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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This Final action is in reply to the application 18,557,712 amendment filed on 04/08/2026.
Claims 1-22 are cancelled
Claim 23 is amended
Claims 24 - 28, 31 – 33, 35 - 44 are allowable
Claims 23 - 44 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
The applicant is arguing the amended claims overcomes the Prior art STOETZER. The examiner does not find this persuasive, although the amendment was addressing the limitation in the preamble, the amendment does not meaningfully change the structure of the claims. and thus the examiner states that the rejection as currently written, including the applicants amendment discloses the applicants claims.
Additionally, the applicant argues that STOETZER does not disclose of claimed guide device / movable member arrangement. The examiner states based on broadest reasonable interpretation that the movable member is the join and the guiding device is the cylinder in figure 13 that is moving in and out of the hydraulic cylinder. Based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner states that the join is a movable member as it moves, and the cylinder is the guide for the direction of the movable member. The examiner doesn’t find the argument persuasive.
Additionally, the applicant argues that VAN AMELSFOORT does not disclose the first and second dismountable securing devices. The examiner does not find that argument persuasive and states that a dismountable securing device based on broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification is a removable element for the purposes of claim. Thus in this context it would be reasonable to one of ordinary skilled in the art for the first and second dismountable securing device be removal of pins and bushing allow for removal. (see fig. 2). The applicant is arguing that the VAN AMELSFOORT does not teach the claimed quick release mounting arrangement. However the examiner states the applicant is arguing limitations not stated in the claim. The claim does not require the quick release mounting arrangement as stated by the applicant. The examiner suggests the applicant provide more detail regarding those elements in order to further expedite the prosecution. The examiner additionally states that the first arm is interpreted to be 30 as shown in figure 2.
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.
Claim(s) 23,29, 30 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub 20060032096 - Stoetzer et al. hereinafter as STOETZER in view of EP 1715106 – Van Amelsfoort et al. hereinafter VAN AMELSFOORT
Regarding claim 23
STOETZER disclose:
23. A drilling machine including:
a grab-bucket frame configured to carry removable buckets, the grab bucket frame comprising (Cutting frame 22):
a body (body 20) extending along a longitudinal direction between an upper end part and a lower end part, the body having a guide device extending along the longitudinal direction,
a movable member (fig. 4 joint 29) cooperating with the guide device( 29) so that the movable member(joint 29 ) is movable relative to the body along the longitudinal direction; (See fig.4)
a first arm (arm 28) pivotable relative to the movable member(joint 29), the first arm having a lower end part; (arm 28 – wherein lower end part equates to the lower arm axis)
a second arm(arm 28’) pivotable relative to the movable member(joint 29), the second arm having a lower end part (arm 28 – wherein lower end part equates to the lower arm axis)
the first and second arms (arm 28 and 28’) being pivotable relative to each other, (see figure 4 and 13 below pivot in relation to each other)
at least one actuator device ( actuator 26) connected to the body ( body 20) to move at least the first arm( arm 28) relative to the body(body 20);
said drilling machine being characterized in that it further includes:
milling device including:
at least a first mill drum( First drum 41), at least a first motor (drive motor para. 0052)for driving in rotation the first mill drum about a first rotation axis(first rotation axis 43 ), a support (Support 1 – 46) carrying the first mill drum(First drum 41) and the first motor(drive motor para. 0052);
STOETZER discloses of a milling machine that can expand and contract utilizing an actuator and a movable member to push the milling drums outwardly, STOETZER does not explicitly disclose of a dismountable securing device, VAN AMELSFOORT discloses of a milling machine that discloses of a dismountable securing device:
the drilling machine further including:
a first dismountable securing device for removably fixing the support to the lower end part of the body( fig. 2 - wherein the pins, 48 and bushings 50 can be removed to detach lower part from device, based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the dismountable securing device is interpreted to be the removable pin and bushing elements), a second dismountable securing device for removably fixing the support to the lower end part of the first arm, ( fig. 2 - wherein the pins, 48 and bushings 50 can be removed to detach lower part from device. based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the dismountable securing device is interpreted to be the removable pin and bushing elements.)whereby the milling device can be easily dismounted from the frame.( removal of pins and bushing allow for removal. based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the dismountable securing device is interpreted to be the removable pin and bushing elements)
STOETZER and VAN AMELSFOORT are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of ground engaging milling apparatuses. Therefore it would have been obvious to Somone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified SOTETZER to incorporate the teachings of VAN AMELSFOORT and combine using a dismountable securing device to removably fixing the support to the lower end of the body and to whereby the milling device can be easily dismounted from the frame. One would have made this combination to improve the serviceability of the milling machine to reduce down time.
PNG
media_image1.png
25
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
25
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
274
736
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
888
744
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 29
STOETZER / VAN AMELSFOORT disclose claim 23
29. (New) The drilling machine according to claim 23, wherein the milling device further includes: a second mill drum( second mill drum 41’), a second motor (drive motor para. 0052)for driving in rotation the second mill drum( second mill drum 41’), the second mill drum( second mill drum 41’) and the second motor(drive motor para. 0052) being carried by the support.(Support 2)
Regarding claim 30
STOETZER / VAN AMELSFOORT disclose claim 23
STOETZER discloses:
30. (New) The drilling machine according to claim 23, further including a third dismountable securing device for removably fixing the support to the lower end portion of the second arm. ( fig. 2 - wherein the pins, 48 and bushings 50 can be removed to detach lower part from device)
Regarding claim 34
STOETZER / VAN AMELSFOORT disclose claim 23
STOETZER discloses:
34. (New) The drilling machine according to claim 23, wherein the actuator device includes a first actuator( First actuator 26 ) which is connected to the body (body 20) and to the first arm( arm 1 - 28).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24 - 28, 31 – 33, 35 - 44 are allowable
STOETZER / VAN AMELSFOORT disclose the drilling machine as recited in the rejection above. STOETZER discloses the elements of the drilling machine and VAN AMELSFOORT based on broadest reasonable interpretation discloses the dismountable securing device as interpreted to be the removable pin and bushing element. However in claims marked as allowable with regards to the dismountable securing device , VAN AMELSFOORT does not have the additional elements for removing from the frame / body of as disclosed in the claim. . Such modification would require too significant modifications and would constitute an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALFRED H TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-9511. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached on 5712720547. 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.
/A.H.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights