DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the claims filed 12/05/2023.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crockett in US Patent Application Publication 2010/0252075 (hereinafter “Crockett”) in view of Steben et al. in US Patent Application Publication 2014/0174839 (hereinafter “Steben”).
Regarding claim 1, Crockett discloses a material collection system, comprising: a conduit having a material inlet 312 (see Fig. 7); a vacuum generator, comprising a fan to develop an airflow and draw material into the material inlet of the conduit (paragraph [0025] discloses a vacuum source in the debris hopper); a material collection container 210 (“hopper”) to receive the material drawn from the conduit; a boom (articulating arm 100; see Fig. 6 and 7) supporting the conduit, the boom being movable between a stowed position (Fig. 6) and an operational position (Fig. 7); and a control system (paragraph [0031]). Crockett is silent to a tracked carrier, comprising: a chassis having a first lateral side and a second lateral side; a power source disposed on the chassis; and two track frames coupled to the chassis on the first lateral side and the second lateral side, each track frame comprising: a driving wheel; a idling wheel; a support wheel disposed between the driving wheel and the idling wheel; and an endless track. Instead, Crockett discloses his material collection system or debris vacuum mounted on a traditional truck body with wheels as seen in Fig. 5. Steben is analogous art demonstrating a crawler carrier or tracked body vehicle for use in hauling equipment and debris (paragraph [0003]), like the machine of Crockett. Specifically, Steben teaches that it is desirable to mount industrial equipment to tracked carriers as shown in the various figures because it enables the equipment to be used in rugged terrain such as mud, steep hills, swamps, rocks, and snow (paragraph [0003]). The tracked carrier of Steben comprises: a chassis having a first lateral side and a second lateral side (see Fig. 7-9); a power source 14 disposed on the chassis (Fig. 7); and two track frames coupled to the chassis on the first lateral side and the second lateral side, each track frame comprising: a driving wheel 24; a idling wheel 23; a support wheel 28 disposed between the driving wheel and the idling wheel; and an endless track 22 (Fig. 7-9 and paragraph [0059]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material collection system of Crockett by mounting it on a crawler carrier or tracked carrier chassis instead of a truck chassis because it would enable the material collection system to be employed in a rough terrain such as mud, snow, steep hills, etc. as taught by Steben, and the result would have been predictable. The combination of art comprises all of the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Crockett as modified by Steben comprises the material collection system of claim 1, wherein the power source is an electric power unit (see Steben paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 3, Crockett as modified by Steben comprises the material collection system of claim 1, further comprising a hook-lift frame removably mounted to the chassis of the tracked carrier, the hook-lift frame comprising: a base (just the chassis or rails of the vacuum unit seen on the back of the truck in Crockett Fig. 5) configured to be removably mounted to the chassis of the tracked carrier; and a platform (the vehicle chassis, which in the combination of art is the chassis of the tracked vehicle of Steben) rotatably coupled to the base (via a pivot arm as the whole hopper assembly is configured to pivot at the rear of the vehicle for dumping per Crockett paragraph [0034]), wherein the vacuum generator and the material collection container are received on the platform (the material collection system of Crocket is all contained on one chassis as the vacuum generator is inside the hopper, or in other words, the vacuum generator and material collection chamber are received on the platform, and that whole structure pivots with respect to the vehicle (chassis) to enable dumping of material.
Regarding claim 4, Crockett as modified by Steben comprises the material collection system of claim 3, wherein the hook-lift frame comprises a frame hydraulic actuator operatively connected to the base and the platform and configured to pivot the platform between a loading position and an unloading position (Crockett paragraph [0034] discloses dumping ability; there must be an actuator between the platform to move between dumping and non-dumping configurations).
Regarding claim 5, Crockett as modified Steben is not specifically disclosed or suggested to comprise a gross vehicle weight rating of approximately 7,800 lbs. However, the Court has held that mere changes in size/proportion are obvious to one of ordinary skill. Instantly, the prior art differs from claim 5 in that it is silent to a gross vehicle weight of 7,800 pounds. However, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to scale a vehicle to be larger or smaller to achieve a desired performance (such as fitting in small places, or being capable of handling larger equipment/tasks), and the result would be predictable. Merely claiming a device demonstrated by the prior art but with a certain weight (or size) does not patentably distinguish a claim. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 6, Crockett as modified by Steben comprises the material collection system of claim 1, wherein the vacuum generator is coupled to the power source via a power take-off, such that the power source is configured to power the vacuum generator (see Steben paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 7, Crockett as modified by Steben does not specifically disclose or suggest the tracked carrier having a ground pressure in a range of approximately 4.5 to 6 psi. However, the Court has held that mere changes in size/proportion are obvious to one of ordinary skill. It is noted that ground pressure of the vehicle is a function of the weight of the vehicle with respect to its footprint, or the area of the tracks that is contact with the ground which supports the vehicle. Applicant has disclosed no specific significance of this range other than the fact that is less than what traditional wheeled vehicles experience. Similar to claim 5, merely scaling up or down the device of the prior art to arrive at the particularly claimed ground pressure would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified. Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the track width of the combination of art to achieve a particular desired vehicle width or footprint for the intended use of the vehicle (such as fitting into a certain sized area or supporting a load of a particular type of debris and providing appropriate sized tracks therefor). Further, simply claiming a device that exists in the prior art but with some particular track width (and thus ground pressure) fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art as this is simply a recitation of a relative dimension of the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04. The Examiner also notes for the record that the technical specification sheet from Prinoth attached to this action explicitly discloses this ground pressure range, and the Steben reference appears to be directed to that specific product line.
Regarding claim 8, Crockett as modified by Steben comprises the material collection system of claim 1, comprising: a length in a range of approximately 12 feet to approximately 16 feet; a width in a range of approximately 7 feet to approximately 12 feet; and a height in a range of approximately 10 feet to approximately 15 feet (see the Steben paragraph [0043] giving dimensions of the tracked carrier exactly within these ranges).
Regarding claim 9, Crockett as modified by Steben comprises the material collection system of claim 1, wherein the material collection system communicates with the tracked carrier via control area network messaging (the combination of art employs the tracked carrier of Steben which is taught to employ CAN bus control per paragraph [0120]).
Regarding claim 10, Crockett as modified by Steben comprises the material collection system of claim 9, wherein when the material collection system and the tracked carrier are connected through two wire connectors (necessarily so, as the physical structure of a CAN bus network requires use of shielded twisted-pair cables – or in other words, “two wire connectors”).
Regarding claim 11, as Crockett as modified by Steben employs a CAN bus network, it is capable of the tracked carrier communicating only two messages with the material collection system, and the material collection system communicating only three messages with the tracked carrier.
Regarding claims 12-20, the only limitations introduced in these claims that are not already addressed above with respect to claims 1-12 is the language of claim 12 and claim 13 with respect to “tilting angles”. However, these limitations fail to patentably distinguish over Crockett as modified by Steben. While the prior art does not explicitly speak to “tilting angles”, the degree of ground inclination at which a vehicle would tip over laterally (side to side) or longitudinally (forward/backward) is merely a function of a width and length of the vehicle. Simply, a tracked vehicle with a wider width or longer length tips at a larger degree of inclination than the opposite. Again, merely selecting a particular vehicle length and width is a consideration that a person having ordinary skill in the art would find to be an obvious modification of a device of the prior art (such as, for example, providing a vehicle capable of working at worksite with a ground grade within the particularly recited “tilting angles” so that the vehicle would not tip over during operation). A claim that recites a vehicle that exists in the prior art but with some particular length and/or width (so as to have the claimed tilting angles) fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to modify vehicle lengths and widths in order to provide a vehicle suited for particular working environment or task (like traversing a certain hill), and the result would be predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Notable Prior Art:
It appears that multiple manufacturers currently offer crawler carrier type vehicles for sale that are equipped with debris vacuum systems mounted upon the crawler carriers. Mounting vacuum collection systems on tracked carriers or crawler carriers appears to be a well-known industry practice well before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, heavy equipment dealer Multi Machine Inc. is advertising a model year 2020 Prinoth Panther T12 tracked carrier (Serial #935300236) equipped with a Ring-O-Matic 850VX HiCFM Hydrovac and advertised at the following URL: https://www.multimachineinc.com/panther-t12/p/panther-t12-5925d. Further, a company called Terramac has been advertising since at least October 2021 a tracked vacuum excavator, as evidence by a capture of the following URL from the Waybackmachine: https://terramac.com/attachments/vacuum-excavators/
US2803847 discloses a dump truck bed mounted debris vacuum system including a hook-lift hydraulically actuated dumping ability.
US3541631 discloses a tracked vehicle comprising a vacuum system for collecting debris and depositing the debris in a hopper on the tracked vehicle.
US20020030397 discloses a tracked crawler carrier vehicle analogous to that disclosed by Applicant. US9970167 discloses a self-contained vacuum and hopper assembly mountable to small utility vehicles such as a Utility Task Vehicle.
US4218226 discloses a debris vacuum collection system mounted on vehicle chassis and configured to dump the contents of the debris hopper.
US4227893 discloses a particularly analogous vacuum debris collection system mounted on the bed of a truck instead of a tracked vehicle, notably with a vacuum generator that together on a platform pivots with respect to the vehicle chassis.
US5996171 discloses a system for loading and unloading a debris hopper of a vehicle mounted vacuum debris collection system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDON T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3263. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm EST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/ELDON T BROCKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799