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 .
Election/Restrictions
NOTE: Currently, each of the independent claims 1, 7 and 14 are directed to the species of the stabilizer presented figures 57-62. It should be noted that if future amendments present claims directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed, the amended and/or new claims may be subject to election by original presentation. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed November 9, 2023 includes three references cited (A50, A60, A62) that do not appear to be relevant to the application:
A50: US 9790171 “Synthesis Intermediates For Obtaining Derivatives Of Sphingosines, Ceramides And Sphingomyelins With Good Yields”
A60: 20090137006 “Sugar Kinases With Expanded Substrate Specificity And Their Use”
A62: US 20160106083 “Waterproof Structure For A Fishing Reel”.
It appears these references were cited in error. If these references were intended to be considered, examiner requests a brief explanation of the relevance. If the references are typographical errors, applicant should file an IDS with the correct reference numbers listed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the components and arrangement in figure 57 do not align with that shown in figure 62.
With respect to the annotated figure 62 below:
The circled area “A” appears to include components or features not present on the corresponding point in figure 57.
In the rectangular area “B”, the end of actuator assembly 1750 appears to morph over the plate 270 and into the spaces between rockers 2168.
Appropriate correction is required.
PNG
media_image1.png
629
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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) 1-3, 7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muraro (US 5,899,496).
Muraro discloses:
1. A stabilizer (1, figure 2) for a vehicle (Abstract), the stabilizer comprising:
an actuator assembly (13, figure 3), configured to be coupled (@3, 4, figure 2) to a chassis (2) of the vehicle and configured to lift the vehicle (figure 2);
a ground pad (8) coupled to the actuator assembly (figure 2), the ground pad (8) having a bottom surface configured to engage a support surface below the chassis when the actuator assembly lifts the vehicle (figure 2);
an alignment member (14) configured to be coupled the chassis (figure 2), wherein the alignment member (14) is configured to limit rotation of the ground pad (in retracted position, figure 1); and
wherein the actuator assembly (13) is configured to move a surface of the ground pad (8) into engagement with the alignment member (14) to cause rotation of the ground pad relative to the chassis (Abstract, last sentence).
2. The stabilizer of Claim 1, wherein the surface of the ground pad is shaped to cause the rotation of the ground pad relative to the chassis in response to the surface of the ground pad engaging the alignment member (Abstract and figure 1)
3. The stabilizer of Claim 1, wherein the alignment member (14) is configured to engage the surface of the ground pad in response to retraction of the actuator assembly (Abstract, last sentence, “recovery position” being the retraction of 13).
PNG
media_image2.png
508
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
7. A vehicle (“earth moving vehicle”, Abstract) comprising:
a chassis (4, figure 2);
a plurality of tractive elements (wheels or treads of vehicle) coupled to the chassis (earth moving vehicle construction); and
a stabilizer (figure 2), comprising:
a support member (1, 5) coupled to the chassis and coupling a ground pad (8) to the chassis (figure 2), wherein the support member extends laterally outward from the chassis (4) along an axis (figure 2); and
an actuator (13) configured to move the support member along the axis (outward extension of 5), wherein the ground pad (8) is configured to rotate (through angle alpha, figure 2 & Abstract) in response to the movement of the support member along the axis (figure 3).
8. The vehicle of Claim 7, wherein the actuator (13) is a first actuator, wherein the stabilizer comprises an actuator assembly including the support member (1,5), the first actuator (13), and a second actuator (9) configured to move the ground pad (8) toward a support surface extending below the chassis (figure 3).
12. The vehicle of Claim 7, further comprising an alignment member (14) coupled to the chassis (figure 2), wherein the actuator (13) is configured to move a surface of the ground pad (8) into engagement with the alignment member (14) to cause rotation of the ground pad relative to the chassis (Abstract, last sentence).
PNG
media_image2.png
508
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cassady (US 3,638,965).
Cassidy discloses:
1. A stabilizer (15, figure 1) for a vehicle (10, figure 1), the stabilizer comprising:
an actuator assembly (25, 26, figure 2), configured to be coupled to a chassis of the vehicle (figure 1) and configured to lift the vehicle;
a ground pad (21, 22, figure 1) coupled to the actuator assembly (figure 2), the ground pad (21, 22) having a bottom surface configured to engage a support surface below the chassis when the actuator assembly lifts the vehicle (figure 1);
an alignment member (23, 24, figure 1) configured to be coupled the chassis (figure 1), wherein the alignment member (23, 24) is configured to limit rotation of the ground pad (in the retracted position via abutment of 46, figure 3); and
wherein the actuator assembly (25, 26) is configured to move a surface of the ground pad into engagement with the alignment member (figure 3) to cause rotation of the ground pad relative to the chassis (via engagement with 46, figure 3).
4. The stabilizer of Claim 1, wherein the alignment member (23, 24) is configured to be rotatably coupled to the chassis (figure 2).
Claim(s) 14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bolins (US 3,024,042).
Bolins discloses:
14. A vehicle (figure 1) comprising:
a chassis (chaise of trailer, figure 1);
a plurality of tractive assemblies (wheels of trailer) coupled to the chassis; and
a stabilizer (10, figure 1), comprising:
an actuator assembly (76, 78, 110 figure 2) coupled to the chassis and reconfigurable between a retracted configuration (figure 8) and an extended configuration (figure 2) to lift the chassis;
a ground pad (114) rotatably coupled (@112) to the actuator assembly (figure 2), wherein the ground pad (114) has a bottom surface that is positioned to engage a support surface when the actuator assembly lifts the chassis (figure 2); and
an alignment member (16) coupled to the chassis (figure 1), the alignment member having a first portion (bottom inclined wall 42 of 16, figure 8) and a second portion (vertical wall 20 of 16, figure 8),
wherein, when the actuator assembly is in the retracted configuration (figure 8), the first portion (42) engages the ground pad (114, figure 8) and the second portion (20) engages the actuator assembly ( at least 110 and 28 are in contact with 20, figure 8); and
wherein, when the actuator assembly is in the extended configuration (figure 2), the first portion (42) is separated from the ground pad (114, figure 2) and the second portion (20) is separated from the actuator assembly (figure 2).
18. The vehicle of Claim 14, wherein the actuator assembly (76, 78, 110) is configured to move the ground pad (114) into engagement with the alignment member (figure 8) to cause rotation of the ground pad (about 112) relative to the chassis (position of 114 in figure 2 vs position figure 8).
19. The vehicle of Claim 14, wherein the first portion (42) extends below the second portion (20, figure 8).
20. The vehicle of Claim 14, wherein the first portion (42) is fixedly coupled to the second portion (20, figure 8).
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 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muraro as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of McCully et al. (US 2,885,181). Muraro does not disclose wherein the ground pad (8) is rotatable about a substantially vertical axis.
However, McCully et al. teach wherein the ground pad (25) is rotatable about a substantially vertical axis (due to the ball and socket connection 26; figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to construct the stabilizer of Muraro with a ground pad rotatable about a substantially vertical axis, as taught by McCully et al, so as to provide a more versatile and adaptable ground pad, adjustable to a greater number of ground surface angles, while still being rotatable when coming into contact with an alignment member (10b, figure 3, McCully et al.) when brought into a retracted position.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,851,036. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of US 11,851,036 includes at least all of the structure, components and limitations of claim 1 in the instant application, including, but not limited to the actuator assembly, the ground pad coupled the actuator assembly, and the alignment member configured to limit rotation of the ground pad and move a surface of the ground pad into engagement with the alignment member to cause rotation of the ground pad.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9-11 and 15-17 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
COLLEEN M. CHAVCHAVADZE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3634
/COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights