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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 10-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 3, it appears that “an” should be deleted from the phrase, “at least one an ejection arm, for proper grammar.
In claim 1, line 4, it appears that “pivotable” should be --pivotably-- for proper grammar.
In claim 1, line 5, it appears that “extend” should be --extends-- for proper grammar.
In claim 1, line 8, it appears that “prevent” should be --prevents-- for proper grammar.
In claim 1, line 10, it appears that --the-- should be inserted before “load” for proper grammar.
In claim 1, lines 9-10, “the ejector board” has no antecedent basis in the claims. Previously, Applicant has recited an “ejection board.”
Claims 10-13, 15, and 17 have a similar problem.
In claim 3, line 5, “the opposite side of the pivot point” has no antecedent basis in the claims. This objection could be overcome by changing the noted language to --and opposite side of the pivot point.--
In claim 6, line 3, “it appears that “push” should be --pushes-- for proper grammar.
In claim 7, line 2, “it appears that “push” should be --pushes-- for proper grammar.
In claim 10, line 1, it appears that “reach” should be --reaches-- for proper grammar.
In claim 11, line 1, it appears that “reach” should be --reaches-- for proper grammar.
In claim 12, line 1, it appears that “reach” should be --reaches-- for proper grammar.
In claims 11-13, line 1 of each, it appears that a term such as --wherein-- is missing
before “the ejector board.”
In claim 14, line 1, “the ejector arm” has no proper antecedent basis in the claims. Previously, Applicant has recited --ejection arm.--
Claims 15-16, 18, and 19 have a similar problem.
In claim 19, line5, it appears --the-- should be inserted before “L-shaped ejector arms” for proper grammar.
In claim 19, line 6, “the second portion” has no antecedent basis in the claims. Previously, in line 3, of claim 19, Applicant has recited “a second part.”
In claim 19, line 6, “the substantially L-shaped ejector arm” has no proper antecedent basis in the claims. Previously, Applicant has recited two L-shaped ejection arms. This objection could be overcome changing “the substantially L-shaped ejector arm” to --each substantially L-shaped ejection arm.--
In claim 19, line 11, it appears that the first occurrence of “the” should be deleted for proper grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9, 15-16, and 18-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 does not appear to grammatically make sense. It appears that Applicant may be intending to recite, --The tipper arrangement of claim 8, wherein the actuator is activated in response to the at least one ejection arm losing contact with the stopper element.--
In claim 15, line 1 “two ejector arms” is vague and indefinite. It appears that Applicant is reciting two ejector arms in addition to the at least one ejector arm recited in claim 1. However, the disclosure suggests that Applicant is actually intending to recite, --wherein the at least one ejector arm comprises two ejector arms . . .” This language would overcome the 112(b) rejection.
Claim 19 has a similar problem.
In claim 18, line 2, “for each ejector arm” is vague and indefinite because Applicant has previously only recited a single ejector arm. This rejection could be overcome by simply deleting “for each ejector arm.”
In claim 18, line 2, the term “receptive” does not appear to make sense in this context. It appears that Applicant intended to recite --respective--.
In claim 19, at several locations “the ejector arm” has no antecedent basis in the claims. Previously, Applicant has recited “two ejection arms.” This rejection could be overcome by replacing the noted language with --each ejection arm--.
In claim 19, lines 12-13, “the at least one ejection arm” has no proper antecedent basis in the claims now that two ejection arms have been recited. This rejection could be overcome by replacing the noted language with --each ejection arm.--
In claim 20, “a tipper body” is a double recitation of that which has already been recited in claim 1. It is noted, in claim 1, that Applicant recite that the tipper arraignment already includes “a tipper body.” This rejection could be overcome by changing claim 20 to:
--A vehicle comprising the tipper arrangement according to claim 1.--
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 10-14, and 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the informalities mentioned above.
Claims 9, 15-16, and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-20 have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the movable ejection board mechanically attached to at least one ejection arm being inside the tipper body and pivotably attached with respect to the tipper body and the at least one ejection arm extending to below the tipper body; and an actuator configured to rotate the at least one ejection arm in which the at least one ejection arm is in mechanical contact with a stopper element below the tipper body that prevent rotation of the at least one ejection arm.
The closest prior art of record is to Xie and Zhao. Xie teaches a tipper arraignment including an ejection board mechanically connected to an ejection device in which the ejection device is located within the tipper body and extends to below the tipper body. However, the ejection device does not include an ejection arm. Zhao teaches a tipper body with and ejection3 board and at least one ejection arm wherein the ejection arm is inside the tipper body and extends outside of the tipper body. However, the at least on ejection arm does not extend below the tipper body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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 Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/Daniel J Colilla/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612