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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 3 and 4 (i.e. the “element” and the “actuator means”). 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. 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3,841,494 A (hereinafter “Chalupsky”).
Regarding claim 1 Chalupsky discloses a telescopic lifting arm (20) for self-propelled operating machines, the arm comprising:
at least three tubular elements (48/50/52), with a decreasing cross-section (fig. 1) and telescopically connected to each other to define a supporting structure (i.e. 20 is a boom designed for lifting a load), designed to move between a retracted configuration (fig. 2) wherein said tubular elements (48/50/52) are inserted one in the other and an elongated configuration (fig. 10) wherein at least two tubular elements (50/52) are at least partly extracted, the arm (20) comprises actuator means (58/70) associated with said tubular elements (48/50/52) and configured for actuating at least two of said tubular elements (50/52) for pulling them out independently from one another and with different speeds (i.e. see fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3 Chalupsky discloses the above arm, and further discloses two hydraulic actuators (58/70) which are independent of each other (see fig. 9) and wherein each hydraulic actuator (58/70) is equipped with at least two hydraulic elements (see fig. 10) connected to each other telescopically, each of said hydraulic actuators (58/70) and each hydraulic element is connected independently to a respective tubular element (48/50/52) of the supporting structure (boom for lifting a load).
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,111,733 A (hereinafter “Baraniak”).
Regarding claim 1 Baraniak discloses a telescopic lifting arm (“jib,” see title) for self-propelled operating machines, the arm comprising:
at least three tubular elements (94-98), with a decreasing cross-section and telescopically connected to each other to define a supporting structure (i.e. a boom is a supporting structure), designed to move between a retracted configuration wherein said tubular elements (94-98) are inserted one in the other and an elongated configuration wherein at least two tubular elements (94-97) are at least partly extracted, the arm (“jib”) comprises actuator means (1) associated with said tubular elements (94-98) and configured for actuating at least two of said tubular elements (94-97) for pulling them out independently from one another and with different speeds (see col. 2, ll. 33-38).
Regarding claim 2 Baraniak discloses the above arm, and further discloses wherein said actuator means (1) are made in the form of a single hydraulic actuator with two independent stages (i.e. rod 4 and rod 9 telescope) equipped with at least three hydraulic elements (2/4/9) connected to each other telescopically, each of said hydraulic elements (2/4/9) is connected independently to a respective tubular element (94-98) of the supporting structure.
Regarding claim 4 Baraniak discloses the above arm, and further discloses wherein said tubular elements (94-98) include a proximal tubular element (98), designed to be hinged (capable of being hinged; i.e. this is a functional recitation) to a frame or to a tower of said operating machine, and at least two pull-out elements (94-97) consisting of as many tubular elements (94-98) of the supporting structure (a jib is a “supporting structure”), a distal pull-out element (94) being designed to support a work equipment (capable of supporting equipment; i.e. this is a functional recitation) and being removable (at least partially) and able to be housed at least partly in another pull-out element (i.e. when retracted 94 would fit within 96 due to telescoping), at least two pull-out elements (94-97) being connected to a respective hydraulic element (2/4/9) of the actuator means (1).
Regarding claim 5 Baraniak discloses the above arm, and further discloses wherein said actuator means (1) are configured for extending a hydraulic element (9) connected or connectable (at least indirectly) to a distal pull-out element (94) at a greater speed with which is extended a hydraulic element (4) connected or connectable (at least indirectly) to said proximal tubular element (98).
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 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baraniak in view of US 6,116,140 (hereinafter “Barthalow”).
Regarding claim 6 modified Baraniak discloses the above arm, and further discloses comprising a main [source (38)] connected or connectable to said actuator means (1) for supplying oil of said actuator means (1) and a control valve (36/37) interposed between said main [source (38)] and said actuator means (1), said control valve (36/37) being configured to actuate simultaneously and at different speeds each hydraulic element (2/4/9) of said actuator means (1).
Baraniak fails to teach a main valve connected to the actuator means feeding the control valve. Barthalow teaches a multi-stage telescopic cylinder with a control valve (44/46) for telescopic elements (see claim 1), in a similar manner as Baraniak. Barthalow further teaches wherein a main control valve (60) supplies oil to the control valve (44/46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a main valve, as taught by Barthalow, to the hydraulic control of Baraniak, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to better supply oil to the hydraulic system.
Regarding claim 7 modified Baraniak teaches the above arm, and further teaches wherein said control valve (Baraniak 36/37) is designed to receive oil from a single section of said main valve (Barthalow 60) and to control the delivery and the return of said oil in one or more chambers (Baraniak e.g. 11/12/13/14) of said actuator means (1) used for the sliding and the return of respective hydraulic elements (Baraniak 2/4/9).
Regarding claim 8 modified Baraniak teaches the above arm, and further teaches wherein said control valve (Baraniak 36/37) comprises, for each chamber (Baraniak e.g. 11/12/13/14) of said actuator means (Baraniak 1), a valve (see Baraniak fig. 1). Baraniak does not specifically mention a proportional valve. Official Notice is given that proportional valves are old and well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the valves of any convenient type, including proportional valves, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to properly control the flow of oil.
Regarding claim 9 modified Baraniak teaches the above arm, and further teaches wherein said control valve (Baraniak 36/37) comprises a valve (see Baraniak fig. 1) for dividing the flow for each pair of chambers (Baraniak 11/12 and 13/14) of said actuator means (Baraniak 1), each pair of chambers (Baraniak 11/12 and 13/14) being defined by two chambers (Baraniak 11/12 and 13/14) of a same hydraulic element (Baraniak 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 10 modified Baraniak teaches the above arm, and further teaches wherein said control valve (Baraniak 36/37) is defined by two block valves (Baraniak 36/37) interposed between said main valve (Barthalow 60) and said actuator means (Baraniak 1); each of said block valves (Baraniak 36/37) is connected (at least indirectly) to a respective section of said main valve (Barthalow 60) for controlling independently each hydraulic element (Baraniak 2/4/9).
Regarding claim 11 modified Baraniak teaches the above arm, and further teaches a control unit (Baraniak 69) configured for adjusting said main valve (Barthalow 60) and/or said control valve (Baraniak 36/37) in such a way as to move said hydraulic elements (Baraniak 2/4/9) in such a way as to define a specific operating positioning of said tubular elements (Baraniak 94-98).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baraniak in view of Barthalow, and in further view of US 5,927,520 A (hereinafter “Barthalow2”).
Regarding claim 12 modified Baraniak teaches the above arm, but fails to teach sliding sensors as per claim 12. Barthalow2 teaches a telescopic boom with multiple boom sections similar to Baraniak. Barthalow2 further teaches at least two sliding sensors (T1/T2/T3; see fig. 5) independent of one another and connected to a control unit (142); said sliding sensors (T1/T2/T3) being configured to measure an extension of hydraulic elements (i.e. via the extension of boom sections) and to send a checking signal (L1/L2/L3; see fig. 5) to said control unit (142) identifying an extension of the hydraulic elements of tubular elements (boom sections).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such references show various forms of apparatus which comprise at least one similar feature to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathaniel L Adams whose telephone number is (571)272-4830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 Pacific Time.
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, Victoria P Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/NATHANIEL L ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654