
9. Road sweeper (10) comprising a frame (chassis 12) and a loading area (filter holder 164, lifted as shown in Figure 12) according to claim 1, wherein said loading area (filter holder 164, lifted as shown in Figure 12) is constrained in a compliant way to said frame (chassis 12) so as to be able to rotate with respect to said frame (chassis 12) around a tilting axis (axis of pivot bearing 168) parallel to said ground to define at least:
a loading configuration (Figure 13) of said waste in which said constraining mechanism (strut 116 and pivot bearing 90 arranged to actuate closure 86) is in a closed configuration and said main plane (plane extending along the primary face of flap 88) is parallel to a ground (as shown in Figure 13, the cited main plane is substantially parallel to the ground since flap 88 is closed), and
an unloading configuration (Figure 4) of said waste in which said constraining mechanism (strut 116 and pivot bearing 90 arranged to actuate closure 86) is in an opening configuration and said main plane (plane extending along the primary face of flap 88) is transverse to said ground (if positioned as shown in Figure 13, the cited main plane would be traverse to the ground if flap 88 is opened).
Regarding Claim 10, Sickinger anticipates:
10. Road sweeper (self-propelled sweeper 10) according to claim 8, wherein said loading area (filter holder 164, lifted as shown in Figure 12) is constrained to said frame (chassis 12) by a hinge (pivot bearing 76) defining said tilting axis (axis of pivot bearing 78) and positioned at said rear portion (rear wall of debris collection chamber 68 labeled “68” and includes first strut 80a and second strut 80b as shown in Figure 5), and said sweeper (self-propelled sweeper 10) further comprising tilting means (drive 148) configured to move, in a controlled manner, said loading area (filter holder 164, lifted as shown in Figure 12) around said tilting axis (axis of pivot bearing 78) from said loading configuration (shown in Figure 1) to said unloading configuration (shown in Figures 3- 5) and vice versa.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sickinger DE 102020122822 A1 (hereafter Sickinger) in view of design choice.
Regarding Claim 2, Sickinger teaches:
2. Loading area according to claim 1, wherein said complementary surface (frontmost edge of opening 84, Figure 11) predominantly develops along a main plane (plane extending along the width of the sweeper 10 as shown and labeled in attached Figures 10 and 11), said lid (closure 86) predominantly develops along a secondary plane (plane extending along the width of the sweeper 10 as shown and labeled in attached Figures 10 and 11) and said constraining mechanism (strut 116 and pivot bearing 90 arranged to actuate closure 86) is configured to translate said lid (closure 86) along a predetermined trajectory (pivotal trajectory about pivot axis 90) with respect to said tub (dirt collecting device 68) in such a way that said secondary plane (plane extending along the width of the sweeper 10 as shown and labeled in attached Figures 10 and 11) results to be parallel to said main plane (plane extending along the width of the sweeper 10 as shown and labeled in attached Figures 10 and 11) at least in said opening configuration (open position 112, Figure 11) and said closing configuration (closed position 110, Figure 10)(shown in both attached Figures 10 and 11 below).
The claims do not tie the claimed “main plane” and “secondary plane” to any specific device structure. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that they can be arbitrarily interpreted to be as shown below in Figures 10 and 11 which meet the claim limitations.
PNG
media_image2.png
700
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Sickinger teaches:
3. Loading area according to claim 1, wherein said predetermined trajectory (pivotal trajectory about pivot axis 90) is a circular trajectory and said constraining mechanism (strut 116 and pivot bearing 90 arranged to actuate closure 86) is configured to maintain said secondary plane (plane extending along the width of the sweeper 10 as shown and labeled in attached Figures 10 and 11) parallel to said main plane (plane extending along the width of the sweeper 10 as shown and labeled in attached Figures 10 and 11) also during the transition between said opening configuration (open position 112, Figure 11) and said closing configuration (closed position 110, Figure 10)(shown in both attached Figures 10 and 11 above).
The claims do not tie the claimed “main plane” and “secondary plane” to any specific device structure. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that they can be arbitrarily interpreted to be as shown below in Figures 10 and 11 which meet the claim limitations.
Regarding Claim 4, Sickinger teaches:
4. Loading area according to claim 1, wherein said constraining mechanism (strut 116 and pivot bearing 90 arranged to actuate closure 86) defines an articulated parallelogram structure (strut 116 is shown to be substantially rectangular which is a form of a parallelogram – see discussion below)).
Sickinger discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except for showing a strut 116 with a well define parallelogram shape since he elected to chamfer the corner edges as shown in Figure 9. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the different portions of the strut 116 of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, the prior art references include pertinent disclosures of devices with lifting/emptying containers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723