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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on March 5, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The last four paragraphs of the specification were numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4 following paragraph 55. The paragraphs should be numbered in sequential order.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 6 recites “the bottom surface” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1, line 10 recites “the hanging magnetic” which should be changed to “the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus” to be consistent with line 1 or “the apparatus” to be consistent with line 2.
Claim 1, lines 15-16 recite “from magnetic sweeper apparatus” which should be changed to “from the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus” to be consistent with line 1 or “the apparatus” to be consistent with line 2.
Claim 3, line 1 recites “the hanging magnetic sweeper” which should be changed to “the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus” or “the apparatus” to be consistent with claim 1.
Claim 4, line 2 recites “the magnetic sweeper” which should be changed to “the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus” or “the apparatus” to be consistent with claim 1.
Claim 5, line 1 recites “the top” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5, line 2 recites “the hanging magnetic sweeper” which should be changed to “the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus” or “the apparatus” to be consistent with claim 1.
Claim 7, lines 2-3 recite “the operator of the vehicle to know the approximate outer limits of the apparatus” which raises multiple issues for antecedent basis and inconsistency. The lines should be changed to “an operator of the industrial vehicle to know approximate outer limits of the apparatus”.
Claim 9, line 2 recites “each side of the sweeper and allow the sweeper to be raised” and the phrase “the sweeper” in each instance should be changed to “the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus” to be consistent with claim 1.
Claim 9, line 3 also recites “the sweeper” which should be changed accordingly.
Claim 9, line 4 recites “the vehicle” which should be changed to “the industrial vehicle” to be consistent with claim 1.
Claim 10, line 2 recites “the deck clearance” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 12, lines 2-3 recite “the auxiliary hydraulics system on the vehicle” which should be changed to “an auxiliary hydraulics system on the industrial vehicle”.
Claim 14, line 1 recites “the magnetic sweeper” which should be changed to “the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus” to be consistent with claim 1.
Claim 15, line 1 recites “the hanging magnetic sweeper” which should be changed to “the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus” or “the apparatus” to be consistent with claim 1.
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 1-17 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 1, lines 8-9 recite “a plurality of steel chains for hanging the apparatus to the attachment bracket and the industrial vehicle” which is confusing because the attachment bracket is part of the overall apparatus. It is unclear how the chains hang the apparatus to itself. For the purpose of examination, the plurality of steel chains hang the apparatus to the industrial vehicle.
Claim 1, line 14 introduces “a clean off position” however line 11 previously introduced “a clean off position” and it is unclear if these are the same feature or separate features. For the purpose of examination, they will be treated as being the same feature.
Claims 2-17 depend from claim 1 and contain its limitations and therefore are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 6, lines 1-2 recite “the steel chain is a 3/8” Grade 70 steel chain and wherein four steel chains are hung” and the phrase “the steel chain” and “four chains” both raise issues. Claim 6 depends from claim 1 which introduced “a plurality of steel chains”, and as claim 6 is currently written, the “steel chain” and “four steel chains” are not clearly part of “the plurality of steel chains”. The “steel chain” and “four steel chains” appear to be separate features, and it is unclear if they are part of the plurality. For the purpose of examination, “the steel chain” and “four steel chains” will be treated as being part of “the plurality of steel chains”.
Claim 11, line 1 recites “four hydraulic hoses”, however claim 11 depends from claim 8 which introduced “hydraulic hoses” and it is unclear whether the “four hydraulic hoses” are part of the “hydraulic hoses” of claim 8 or are a separate feature.
Claim 15, line 2 introduces “an industrial vehicle” and recites “the industrial vehicle”, however claim 15 depends from claim 1 which previously introduced “an industrial vehicle” as an intended use for the apparatus. For the purpose of examination, claim 15 will be treated as referring to the same “industrial vehicle” as claim 1.
Claim 16, line 1 recites “the height adjustment feature” which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 16 depends from claim 1 which introduced “a hydraulic assembly configured for moving the hanging magnetic”, and it is unclear if the “height adjustment feature” is the “hydraulic assembly” or a separate feature. For the purpose of examination, the height adjustment feature will be treated as the hydraulic assembly.
Claim 16, lines 2-3 recite “if the vehicle is planning to travel over rough terrain, up a ramp or over large bumps” which raises multiple issues. First, “the vehicle” should be “the industrial vehicle” to be consistent with claim 1. Second, the “plans” of the industrial vehicle are at best an intended use for the industrial vehicle, but do not define the structure of the vehicle, let alone the structure of the apparatus. Further, the “plans” are theoretical/conditional since the limitation begins with “if”. Third, some of the words are relative terms of degree: “rough” and “large”. As far as claim 16 is definite and understood, the hydraulic assembly has the functionality of allowing the apparatus to be raised.
Any and all claims rejected above under 35 USC 112(b), if rejected with art below under sections 35 USC 102 and/or 103, is/are rejected as best understood.
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) 1, 5, 8, 9, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,629,495 to Smale in view of WO 2007/059557 to Tallentire and in further view of “Grade 70 Transport Chain” to Laclede (retrieved from a website September 18, 2019) and US 5,413,225 to Shields.
In Reference to Claim 1
Examiner’s comment: the limitation “for attachment to an industrial vehicle for magnetic sweeping of metallic debris” in the preamble is considered an intended use for the “apparatus”. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction (see MPEP §2111.02 II, first paragraph for further clarification). In this case, the apparatus comprises a frame and attachment bracket configured for attachment of the frame to the industrial vehicle, but attaching to the industrial vehicle is not required. Further, the description “industrial” is an intended use for the vehicle itself.
Smale teaches:
A hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus, configured for attachment to an industrial vehicle for magnetic sweeping of metallic debris, the apparatus comprising:
a frame (housing for magnet 34);
an attachment bracket (40) configured for attachment of the frame to the industrial vehicle;
a hanging magnet (34) housed within the frame;
a bottom pan (bottom of 34) configured as the bottom surface of the hanging magnet configured for magnetic attachment of metallic debris;
a plurality of chains (38, 56) for hanging the apparatus to the attachment bracket and the industrial vehicle; and
a hydraulic assembly (piston rod 60, hydraulic jack 62, hydraulic hoses (not numbered, lines in Figure 2 connecting sump 70, pump 68, hydraulic jack 62), and hydraulic flow diverter 74) configured for moving the hanging magnet from a sweeping position (low to the ground) to a clean-off position (raised away from the ground),
wherein in the sweeping position, the magnet is lowered close to the ground and metallic debris is collected at the bottom pan using magnetic force (see column 2, line 1 through column 3, line 37 and Figures 1-3).
Smale fails to teach:
The bottom pan is metallic, the plurality of chains are steel, and the hydraulic assembly is configured for moving the hanging magnet from a sweeping position to a clean-off position, wherein in the clean off position, the magnet is lifted vertically thereby creating a weaker magnetic force, allowing gravity to clean off the metallic debris away from the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus.
Tallentire teaches:
A hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus (10) comprising a hanging magnet (22) and a hydraulic assembly (24, 26) configured for moving the hanging magnet from a sweeping position (fully lowered position of 22, dotted lines in Figures 2 and 3) to a clean-off position (raised position of 22, solid lines in Figures 2 and 3);
wherein in the sweeping position, the magnet is lowered close to the ground and metallic debris is collected at the bottom pan using magnetic force;
wherein in the clean off position, the magnet is lifted vertically thereby creating a weaker magnetic force, allowing gravity to clean off the metallic debris away from the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus (see page 3, lines 6-33 and Figures 1-3).
Laclede teaches:
A chain is made of steel, wherein the chain is a 3/8” Grade 70 steel chain. Grade 70 is a type of steel.
Shields teaches:
A magnetic sweeper apparatus (magnet 12 in housing 10 and bottom plate 18) comprising a metallic bottom pan (18, made of aluminum, column 2, lines 20-21) configured as a bottom surface of a magnet (12) configured for magnetic attachment of metallic debris (see column 1, line 55 through column 2, line 28 and Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus of Smale by replacing the electromagnet with a permanent magnet to allow the clean off position to allow gravity to clean off the metallic debris away from the magnetic sweeper apparatus as taught by Tallentire as both references are directed to magnets used to collect debris from vehicles, and for the purpose of being able to clean the hanging magnet easier by controlling the strength of the magnetic field (page 3, lines 18-20 of Tallentire).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus of Smale by forming the chains of steel as taught by Laclede as both references are directed to chains used for hanging, and for the purpose of having the desired material properties, such as strength.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus of Smale by forming the bottom pan of metal as taught by Shields for the purpose of having the preferred strength and durability (column 2, lines 20-21 of Shields).
In Reference to Claim 5#
Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a magnet cover (housing around magnet 34 of Smale) on a top and on both ends of the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus (see Figures 1 and 3).
In Reference to Claim 8#
Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the hydraulic assembly further comprises forged top links (piston rod 60, hydraulic jack 62 of Smale), hydraulic hoses (not numbered, lines in Figure 2 connecting sump 70, pump 68, top links 62 of Smale), and a hydraulic flow diverter (valve 74 of Smale) (see Figures 1 and 2 of Smale).
In Reference to Claim 9#
Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields teaches:
The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the forged top links provide height adjustment on each side of the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus and allow the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus to be raised and lowered to achieve desired metallic debris pickup performance and allow the levelness of the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus to be adjusted after it has been mounted to the industrial vehicle (column 3, lines 11-31 of Smale).
In Reference to Claim 16#
Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the hydraulic assembly allows the apparatus to be raised (column 3, lines 11-31 of Smale).
In Reference to Claim 17#
Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the metallic bottom pan is an aluminum pan (column 2, lines 20-21 of Shields).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,629,495 to Smale as modified by WO 2007/059557 to Tallentire, Laclede, and US 5,413,225 to Shields as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6,113,164 to Setina.
In Reference to Claim 2
Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, comprising the attachment bracket connected to the industrial vehicle.
Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields fails to teach:
The attachment bracket connects to a bash bar.
Setina teaches:
A vehicle (15) comprising a bash bar (10, 16, 18) (see column 3, lines 34-and Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus of Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields by adding a bash bar as taught by Setina as both references are directed to devices on the front of vehicles, and for the purpose of being able to better use the bumper of the vehicle to push objects.
When modifying the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus of Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields attached to the front of the vehicle of Smale with the bash bar of Setina, the attachment bracket would be connected to the bash bar on the front of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,629,495 to Smale as modified by WO 2007/059557 to Tallentire, Laclede, and US 5,413,225 to Shields as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2009/0223683 to Davidson.
In Reference to Claim 4
Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 comprising a pivot (58 of Smale) used for height adjustment of the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus (see column 3, lines 11-17 and Figure 1 of Smale).
Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields fails to teach:
The pivot is made of steel.
Davidson teaches:
A frame (14) attached to a vehicle (10), wherein the frame is made of steel (steel I-beams, see paragraph 23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus of Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields by forming the frame of steel as taught by Davidson as both references are directed to devices attached to vehicles, and for the purpose of having the desired material properties, such as strength.
The attachment bracket of Smale connects the magnet to the vehicle and includes the pivot (see Figure 3 of Smale). When modifying the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus with the teachings of Davidson, the attachment bracket and pivot would be formed of steel.
Claim(s) 6, 10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,629,495 to Smale as modified by WO 2007/059557 to Tallentire, Laclede, and US 5,413,225 to Shields as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of case law.
In Reference to Claim 6
Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of steel chains are a 3/8” Grade 70 steel chain and the plurality of steel chains comprises multiple chains (three) hung from the vehicle (see Figure 4 of Smale).
Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields fails to teach:
The plurality of steel chains includes four chains.
The Court has held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), see MPEP §2144.04 VI B for further clarification).
In In re Harza the claims were directed to a water seal where the seal has a “web” which comprises a plurality of “ribs” projecting outward from each side of the web. The prior art disclosed a water stop which was in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose the plurality of ribs, the Court found that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
In the instant case, Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields teaches a plurality of chains which hang from the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus of Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields by adding a fourth chain in view of case law for the purpose of further supporting and securing the apparatus to the vehicle.
In Reference to Claim 10
Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields teaches:
The apparatus of claim 8 comprising the forged top links which can be retracted or extended to increase and decrease a deck clearance.
Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields fails to teach:
The forged top links can be retracted or extended to 8-9” and retracted to decrease the deck clearance to 2-3”.
The Court has held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), see MPEP §2144.04 IV A for further clarification).
In Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc., Gardner received a patent for an apparatus used to dry ink applied to high-gloss papers by supporting the paper with wet ink over a field of static air. The applied prior art taught the claimed apparatus except for dimensional limitations. The trial Court held the opinion that the dimensional limitations had no impact on the function of the apparatus and no evidence was shown that departing from the claimed dimensions would cause the apparatus to fail.
In the instant case, Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields teaches the forged top links which extend and retract to change its length and change the deck clearance. Smale is silent regarding the specific dimensions.
There is a reasonable expectation of success when changing the size/scale of the apparatus because the operation of the apparatus would not change. The magnet would still hang close to the ground to pick up metallic debris. The closer to the ground, the stronger the magnetic force is to pick up the debris, and the higher the forged top links extend upward, the weaker the magnetic force is when cleaning the magnet to remove the debris.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus of Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields by sizing the apparatus such that the forged top links can be retracted or extended to increase to 8-9” and retracted to decrease the deck clearance to 2-3” in view of case law for the purpose of controlling the magnetic force when picking up debris and removing debris from the magnet during cleaning.
In Reference to Claim 14
Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 which moves in the forward or backward direction of travel.
Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields fails to teach:
The dimensions of the apparatus are 98.75” length by 24.5” width by 29.1” height.
The Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc, cited above also applies to claim 14.
While Smale is silent regarding the specific dimensions, there is a reasonable expectation of success when scaling the apparatus to have the claimed dimensions because its operation would remain the same. Changing the scaling of the apparatus may change which size vehicles are capable of supporting the apparatus. A larger apparatus may require a larger vehicle to support it.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus of Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields by sizing the dimensions of the apparatus to be 98.75” length by 24.5” width by 29.1” height in view of case law for the purpose of sizing the apparatus appropriately to the size of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,629,495 to Smale as modified by WO 2007/059557 to Tallentire, Laclede, and US 5,413,225 to Shields as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2,818,176 to Polich and in further view of US 4,779,955 to Schmanski.
In Reference to Claim 7
Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a manual holder (32 of Smale) (see Figure 1 of Smale).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “holder” is a feature which allows the apparatus to be held. The “mounting links 32” of Smale are loop shaped and would allow a person to grab and hold the apparatus. Accordingly, the mounting links are considered a “holder”.
Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields fails to teach:
A FRP marker, the FRP marker providing a visual line of sight for an operator of the industrial vehicle to know approximate outer limits of the apparatus.
Polich teaches:
A vehicle (tractor 12) comprising a marker (gauge 64), the marker providing a visual line of sight for an operator of the industrial vehicle to know approximate outer limits of the apparatus (see column 4, lines 17-27 and Figure 1). Polich teaches the gauge 64 indicates the height of the magnet (10) above the ground. The height of the magnet determines the lower outer limit of the apparatus. Therefore, the gauge provides a visual line of sight for an operator to know the approximate outer limits of the apparatus. Polich is silent regarding the material of the marker.
Schmanski teaches:
A marker (10), wherein the marker is made of FRP (fiber reinforced plastic, see column 2, lines 43-59).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus of Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields by adding a marker as taught by Polich for the purpose of being able to determine the height of the magnet above the ground.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus of Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, Shields, and Polich by forming the marker of FRP as taught by Schmanski for the purpose of providing sufficient column strength and stiffness to maintain the component in an upright and stable configuration (column 2, lines 49-53 of Schmanski).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,629,495 to Smale as modified by WO 2007/059557 to Tallentire, Laclede, and US 5,413,225 to Shields as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Ferrite Magnets/Ceramic Magnets Datasheet” to Eclipsemagnetics.com (hereafter “Eclipse”, retrieved December 8, 2021) and case law.
In Reference to Claim 13
Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the magnet is a continuous, bar magnet with dimensions (see Figure 2 of Tallentire).
Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields fails to teach:
The magnet is a Ceramic8 magnet with dimensions of 6” width by 6” height by 94.5” length. Tallentire is silent regarding the specific dimensions.
Eclipse teaches:
A Ceramic8 magnet is a known type of magnet (see chart under “American Standard”). Ceramic8 (or C8) is the American standard designating the grade of the magnet. C8 magnets are anisotropic which are stronger than isotropic grades (see “Additional Notes”, lines 16-17).
The Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc, cited above also applies to claim 13.
While Tallentire is silent regarding the specific dimensions, there is a reasonable expectation of success when scaling the magnet to have the claimed dimensions because its operation would remain the same. The size of the magnet affects the strength of the magnetic field. A larger magnet produces a stronger field.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus of Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields by forming the magnet of Ceramic8 as taught by Eclipse for the purpose of increasing the strength of the magnet.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus of Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields by forming the magnet with dimensions of 6” width by 6“ height by 94.5” length in view of case law for the purpose of sizing the magnet to fit within the apparatus and having the desired magnetic strength.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,629,495 to Smale as modified by WO 2007/059557 to Tallentire, Laclede, and US 5,413,225 to Shields as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5,731,705 to Guinn.
In Reference to Claim 15
Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus can be mounted on the front of the vehicle.
Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields fails to teach:
The vehicle is selected from a list consisting of a motor grader, a forklift, a loader, and a backhoe.
Guinn teaches:
A vehicle which is a forklift (12) comprising a hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus (10) attached to the front of the forklift (see column 3, line 63 through column 4, line 15 and Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus of Smale as modified by Tallentire, Laclede, and Shields by using a forklift as the vehicle as taught by Guinn as both references are directed to vehicles having hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus, and for the purpose of being able to pick up metallic debris in a location where a forklift is used.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 11, and 12 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach the hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus connects to the industrial vehicle using a 3-point contact utilizing a rear pin and 2 corners of the bash bar as recited in claim 3. Smale shows 3 points of connection between the apparatus and the vehicle (side chains 38 and central chain 56), but Smale does not teach a rear pin. Furthermore, attempting to replace the central chain with a rear pin would lose the ability to adjust the length of the connection and render the device unsuitable for its intended purpose.
The prior art of record fails to teach there are four hydraulic hoses, wherein two of those hoses are used for magnet clean off and two are used for side shift movement as recited in claim 11. Smale does not teach any side shift movement or use hoses for clean off.
Claim 12 similarly adds limitations regarding side shift functions for the hydraulic flow diverter, which are not taught by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 3,646,736 to Hutchins teaches a vehicle comprising a hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus. US 2,714,454 to Vutz teaches a vehicle comprising a hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus. US 1,745,970 to Andrew teaches a vehicle comprising a hanging magnetic sweeper apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON GREGORY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3289. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00-5:00, F: 8:00-12:00.
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JASON G DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights