DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention III in the reply filed on 02/04/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the claim 7 in Invention III incorporates distributor mast and a thick matter, pump and the control system of the Inventions I and II. This is not found persuasive.
Foremost, the Invention III is reciting a thick matter conveying system that is focused on analysis, namely determining the specific stability conditions of components including the support structure, by using the current and predicted stability parameters, and various thresholds to control the operation of the conveyor system. The pump, mast and other structural elements are recited, but only nominally. In contrast, the Inventions I and II recite the particulars of the distributor mast arms and their operating ranges, and particulars of the pump system and its operating ranges, respectively. Furthermore, the original disclosure discloses not only the operating performance parameters associated with mast arms and pumps, but their structural configurations are also described in details. As an example, paragraphs [0015]-[0021] in the original disclosures describes the structural aspects of the mast arms in detail, while paragraphs [0027]-[0229] and the Figure 2 discloses the structural details of the pump. The inventions, as claimed are indistinct and the Invention III certainly do not require the particulars of the Inventions I and II. Furthermore, the Inventions I and II have separate utility by themselves. Furthermore, serious search effort was spent on the particular limitations that is recited only in claim 7. Additionally, with all the details claimed and described in the original disclosure with respect to all three Inventions, there would be a serious burden on the examiner if the restriction was not required, particularly given that the focus of the Invention III on the analysis of the stability.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 7-8, 11-15, 24 and 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,509,892, over claims 1-16 of co-pending application No. 18/552,074 (allowed but yet to be patented) in views of Munn, US-PGPUB 2021/0025809, Zeng et al., US-PGPUB 2022/0348443 and Lemetayer et al., US Pat. 6,119,781, as shown in the rejection below. As an example, the US Pat and the co-pending application do not disclose various limitations such as forecast information and future stability parameter with respect to the threshold and closeness to the maximum stability parameter in Claim 7. However, Munn, Zeng and Lemetayer discloses them as shown below in the rejection. As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Munn, Zeng and Lemetayer with US Pat and the co-pending applicaiton, so as to efficiently provide the necessary and timely maintenance of the components.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “control unit”, “receiver unit” and “processing unit” in claim 7.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites the limitation “the greatest possible extent”, but it is not clear the boundary of said limitation. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 7-, 11-15 and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter AAPA) in view of Munn, US-PGPUB 2021/0025809 (hereinafter Munn), Henikl et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0392747 (cited by the Applicant), Zeng et al., US-PGPUB 2022/0348443 (hereinafter Zeng) and Lemetayer et al., US Pat. 6,119,781 (hereinafter Lemetayer)
Regarding Claim 7. AAPA discloses thick matter conveying system (10), having a thick matter distributor mast for distributing a thick matter to be conveyed, a thick matter pump for conveying the thick matter through a conveying line (17) of the thick matter distributor mast, and a substructure (30) on which the thick matter distributor mast and the thick matter pump are disposed, the substructure (30) (Paragraph [0002] in the Applicant’s original disclosure), comprising:, at least one item of operational information (Paragraphs [0002]-[0005], rotating speeds, excessive pumps and changeover speeds, etc.), determining a current stability parameter, depending on the at least one received item of operational information (Paragraph [0002]-[0005], exceeding operating range, overloading, capsizing, excessive pump speeds, etc. Note also Paragraphs [0003], generous conservative tolerance ranges can be interpreted as first threshold and design limits as the maximum stability limit),
AAPA does not explicitly disclose the support structure (31) has a stability range with a first threshold and with an upper limit defined by a maximum stability parameter, and
AAPA does not disclose a receiver unit (11) for receiving at least one item of operational information, a processing unit (12) for determining a current stability parameter, depending on the at least one received item of operational information, and for determining a future stability parameter to be anticipated, depending on the at least one received item of operational information and at least one item of forecast information, the latter at least one item of forecast information being characteristic of a predicted change of the stability parameter upon the operation of at least one component of the thick matter distributor mast and/or the thick matter pump, and a control unit (13) for controlling an operating parameter of at least one component of the thick matter distributor mast and/or the thick matter pump, wherein the control unit (13) is configured to control the operating parameter in such a manner that, if the determined current stability parameter is above the first threshold and the determined future stability parameter to be anticipated is closer to the maximum stability parameter than the determined current stability parameter, the operation of the at least one component takes place is operated at a reduced speed.
Henikl discloses the well-known the support structure for supporting the substructure (Fig. 1)
Zeng discloses the pump truck (Paragraph [0002]), and using the stability safety threshold of the support structure to prevent dangerous situation (Paragraph [0068], [0057]. Note that the safety threshold is obviously not the maximum, as said threshold is obviously a conservative safety tolerance threshold away from the absolute maximum condition)
Munn discloses processor and receiver (Paragraph [0014]), and determining the component deteriorating state, such as pumps and valves (Paragraph [0010]) and includes determining the parameter being compared to thresholds (Paragraphs [0050]-[0053], [0055]), calculating the gradient of the parameter changing with time and predicting when this value exceeds the limit (Paragraph [0054]) and determining whether the parameter is close to the upper or lower limits of the threshold ranges and predicting when the gradient of the parameter will exceed the limit (Paragraph [0056]-[0059]), as well as performing remedial actions, such as replacement or repairing of the component when the safety thresholds are exceeded (Paragraph [0195]). Note that the upper limit can be viewed as the maximum limit, and it’s obvious to recognize that the predicted value exceeding the upper limit (which would have already exceeded the lower limit) will be closer to the upper limit than the lower limit, and will cause remedial actions to be performed).
Lemetayer discloses processor and receivers (Fig. 1) and determining the proper functioning of the pump driven by the electric motor (Col. 1, lines 45-67; Abstract), which includes reducing the speed if instability is determined with the duration of the instability exceeding a predetermined value (Col. 3, lines 1-15, where stopping the pump is reducing the speed to zero; Col. 4, lines 6-23, reducing the speed and stopping the pump)
As such, at the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Munn, Zeng, Henikl and Lemetayer with AAPA and have the support structure (31) has a stability range with a first threshold and with an upper limit defined by a maximum stability parameter, and have a receiver unit (11) for receiving at least one item of operational information, a processing unit (12) for determining a current stability parameter, depending on the at least one received item of operational information, and for determining a future stability parameter to be anticipated, depending on the at least one received item of operational information and at least one item of forecast information, the latter at least one item of forecast information being characteristic of a predicted change of the stability parameter upon the operation of at least one component of the thick matter distributor mast and/or the thick matter pump, and a control unit (13) for controlling an operating parameter of at least one component of the thick matter distributor mast and/or the thick matter pump, wherein the control unit (13) is configured to control the operating parameter in such a manner that, if the determined current stability parameter is above the first threshold and the determined future stability parameter to be anticipated is closer to the maximum stability parameter than the determined current stability parameter, the operation of the at least one component takes place is operated at a reduced speed, so as to efficiently provide the necessary and timely maintenance of the components.
Regarding Claim 8. Munn discloses the control unit (13) is furthermore configured to control the operating parameter in such a manner that, if the determined current stability parameter is above the first threshold and the determined future stability parameter to be anticipated is more distant from the maximum stability parameter than the determined current stability parameter, the component is operated at an unchanged speed (Paragraph [0054], it’s obvious to recognize that when the predicted value is near the lower limit far away from the upper limit, then the system will maintain the status quo)
Regarding Claim 11. Lemetayer discloses an extent of the reduction of the speed is dependent on the operating speed of the component (Col. 4, lines 6-23, reducing the speed and stopping the pump)
Regarding Claim 12. Lemetayer discloses the operating parameter
is a pump speed of a core pump (15) of the thick matter pump (Col. 4, lines 6-23, reducing the speed and stopping the pump)
Regarding Claim 13. Munn discloses the processing unit is configured to
determine the future stability parameter to be anticipated depending on an item of
forecast information which is characteristic for a predicted change in the item of
operational information upon the orderly operation of components of the thick matter pump (Paragraph [0010]; Paragraph [0056]-[0059]),
Regarding Claim 14. Munn discloses an influence of the component that enlarges the stability parameter to the greatest possible extent is assumed to be the
predicted change of the stability parameter (Paragraph [0054, [0056], parameter rapidly changing)
Regarding Claim 15. Munn discloses the item of forecast information is calculated by taking into account a control signal to be output by the control unit for the operation of at least one component in a forecast period (Paragraph [0054, [0056])
Regarding Claim 24. Henikl discloses the support structure (31) further comprising at least one horizontally and vertically displaceable support leg (32) (Fig. 1), and AAPA discloses receive an item of operational information of a torque of a slewing gear of the thick matter distributor mast that is rotatable about a vertical axis (Paragraph [0002])
Regarding Claim 28. AAPA discloses the substructure is disposed on a vehicle (Paragraph [0002])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 9. The prior arts do not teach or suggest a combination, including the stability range of the support structure (31) comprises a second threshold which is closer to the maximum stability parameter than the first threshold, and wherein the control unit (13) is furthermore configured to control the operating parameter in such a manner that, if the determined current stability parameter is above the second threshold, and the determined future stability parameter to be anticipated is closer to the maximum stability parameter than the determined current stability parameter, operation of the component is discontinued.
The dependent claim 10 is allowed due to its dependencies to dependent claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al., US-PGPUB 2022/0378191, discloses safety threshold associated with supporting legs of pump trucks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights