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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 1B shows two views connected by a projection line. 37 C.FR 1.84(h) says “Views must not be connected by projection lines”
Fig. 2 shows a sectional view taken upon line A-A in Fig. 1B. This view does not include Hatchings. 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3) says “Hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object, and must be made by regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty. Hatching should not impede the clear reading of the reference characters and lead lines.”
Figs. 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 include underlined reference characters (1, 20, and 60) that do not have a lead line nor indicate a surface on which they are placed. 37 CFR 1.84(q) says “Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed”
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “A construction machine having a high degree of freedom in layout is described” is implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 16 and 18 objected to because of the following informalities:
The last line of claim 18, which reads “to take off and land portion”, should read “to take off and land”.
The last line of claim 16, which reads “includes a fuel tank stores ammonia”, should read “includes a fuel tank configured to store ammonia”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“moving device” in claim 1. While no structure in the specification is described as performing a moving function, for the purposes of examination, “moving device” will be interpreted as the traveling device of the specification (“The traveling device 20 includes a pair of crawler belts 23 wound around idler wheels 21 and drive wheels 22, and the traveling device 20 includes a traveling motor (not illustrated)” [0031]).
“Conveyance device” in claim 1. The Working device 60 (“working device 60 conveys the excavated object” [0091]), Sediment Feeder 72 (“sediment feeder 72 conveys an excavated object” [0053]), Discharge Belt Conveyor 74 (“discharge belt conveyor 74 conveys to a dump truck” [0055]) and Discharge Member 75 (“discharge member 75 may be configured to convey” [0112]) are each described as performing a conveying function. For the purpose of examination, the corresponding structure will be interpreted as the structure for any one of these four devices: Working device 60 (“working device 60 includes the boom 53, a boom cylinder 54, an arm55, an arm cylinder 56, a bucket 57, and a bucket cylinder 58.” [0043]), Sediment Feeder 72 (“sediment feeder 72 includes a belt 72a, the pair of frames 72b, and a support portion 72c” [0053]), Discharge Belt Conveyor 74 (“discharge belt conveyor 74 includes a belt 74a, the pair of frames 74b, and a support portion 74c [0055]) and Discharge Member 75 (shown to be an inclined plane in Fig. 7)
“Processing Device” in claim 1. The first processing device 15 and second processing device 70 are both described a performing a processing function. For the purposes of examination, the corresponding structure will be interpreted as the structure for these devices: first processing device (“first processing device 15 includes a first detection device 16” in combination with “As the first detection device 16, a near-infrared moisture meter using near-infrared rays can be employed” [0027]) and second processing device (“The second processing device 70 includes a hopper 71, the sediment feeder 72, a sieve 73, and the discharge belt conveyor 74 to sieve an excavated object.” [0050])
“Selection mechanism” in claim 2. While no structure in the specification is described as performing a selecting function, for the purposes of examination, “selection mechanism” will be interpreted as the sieve 73 and equivalents thereof.
“Change Mechanism” in claim 3 and claim 6. The first change device 17 is described as performing a change function (“first change device 17 changes a rate of water” [0029]). For the purposes of examination, the corresponding structure is interpreted as the first change device 17 (“first change device 17 uses a liquid supply device that supplies liquid such as water to the excavated object. The liquid supply device includes a liquid tank 18 that stores water, and a pump, a nozzle, a pipe, and the like” [0029])
“Detection device” in claim 7. The first detection device 16 is described as performing a detection function (“first detection device 16 that detects a property of the excavated object” [0027]). For the purposes of examination, the corresponding structure is described as the first detection device 16 (“As the first detection device 16, a near-infrared moisture meter using near-infrared rays can be employed” [0029]).
“First conveyance mechanism” and “Second conveyance mechanism” in claim 8. The Working device 60 (“working device 60 conveys the excavated object” [0091]), Sediment Feeder 72 (“sediment feeder 72 conveys an excavated object” [0053]), Discharge Belt Conveyor 74 (“discharge belt conveyor 74 conveys to a dump truck” [0055]) and Discharge Member 75 (“discharge member 75 may be configured to convey” [0112]) are each described as performing a conveying function. For the purpose of examination, the corresponding structure will be interpreted as the structure for any two of these four devices: Working device 60 (“working device 60 includes the boom 53, a boom cylinder 54, an arm55, an arm cylinder 56, a bucket 57, and a bucket cylinder 58.” l[0043]), Sediment Feeder 72 (“sediment feeder 72 includes a belt 72a, the pair of frames 72b, and a support portion 72c” [0053]), Discharge Belt Conveyor 74 (“discharge belt conveyor 74 includes a belt 74a, the pair of frames 74b, and a support portion 74c [0055]) and Discharge Member 75 (shown to be an inclined plane in Fig. 7).
“Folding portion” in claim 9. The hinge portion 72d and a motor (“hinge portion 72d foldable toward the lower main body device 40b and a motor (not illustrated) that drives the hinge portion 72d” [0099]) and hinge portion 74d and a motor (“hinge portion 74d foldable toward the lower main body device 40b and a motor (not illustrated) that drives the hinge portion” [0099]) are described as performing folding. For the purpose of examination, the corresponding structure will be interpreted as a combination of a hinge and a motor.
“Control device” in claim 9. The heavy machine control device 50 is described a performing control. For the purpose of examination, the corresponding structure is interpreted as a heavy machine control device 50 (“The heavy machine control device 50 is a control device that includes a CPU” [0042]).
“First working device” and “second working device” in claim 10. The Working device 60 (“working device 60 conveys the excavated object” [0091]) is described as performing a work function. For the purpose of examination, the corresponding structure is interpreted as a multiple working devices (“working device 60 includes the boom 53, a boom cylinder 54, an arm55, an arm cylinder 56, a bucket 57, and a bucket cylinder 58.” [0043]).
“Crushing device” in claim 11. The rotary crushing device 80 is described as performing a crushing function. For the purpose of examination, corresponding structure will be interpreted as the rotary crushing device 80 (“The rotary crushing device 80 includes a motor 81, a driving pulley 82, a belt 83, a driven pulley 84, a rotating shaft 85, and a crushing unit 86.” [0122])
“Mass Body that corrects” in claim 13. The counter mass 43 is described as performing a correcting function. For the purposes of examination, corresponding structure will be interpreted as the counter mass 43 (counter mass shown in Figs. 1 and 5)
“Revolving device” in claim 14. The revolving device 30 is described a performing a revolving function (“The revolving device 30 revolves” [0032]). For the purpose of examination, the corresponding structure is interpreted as the revolving device 30 (“The revolving device 30 includes a bearing (not illustrated) and a revolving motor 31” [0032]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/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.
Claims 1-19 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 includes the limitation “when the conveyance device conveys” in lines 5-6 of the claim. It is unclear if the processing device only performs processing while the conveyor is conveying or if the processing device is merely a downstream process of the conveyor.
Claim 1 includes the limitation “a conveyance device that conveys an excavated object excavated by a working device” in line 3 of the claim. It is unclear if the working device is being positively claimed when a method step is being claimed within an apparatus claim. For the purpose of examination, the claim is read as though it said “a conveyance device that is configured to convey an excavated object excavated by a working device”
Claim 5 includes the limitation “the number of the unmanned aerial vehicles” in the second line of the claim. It is unclear what is meant by “a number”; “a number” could refer to the identification number of the unmanned aerial vehicles or the quantity of the unmannered aerial vehicles. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as though it read “the quantity of the unmanned aerial vehicles”.
Claim 9 includes the limitation “when folded” in the last line of the claim. It is unclear what structure is to be folded; the grammar of the sentence allows for the limitation to apply to the control device, the working device, or the conveyance device. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as though it read “when the conveyance device is folded”.
Claim limitation “selection mechanism” and “moving device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no clear linkage between the structures in the specification and the function as no structure is specified to be “selecting” or “moving”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 8, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Rigter (EP 658,500)
Re Claim 1, Rigter discloses a construction machine comprising: a main body device (carriage 1 and crane 2) that is movable (two wheels 24, 25 provide movability) by a moving device; a conveyance device that conveys (conveyor track 7, comprising conveyors 11, 13) an excavated object excavated by a working device (arm 3) to an outside of the main body device via the main body device (Fig. 1); and a processing device that performs processing (cleaning bed 12) on the excavated object when the conveyance device conveys the excavated object.
Re Claim 2, Rigter discloses the construction machine according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the processing device includes a selection mechanism (cleaning bed 12) that selects the excavated object (cleaning bed 12 selects the excavated object by “removing material adhering to bulk goods” Col. 3, Lines 41-42).
Re Claim 6, Rigter discloses the construction machine according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the processing device comprises a change mechanism (cleaning bed 12) that changes a property of the excavated object selected by the selection mechanism (cleaning bed 12 selects the excavated object by “removing material adhering to bulk goods” Col. 3, Lines 41-42).
Re Claim 8, Rigter discloses the construction machine according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), the conveyance device includes a first conveyance mechanism (conveyor 11) that conveys the excavated object excavated by the working device to the main body device, and a second conveyance mechanism that conveys to the outside of the main body device (conveyor 13) the excavated object conveyed to the main body device.
Re Claim 12, Rigter discloses the construction machine according claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the main body device includes an upper main body device (crane 2) and a lower main body device (carriage 1) provided below the upper main body device, the working device (arm 3) is connected to the upper main body device (“a crane 2, projecting from the carriage 1, with an arm 3 and two scoops 4,5, carried by the arm” Col. 2, Lines 6-8), and the processing device (cleaning bed 12) is connected to the lower main body device (“the cleaning bed 12 is integrated into the crane machine” Col. 4, Lines 4-5).
Re Claim 13, Rigter discloses the construction machine according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein a mass body that corrects an unbalanced load acting on the main body device caused by driving the working device (arm 3) is provided in each of the upper main body device (see Fig. 1 illustrated below) and the lower main body device (supporting legs 22,23).
PNG
media_image1.png
700
1407
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Rigter, illustrated
Re Claim 14, Rigter discloses the construction machine according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), further comprising a revolving device located between the upper main body and the lower main body to revolve the upper main body (“The crane 2 is rotatable relative to the carriage 1 about the axis 21” Col. 2, Lines 44-45)
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) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigter (EP 658,500) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Atsumi (US2021/0403146).
Re Claim 3, Ritger discloses the construction machine according to claim 1.
Atsumi teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle capable of flying (aircraft 100) that are capable of spraying water ([0133]) and are discloses to be compatible with excavators (Atsumi teaches that the unmanned aerial vehicle can be used with “construction vehicle such as bulldozer or a excavator” [0212]).
Ritger contains a construction machine upon which the invention of claim 3 could be seen as an improvement by adding a change mechanism, which is defined in the specification as a liquid supply device. Atsumi teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle capable of flying that is capable of being a liquid supply device, or an equivalent thereof, and is applicable to the device of Ritger. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the unmanned aerial vehicle of Atsumi to the construction machine of Ritger since the modification would predictably result in an improved system that could alter the water content of the excavated material by spraying more water on it.
Re Claim 4, Ritger, in view of Atsumi, discloses the construction machine according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), wherein the change mechanism is provided in an unmanned aerial vehicle capable of flying.
Re Claim 5, Ritger, in view of Atsumi, discloses the construction machine according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), and Atsumi further discloses that a number of the unmanned aerial vehicles is larger than a number of the working devices (“When multiple aircraft 100 are coupled side by side in the horizontal direction in a row, for example, it is possible to efficiently perform operations such as disinfect injection, water spraying” [0133]. Ritger only discloses one working device, so the multiple aircraft of Atsumi is a larger quantity of aircraft than the quantity of working devices).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigter (EP 658,500) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uetake et. al. (US2018/0258608), hereinafter referred to as “Uetake”.
Re Claim 7, Rigter discloses the construction machine according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to disclose a detection device that detects a property of the excavated object.
Uetake teaches a detection device (humidity sensor 42) that detects a property of the excavated object (“a humidity sensor 42 for measuring ambient humidity… the humidity detected by the humidity sensor 42 becomes information indicating am amount of moisture of the rock mass” [0080])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rigter to incorporate the teachings of Uetake by adding to detection device to measure the humidity of the excavated mass and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that there was a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigter (EP 658,500) in view of Mallaghan (US2002/0124441) and Uetake et. al. (US2018/0258608).
Re Claim 9, Rigter discloses the construction machine according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to disclose that the conveyance device includes a folding portion that performs folding, and the construction machine further includes a control device that positions the working device with respect to the folded-conveyance device when folded.
Mallaghan teaches that the conveyance device includes a folding portion (“When it is desired to transport the device by road, the conveyor 2 be folded laterally inwardly inside the wheel base of the excavator 1. It may also be folded longitudinally as is common in transportation of conveyors” [0023])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rigter to incorporate the folding capability of Mallaghan to help transport the construction machine and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a reasonable chance of success.
Uetake teaches a control device (processing device 76) that positions the working device with respect to the folded-conveyance device (“The processing device 76 controls at least the operation of the excavation device” [0106]) when folded.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rigter, in view of Mallaghan, to incorporate the control device of Uetake to automatically control the operations of the construction machine including the positioning of the working device and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigter (EP 658,500) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ali et. al. (US2018/0234626), hereinafter referred to as “Ali”.
Re Claim 10, Rigter discloses the construction machine according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and further discloses that the working device includes a first working device connected to one side of the main body device (crane arm 3), but fails to disclose a second working device connected to the other side of the main body device.
Ali discloses a second working device (first implement 110) connected to the other side of the main body device (“The machine 100 may include a first implement 110 and a second implement 112” [0016] where the first implement is at a first end 114 of the construction machine [0016] and the second implement is at the second end 112 of the construction machine [0017]).
Ritger contains a construction machine upon which the construction machine of claim 10 could be seen as improved by having two working devices on either side of main body device. Ali contains a construction machine that has been improved by having a first working device connected to one side of the main body device, and a second working device connected to the other side of the main body device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the second working device of Ali to the construction machine of Ritger in a manner such that the first and second working devices are oriented in the manner they are in Ali for moving material with a loader bucket and a backhoe mechanism. The results of this combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigter (EP 658,500) in view of Moriya et. al. (US2001/0054657), hereinafter referred to as “Moriya”.
Re Claim 11, Rigter discloses the construction machine according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to disclose that the processing device includes a crushing device that crushes the excavated object
Moriya teaches that the processing device includes a crushing device (cone type crusher 10) that crushes the excavated object (“The cone type crusher 10 is structured such as to crush in accordance with a rotary power output from an input shaft 16” [0003]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rigter to incorporate the teachings of Moriya by including a crushing device so that the construction machine can have the additional functionality of crushing rocks (Moriya, “crusher for rocks” [0001]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigter (EP 658,500) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Mallaghan (US2002/0124441).
Re Claim 15, Ritger discloses the construction machine according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), but fails to disclose a drive system that is housed in the upper main body, the drive system driving at least one of the moving device and the processing device.
Mallaghan teaches a drive system (engine 33) that is housed in the upper main body (Fig. 4), the drive system driving at least one of the moving device (tracks 31) and the processing device
While Ritger discloses a moving device and a processing device, Ritger fails to disclose a drive system. Combined with Mallaghan, the prior art includes each element claimed although not in a single reference and the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is actual combination of elements in a single reference. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combine the references by putting the engine of Mallaghan in the crane of Ritger and, in combination, each element performs the same function as they do individually. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of this combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigter (EP 658,500), in view of Mallaghan (US2002/0124441), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Wutke et. al. (US2014/0083089), hereinafter referred to as “Wutke”.
Re Claim 16, Ritger, in view of Mallaghan, disclose the construction machine according to claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), but fails to disclose that the drive system includes a fuel tank stores ammonia or hydrogen.
Wutke teaches a fuel supply that contains hydrogen gas ([0020]).
Ritger, in view of Mallaghan, teach a construction machine that does not disclose its fuel source. Wutke a similar machine (Wutke, Fig. 1) teaches a fuel supply that contains hydrogen gas. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the fuel tank of Wutke to the drive system of Ritger, in view of Mallaghan, for powering the engine and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigter (EP 658,500) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kruse (US2013/0255112) and Bullen (US2018/0248061).
Re Claim 17, Ritger discloses the construction machine according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), but fails to disclose a perovskite solar cell that is provided on the upper main body.
Kruse teaches that a machine can be powered with a solar cell (“Power pack 106 can include one or more generators, one or more engines, one or more batteries, one or more solar panels, one or more compressors, one or more storage tanks or the like.” [0036]) that is provided on the upper main body (Fig. 1).
Ritger contained a construction machine upon which the claimed invention could be seen as improved upon by adding a solar cell that is provided on the upper main body. Kruse teaches a solar cell that is provided on the upper main body that could be applied to the construction machine of Ritger. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that adding a solar cell on the upper main body of the construction machine of Ritger would achieve the predictable result of powering the construction machine and would improve the system by adding a power source.
Ritger, in view of Kruse, does not disclose making the solar cell of perovskite. Bullen teaches that perovskite solar cells use inexpensive components and are simple to process [0003]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ritger, in view of Kruse, to use the perovskite solar cell of Bullen because of their inexpensive components and simplicity in processing and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigter (EP 658,500) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Cowgill (WO2020/232082)
Re Claim 18, Ritger discloses the construction machine according to claim 12, but fails to disclose that the upper main body includes a take-off and landing portion where an unmanned aerial vehicle is able to take off and land portion.
Cowgill teaches that wherein the upper main body includes a take-off and landing portion (“home device 33 operates as a base for the unmanned vehicle 36 and is optionally capable of acting as a power source, transmitter/receiver, base/hub, anchor, landing spot, garage, vehicle, connector, etc” [33]) where an unmanned aerial vehicle (unmanned vehicle 36) is able to take off and land portion.
Ritger discloses a construction machine upon which the claimed invention could be seen as an improvement by including an unmanned aerial vehicle and a portion of the upper main body where the unmanned aerial vehicle can take off and land. The construction machine of Cowgill has been improved by including an unmanned aerial vehicle and a location on the upper main body where the unmanned aerial vehicle can take off and land. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an unmanned aerial vehicle and a take off and landing portion to the construction machine of Ritger and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results would be predictable.
Re Claim 19, Ritger, in view of Cowgill, discloses the construction machine according to claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above), and Cowgill further teaches that the unmanned aerial vehicle includes an image capture device (sensor 31) that performs image capture (“electronic device 31 may be a surface characterization device, e.g., a camera” [29]) at the take off and land portion (there is no indication that the sensor 31 is inoperable at the home device 33).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D DICKSTEIN whose telephone number is (571) 272-1847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/WILLIAM DOUGLAS DICKSTEIN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725