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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: GAS BUCKET EXCAVATOR WITH HYDRAULIC DRIVE DEVICE AND FLEXIBLE PIPE ARRANGEMENT
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “two reinforcement layers adjacent to the outer tube being wound around the longitudinal axis with respective first windup angles and the remaining reinforcement layers being wound around the longitudinal axis with respective second windup angles differing from the first windup angles” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 1 and its dependents 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 recites that “at least six reinforcement layers…are helically wound around a longitudinal axis of the flexible pipe in an alternated manner” which is fairly interpreted in a manner as shown in Figure 2 presentation and which encapsulates each alternating layer having one of the two particular angles, alpha and beta. However, claim 1 further recites that “two reinforcement layers adjacent to the outer tube being wound around the longitudinal axis with respective first windup angles and the remaining reinforcement layers being wound around the longitudinal axis with respective second windup angles differing from the first windup angles”. This recitation is confusing from two perspectives. First, no Figure reinforces this embodiment with its particular layer structure and angles. Secondly, this embodiment is at odds with the previously mentioned embodiment, namely that the six layers are each wound in an alternating manner (as shown in Fig. 2). Examiner views these embodiments as being mutually exclusive as they cannot both be followed within the same claim. Examiner requests clarification and/or amendments to better present an embodiment without conflict. For purposes of examination, Examiner will follow the embodiment first mentioned in claim 1 and which is clearly reinforced by the Figures (Figure 2) and ignore the limitations that cannot reasonably coexist with the first embodiment.
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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meiger (DE2501780A1) in view of Weil (US 8,479,777).
Claim 1: Mierger discloses a grab bucket excavator comprising a self-propelled vehicle (Fig. 1); a grab bucket (10) comprising, in turn, two shovels (note two shovels with 10) movable with respect to each other between an open position and a closed position (as can be appreciated via 12); a lifting device (18) fitted on the self-propelled vehicle for lowering and lifting the grab bucket (Fig. 1); and a hydraulic drive device (12/20/21) for moving the shovels between the open position and the closed position; the hydraulic drive device comprising at least one actuator cylinder (12) connected to the shovels (8), at least one flexible pipe (20) for supplying a fluid under pressure to the actuator cylinder, and, for each flexible pipe, a respective winding roller (21) fitted on the self-propelled vehicle (Fig. 1).
Mierger is not explicit about the flexible pipe comprising an inner tube; an outer tube; at least six reinforcement layers, which are interposed between the inner tube and the outer tube, and are helically wound around a longitudinal axis of the flexible pipe in an alternated manner in two windup directions opposite to each other having differing angles alpha and beta, respectively; and a plurality of intermediate layers, each one interposed between two respective adjacent reinforcement layers for ensuring the adhesion between the reinforcement layers. However, Weil (Fig. 1) teaches a flexible pipe comprising an inner tube (14); an outer tube (44); at least six reinforcement layers (30a-d; note col. 5, lines 55-58), which are interposed between the inner tube and the outer tube (Fig. 1), and are helically wound around a longitudinal axis of the flexible pipe in an alternated manner in two windup directions opposite to each other having differing angles alpha (note angle theta) and beta (note negative theta), respectively (Fig. 1); and a plurality of intermediate layers (50a-d), each one interposed between two respective adjacent reinforcement layers for ensuring the adhesion between the reinforcement layers (Fig. 1, note col. 7, lines 37-43). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize the reinforced hose as taught by Weil into the apparatus of Mierger as it can convey fluids under low temperature and high pressures (see Abstract).
Claim 2: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches that each first windup angle alpha is comprised between 36 and 54 degrees (see col. 6, lines 20-21).
Claim 3: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches that each second windup angle beta is comprised between 48 and 62 degrees (see col. 6, lines 20-21).
Claim 4: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches that the first windup angles are equal to each other or differ from each other (Fig. 1; see also col. 6, lines 29-30).
Claim 5: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches that the second windup angles are equal to each other or differ from each other (Fig. 1; see also col. 6, lines 29-30).
Claim 6: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches that the first windup angles are equal to each other (col. 6, lines 29-30), the second windup angles are equal to each other (col. 6, lines 29-30); while Weill is not explicit about the difference between the first windup angles and the second windup angles is comprised between 2 and 15 degrees, such a decision amounts to a choice of design, as the angle selection is a result effective variable. As discussed by Weill, angle choice “may be selected depending upon the desired convergence of strength, elongation, weight, and volumetric expansion characteristics of the hose…higher pitch angles..exhibit decreased radial expansion of the hose under pressure, but increased axial elongation” (col. 6, lines 21-36). As such, the choice to select a first angle of 45 degrees and a second angle of 47 degrees would be wholly within the design realm of the skilled artisan and would amount to an angle difference of 2 degrees.
Claim 7: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches that the first windup angles differ from each other (col. 6, lines 29-30), the second windup angles differ from each other (col. 6, lines 29-30); while Weill is not explicit about the difference between the greatest windup angle and the smallest windup angles is comprised between 2 and 15 degrees, such a decision amounts to a choice of design, as the angle selection is a result effective variable. As discussed by Weill, angle choice “may be selected depending upon the desired convergence of strength, elongation, weight, and volumetric expansion characteristics of the hose…higher pitch angles..exhibit decreased radial expansion of the hose under pressure, but increased axial elongation” (col. 6, lines 21-36). As such, the choice to select a greatest angle of 55 degrees and a smallest angle of 40 degrees would be wholly within the design realm of the skilled artisan and would amount to an angle difference of 15 degrees.
Claim 8: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches that the inner tube (14 or possibly inner layers discussed at col. 7, lines 24-30) and the outer tube (40) are made of polymeric material (col. 6, lines 61-67; col. 7, lines 24-30).
Claim 9: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches that the intermediate layers (50a-d) are made of polymeric material (col. 7, lines 40-44, 53).
Claim 10: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches that each reinforcement layer comprises a plurality of wires made of metallic material (see claim 2).
Claim 11: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches that the flexible pipe further comprises a consolidation layer made of textile material and fitted on the inner tube (see col. 7, lines 24-30, note “textile layers”).
Claim 12: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches that the flexible pipe further comprises a further intermediate layer interposed between the consolidation layer and the adjacent reinforcement layer (col. 7, lines 24-30, note “resin layers”).
Claim 13: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches that each first windup angle is equal to 45 degrees (see col. 6, lines 20-21 and 29-30).
Claim 14: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches each second windup angle is equal to 54°44' (col. 6, line 27).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN C ZOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7815. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 9-4 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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746