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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 2 in the reply filed on 6/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-3, 11-12, and 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/12/2026.
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 8 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.
In claim 8, Applicant recites, "a distance between an inner surface of the left side plate and an inner surface of the left side plate at a front end is smaller than that at a rear end."
For the purpose of examination, claim 8 will be interpreted as -the distance is between the inner surface of the left side plate and an inner surface of the right side plate-
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 (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 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, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Wang (CN 112026618 A).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a relay type dump truck, comprising a bottom plate (2, Fig. 8) capable of moving backwards and retracting forwards in a reciprocating manner (see machine translation, pg. 1, Abstract), and a front baffle (9, Fig. 8) positioned on the bottom plate (2) and between a left side plate (11, Fig. 8) and a right side plate (12, Fig. 8), wherein one side, close to a truck head, of the front baffle (9) is provided with a backstop mechanism (“elastic plate”, 10, Fig. 8), and the backstop mechanism (10) is free of combining, or establishing mutual attraction with the left side plate (11) and the right side plate (12) when the bottom plate (2) moves backwards, and combines, or establishes mutual attraction with the left side plate (11) and the right side plate (12) when the bottom plate (2) retracts forwards. (Wang teaches a backstop mechanism 10 because the elastic plate gets pulled by the pulling rope 16 in Fig. 2. Therefore, the elastic plate can disengage and engage with the left side plate 11 and right side plate 12 when the bottom plate 2 is moving forward and backward.) Note: Claim 1 adds no further structural limitations to the claimed invention but instead recites how the backstop mechanism moves along the side plates and bottom plates.
PNG
media_image1.png
704
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
674
722
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches a distance between an inner surface of the left side plate (11) and an inner surface of the left side plate (11, however, this will be interpreted as the inner surface of the right side plate 12) at a front end is smaller than that at a rear end. (see machine translation, top of pg. 5; the front end is narrow to the back end of the carriage)
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches a height of the bottom plate (2) distancing from a ground at a front end is greater than that at a rear end. (The bottom plate 2 is a slope-shape because the goods naturally slide outward away from the vehicle head. See machine translation end of pg. 4 to 5)
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches a frame (1, Fig. 2) is fixedly provided with a plurality of rolling bearings, a shaft sleeve, a linear roller guide rail or a universal ball bearing, and a lower surface of the bottom plate is supported by the rolling bearings, an outer circular surface of the shaft sleeve or the linear roller guide rail, and an outer spherical surface of the universal ball bearing (see machine translation, middle to end of pg. 3),; and the frame (1) is connected to cylinder bodies of more than one double-acting push-pull oil cylinder, and a piston rod of each double-acting push-pull oil cylinder is connected to the bottom plate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 13-15, and 18-20 are 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:
Claim 4 recites “backstop mechanism comprises two friction plates, one of the two friction plates is hinged to a front end of one connecting plate and a piston rod of a backstop oil cylinder, and an other of the two friction plates is hinged to a front end of an other connecting plate and a cylinder body of the backstop oil cylinder”. Wang fails to teach or reasonably suggest two friction plates and a piston rod of a backstop oil cylinder connecting to a connecting plate. It would not be obvious to incorporate the two friction plates and a piston rod of a backstop oil cylinder connecting to a connecting plate to be configured as a backstop mechanism. Claims 5 and 6 depend on claim 4.
Claim 7 recites “the front baffle is connected to a movable plate, a width of the movable plate is greater than a gap width between the front baffle and the left side plate or the right side plate”. Wang fails to teach or reasonably suggest the front baffle is connected to a movable plate to block the gap between the front baffle, left side or right side plate. It would not be obvious to incorporate the movable plate to be configured to block the gap between the front baffle, left side or right side plate. Claims 13-15 depend on claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, “the backstop mechanism comprises two friction plates, one of the two friction plates is hinged to a front end of one connecting plate and a piston rod of a backstop oil cylinder, and an other of the two friction plates is hinged to a front end of an other connecting plate and a cylinder body of the backstop oil cylinder”. Wang fails to teach or reasonably suggest two friction plates and a piston rod of a backstop oil cylinder connecting to a connecting plate. It would not be obvious to incorporate the two friction plates and a piston rod of a backstop oil cylinder connecting to a connecting plate to be configured as a backstop mechanism. Claims 19 and 20 depend on claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang, et al. (CN 112572263 A) teaches a bottom plate and an oil cylinder connected with a push plate.
De Filippi (US 4877366 A) teaches an ejection cylinder connected to the main body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alma D Schuster whose telephone number is (571)272-8938. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30am-6:30pm and Fri 7am-11am.
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, Amy R Weisberg can be reached at (571)270-5500. 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.
/Alma D. Schuster/ Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights