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 1-10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lamaire et al. (EP 1350893).
As concerns claim 1, Lamaire shows a trench cutter (1) with at least one milling wheel (6) that is rotatably mounted on a bearing plate (4, 16) and has at least one adjustable cutting tool (9) for crushing soil material, wherein the adjustable cutting tool comprises a base body (18) that is movably mounted (10) on the milling wheel and interacts with the bearing plate in such a way that the adjustable cutting tool moves automatically between a folded-in position (Fig. 3) and a folded-out position (Fig. 4) as a function of the angle of rotation when the milling wheel is rotated (Fig. 1), wherein the adjustable cutting tool can be moved from the folded-out position into the folded-in position via a first guide element (17) that contacts the bearing plate (16), wherein the first guide element (17) is formed integrally with the base body (18) and projects from the base body in the direction of the bearing plate on a side facing the bearing plate (Fig. 3).
As concerns claim 2, Lamaire shows wherein the adjustable cutting tool is designed such that in the folded-in position it is axially spaced apart from the bearing plate and can be moved past it (Fig. 3) and in the folded-out position it projects into a region radially adjacent to the bearing plate (Fig. 4).
As concerns claim 3, Lamaire shows wherein the adjustable cutting tool is pivotably mounted (10) on the milling wheel (Fig. 3 & 4).
As concerns claim 4, Lamaire shows wherein the base body (18) has a chamfer (surface between side face 17 & rear face 19), which extends at least partially onto the first guide element (17) and is located on a front edge of the base body in the direction of rotation during milling operation (Fig. 2 & 3).
As concerns claim 5, Lamaire shows wherein the base body (18) has a holder for a replaceable milling tooth (9a) and the first guide element (17) is arranged in front of the holder in the direction of rotation during milling operation (Fig. 2 & 3), wherein the holder comprises a recess extending in the direction of a pivot axis of the base body (Fig. 3 & 4).
As concerns claim 6, Lamaire shows wherein the first guide element (17) is arranged on a front portion of the base body in the direction of rotation during milling operation (Fig. 2 & 3).
As concerns claim 7, Lamaire shows wherein only one first guide element (17) is provided for moving the adjustable cutting tool from the folded-out position into the folded-in position (Fig. 1 & 3).
As concerns claim 8, Lamaire shows wherein the first guide element (17) comprises a flat portion pointing towards the bearing plate (16) in the folded-in position, which adjoins a chamfer (surface between side face 17 & rear face 19) of the base body (Fig. 3).
As concerns claim 9, Lamaire shows wherein the adjustable cutting tool comprises a second guide element (19), which is designed such that the adjustable cutting tool can be moved from the folded-in position to the folded-out position by contacting the bearing plate (Fig. 1, 3 & 4), wherein the second guide element is spaced apart from the first guide element (17) in the radial direction and is arranged on a side of a pivot axis (10) of the base body opposite the first guide element (Fig. 3 & 4).
As concerns claim 10, Lamaire shows wherein a control guide (16) is provided on the bearing plate (4), which interacts with the adjustable cutting tool (9) such that it moves automatically between the folded-in position and the folded-out position when the milling wheel is rotated, depending on the angle of rotation (Fig. 1 & 3).
As concerns claim 13, Lamaire shows wherein a milling wheel (6) is arranged on opposite sides of the bearing plate (Fig. 1), wherein the milling wheels are coaxially mounted and each have at least one adjustable cutting tool (9), wherein the trench cutter has two bearing plates, each having a pair of milling wheels (abstract).
As concerns claim 14, Lamaire shows an adjustable cutting tool (9) having a hinged tooth (9a) for a trench cutter (1) according to claim 1 (Fig. 1).
As concerns claim 15, Lamaire shows a carrier device (excavator) having a trench cutter (1) according to claim 1 (Fig. 1).
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.
Claims 11, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamaire et al. as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Bauer et al. (US 4,834,197).
As concerns claim 11, Lamaire discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the control guide comprises a control bar arranged on the bearing plate, which extends in a first angular range around the axis of rotation of the milling wheel and is designed in such a way that the adjustable cutting tool moves from the folded-in position into the folded-out position by contacting the control bar, wherein the control bar has a chamfer that slopes down towards the bearing plate at one end or at both ends. Bauer teaches a control bar (15) arranged on a bearing plate (1), which extends in a first angular range around an axis of rotation of a milling wheel (Fig. 4) and is designed in such a way that an adjustable cutting tool (7) moves from a folded-in position into a folded-out position by contacting the control bar (Fig. 3 & 4), wherein the control bar has a chamfer (22, 29) that slopes down towards the bearing plate at one end or at both ends (Fig. 4). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Lamaire, as taught by Bauer, to include a control bar arranged on the bearing plate for the expected benefit of moving the adjustable cutting tool from the folded-in position into the folded-out position in order to remove material to the side and below the bearing plate. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a control bar arranged on the bearing plate to move the adjustable cutting tool from the folded-in position into the folded-out position 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 trench cutter design.
As concerns claim 12, the combination teaches wherein the control guide comprises a control surface (Bauer: 31), which extends in a second angular range around the axis of rotation of the milling wheel (Bauer: Fig. 4) and is designed such that the adjustable cutting tool (Bauer: 7) moves from the folded-out position into the folded-in position by contacting the control surface through the first guide element (Bauer: Fig. 4; col 4, ln 39-49).
As concerns claim 16, the combination teaches wherein the carrier device is a cable excavator (Bauer: Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that Lamaire does not teach or suggest that the first guide element is formed integrally with the base body and projects from the base body, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Lamaire shows wherein the adjustable cutting tool (9) can be moved from the folded-out position (Fig. 4) into the folded-in position (Fig. 3) via a first guide element (17) that contacts the bearing plate (16), wherein the first guide element (17) is formed integrally with the base body (18) and projects from the base body in the direction of the bearing plate on a side facing the bearing plate (Fig. 3). In other words, Lamaire teaches wherein a portion of a support (18) having a side face (17) is integrally formed with another portion of the support (18) adjacent a pivot (10) and the portion of the support having the side face projects from the other portion of the support adjacent the pivot (Fig. 3). Furthermore, nothing in the claim limits the interpretation that a portion of a base body having a side surface that is formed integrally with another portion of the base body and projects from the other portion of the base body in the direction of a bearing plate corresponds with a first guide element that is formed integrally with a base body and projects from the base body in the direction of a bearing plate. Thus, Lamaire teaches that a first guide element is formed integrally with a base body and projects from the base body. Therefore, Lamaire 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