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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betz (US 20160144211) and further in view of Haman (US 5348171).
In regards to claim 1, Betz teaches a fire apparatus (10) comprising:
a chassis (12) including a first frame rail (11) and a second frame rail (13) (see fig. 10);
Betz fails to teach one or more first apertures and one or more second apertures defined in each frame rail. Haman teaches a heavy structure box frame secured to a vehicle frame by lock pins extending through mated apertures associated with the box frame and vehicle frame. Haman states that removable lock pins extending through mated apertures in a box frame and vehicle frame were known for attaching removable crane outrigger structures. See mounting lugs 42 fixed to the frame 16 apertures 54 that align with apertures 52 in hangers 44 of the box frame 29, receiving dual lock pins 56. And at the front mounting lugs 78 attached to the side of the frame 16 apertures 76 aligned with apertures 74 in mounting ears 75 on the box frame 64, receiving lock pins 93 in the front. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Betz with a removable, load bearing chassis attachment (Bet’s torque box, which must carry cantilevered ladder assembly moment loads into the frame) would look to Haman’s for securing the heavy moment transferee ring to spaced frame rales such that it can be aligned and fastened with precision and capable to be serviced or removed. Including aligned apertures directly through the frame rails as Haman teaches a straightforward and predictable way to implement Betz’s already disclosed “interfaces configured to engage … brackets” yielding a more positive, inspectable, and serviceable mechanical connection than an unspecified bracket attachment. This is a combination of known elements according to known methods, yielding no more than the predictable result of a securely removable fastened torque box.
Furthermore, Betz teaches a torque box (400) disposed along the chassis (12), the torque box (400) having a first end (404) and an opposing second end (406) (see fig. 5-6, 13-14);
an aerial assembly (200) supported by the torque box (400);
a first mounting assembly (plate 413) coupled to the first end of the torque box (404 along first sidewall 410), the first mounting assembly (413) including a first mount (416) coupled to a first side of the torque box (404) and a second mount (418) coupled to an opposing second side of the torque box (406), and each of the first mount (416) and the second mount (418) defining one or more third apertures (429 to engage with brackets 420 which attach to the frame 12).
Betz as combined with Haman teaches apertures on first and second mounts that align with cooperating lock pin apertures defined in the vehicle frame itself, a first location along the frame. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to further configure Betz opposing toque box interfaces as discrete mounts according to Haman’s mounting ear arrangement because separate mounts at the respective sides permit independent alignment and pin engagement provide a predictable structural connection on both lateral sides of the supported box structure, positioning the apertures in Betz mounts to align with corresponding first apertures in the chassis mounting structures because alignment is necessary for insertion of the structural pins and is the ordinary and intended configuration of Haman’s pinned connection.
Betz teaches a second mounting assembly (support plate 104) coupled to the opposing second end of the torque box (406), the second mounting assembly (104) including a third mount (housing brackets 108) coupled to the first side of the torque box (404). Betz fails to teach a fourth mount coupled to the opposing second side of the torque box, each of the third mount and the fourth mount defining one or more fourth apertures, the one or more fourth apertures positioned to align with the one or more second apertures. Haman teaches a rear outrigger unit 14, structurally and functionally paired with the front unit having a pair of hangers 44 fixed to the box frame 29 defining apertures 52, positioned to align with apertures 54 in space, vertical mounting lugs 42 fixed to the vehicle frame 16. Dual lock pins 56 axially extend outward through the aligned apertures 52/54. This is a second mounting assembly spaced apart from the front interface along the length of the vehicle with pinned engagement to frame mounted lugs as is claimed. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Betz with a reasonable expectation of success. Since the housing brackets 108 serve the same structural function as the first end connection (416, 418) transferring torque box loading into both frame rails and a person of ordinary skill in the art would apply Haman’s same rail aperture and pin technique symmetrically to both ends for consistency of design, ease of manufacture, and serviceability.
Betz further fails to teach a first plurality of pins extending through (a) the one or more first apertures of the first frame rail and the one or more third apertures of the first mount and (b) the one or more first apertures of the second frame rail and the one or more third apertures of the second mount; and
a second plurality of pins extending through (a) the one or more second apertures of the first frame rail and the one or more fourth apertures of the third mount and (b) the one or more second apertures of the second frame rail and the one or more fourth apertures of the fourth mount.
However, Haman teaches the use of opposed structural pins through aligned apertures for securing a load bearing box frame to a vehicle frame. See first plurality lock pins 92, through aligned apertures 74, and 76 at the front interface, see claim 9 lock pins engage said apertures, thereby a second plurality of pins extending through apertures of the frame rails, the one or more third apertures on the mounts, and second plurality of pins 56 through apertures 52 and 54 thereby teaching pins extending through the apertures of the frame rails and the fourth apertures. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Betz in view of Haman, to fasten Betz’s first end mount to the frame rails using pins extending through aligned apertures in both the mounts and the rails because this is a simple substitution of one known fastening means for another since both are equivalent means for removable securing a load bearing module to parallel frame rails with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 2, Betz and Haman in combination teach wherein the first plurality of pins ( Haman pins 92, 56) and the second plurality of pins (Haman pins 92, 56) couple the torque box (Betz 400) to the chassis (Betz 12) with a clamp-less connection (connection with the lugs/pins).
In regards to claim 13, Betz, and Haman teach in combination wherein at least one of the first plurality of pins has a first cross-sectional shape and at least one of the second plurality of pins has a second cross-sectional shape that is different from the first cross-sectional shape, Betz and Haman in combination as discussed above, teach the first plurality of pins and a second plurality of pins but are silent on the cross sectional shape being different from another. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different crosse sectional shape of the pins of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
In regards to claim 14, Betz and Haman in combination teach wherein at least one of the first plurality of pins (lock pins 56) has a first cross-sectional shape and at least one of the second plurality of pins (lock pins 92) has a second cross-sectional shape that is the same as the first cross-sectional shape (it is understood they are the same see figures).
In regards to claim 15, Betz teaches a fire apparatus (10) comprising: a chassis (12) including a first frame rail (11) and a second frame rail (13) (see fig. 10);a torque box (400) disposed along the chassis (12), box (400) having a first end (404) and an opposing second end (406) (see fig. 5-6, 13-14); an aerial assembly (200) supported by the torque box (400); a first mounting assembly (plate 413) coupled to the first end of the torque box (404 along first sidewall 410), the first mounting assembly (413) including a first mount (416) coupled to a first side of the torque box (404) and a second mount (418) coupled to an opposing second side of the torque box (406),
Betz discloses that torque box 400 has an opposing second end 406 and that the torque box has an opposing second end 406 but fails to disclose a second mounting assembly positioned proximate the opposing second end of the torque box, the second mounting assembly including a third mount coupled to the first side of the torque box and a fourth mount coupled to the opposing second side of the torque box. Haman teaches a heavy, elongated box frames structure removably attached to a vehicle frame by laterally separated mounting interfaces, mounting eats 75 on box frame64 cooperating with dual mounting lungs 78 attached to the side of the vehicle frame 16. Haman further teaches paired mounting and locking arrangements at spaced portions of a load bearing box structure to provide secure attachment to a vehicle frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Betz’s elongated torque box with a corresponding pair of opposing mounts proximate second end 406 by repeating the opposing side mounting arrangement at the second longitudinal end. Such a modification would provide additional attachment and load transfer location between the torque box and chassis, improve stability of the elongated torque box, and distribute aerial generated loads over both sides and both longitudinal portions of the chassis, providing known mounting arrangements at the opposing end would have constituted duplication of known structural connection according the its established function with a reasonable expectation of success.
Betz fails to teach a first pinned connection coupling the first frame rail and the first mount; a second pinned connection coupling the second frame rail and the second mount; a third pinned connection coupling the first frame rail and the third mount; and a fourth pinned connection coupling the second frame rail and the fourth mount.
However, Haman teaches a first pinned connection (lock pins 56) inserted through the aligned apertures 74 and 76 to secure the box frame to the vehicle frame. Haman further teaches where pins are used to securely attach both the front and rear outrigger units with an elongate box frame to the vehicle frame with removable lock pins extending through mated apertures in the box and vehicle frame (see col. 1 lines 52-62) thereby teaching opposed lock pins at laterally separated positions providing a second (92), third, and fourth pinned connection. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Betz in view of Haman before the effective filing date, Haman teaches removable lock pins extending through apertures in the box and frames provides a significant advancement in handling and attachment process and teaches that these pins have been commonplace in the construction equipment industry in recent years, such a modification of substituting known equivalent attachment means would have made with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 16, Betz and Haman teach wherein the first pinned connection includes a pin extending through the first frame rail and the first mount (Haman’s lock pins 56 through the apertures 429 in the first mount 416).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betz (US 20160144211) in view of Haman (US 5348171) as applied above, and further in view of Fix (US 4664411).
In regards to claim 3, Betz and, Haman fails to teach wherein at least one of the first plurality of pins has a first flared end with a larger cross-section than at least one of the one or more first apertures or the one or more third apertures. Fix teaches tapered connecting pins received wedged in apertured interfitted parts of the outrigger assembly and chassis frame, see claim 6. A tapered pin that wedges into an aperture rather than sliding through. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Betz, and Haman, further in view of Fix before the effective filing date with a reasonable expectation of success. Since both Haman’s, and Fix’s pins are known equivalent the modification for Fix’s tapered pins would have been a simple substitution between one known pin for another to best secure the elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest related prior art Betz and Haman in combination or independently fail to teach or suggest the chassis for a fire apparatus including the mounting assembly including: a first plate defining a third aperture; a second plate spaced from the first plate and defining a fourth aperture; a third plate defining a fifth aperture; a fourth plate spaced from the third plate and defining a sixth aperture; a first pinned connection engaging with the first aperture, the third aperture, and the fourth aperture; and a second pinned connection engaging with the second aperture, the fifth aperture, and the sixth aperture.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 4-12, and 17-19 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: while Betz as modified by Haman teaches or suggests coupling a load bearing structural member to a vehicle chassis using removable pinned connections or suggests a structural pin having the claimed retention features. In particular the prior art fails to teach or suggest
In claim 4, a retainer coupled to a free end of a structural pin opposite a flared end wherein the retainer engages the frame rail or mount to prevent incidental removal of the pin.
In claim 5, a fastener positioned to interface with the flared end of the structural pin to secure the flared end to the frame rail or mount.
In claim 6, a structural pin having opposing first and second flared ends, each having a larger cross sectional dimension than the corresponding aperture
In claim 7 and 17, a pair of retainers coupled to opposing ends of at least one of the first plurality of pins where one is engaged with the first frame rail and the second is positioned to engage with the first mount to prevent removal of the pins incidentally. And thereby claims 18 and 19, wherein the retainer is fixed to the pin or where the retainers are releasably coupled to the pin.
In claim 8, a second plate defining one or more fifth apertures, the one or more fifth apertures positioned to align with the one or more third apertures; and at least one of the first plurality of pins extends through the one or more first apertures of the first frame rail, the one or more third apertures of the first plate, and the one or more fifth apertures of the second plate. And thereby claim 9 wherein the frame fail is positioned between the first plate and the second plate, and in claim 10, wherein the first plate is positioned between the first frame rail and the second plate.
In claim 11, a bushing positioned between the pins and the apertures of the frame rail or the mount, and in claim 12, where the bushing aperture is offset from a central axis of the bushing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for a listing of relevant prior art teaching similar chassis and apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN ANNE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm (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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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.
/C.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights