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 § 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 7 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the rocking shaft" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the coupling portion between the first link member and the second link member" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-3,7,9-10,12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boyd (US 10,036,138).
Re claim 1, Boyd teaches an attitude maintenance mechanism 50 of a front loader 10 that maintains an attitude of a working tool 13 coupled to a boom 12 by operating according to rocking of the boom including a pair of left and right boom frames (not numbered, see figures), the attitude maintenance mechanism comprising: a first link member 52 that is rockable with respect to a side frame of the front loader; and a second link member 53 rockably provided with respect to the boom frames and coupled to the first link member and a bucket cylinder 19, wherein the first link member and the second link member are provided as a left and right pair with each of the boom frames interposed between the first link member and the second link member.
Re claim 2, Boyd teaches (figures 2,14) the first link member 52 is disposed so as not to overlap with the boom frames in a plan view.
Re claims 3,12, Boyd teaches (figures 2,14) the first link member and the second link member are disposed such that at least a part of the first link member and the second link member overlap the boom in a side view regardless of a rock angle of the boom.
Re claim 7, Boyd teaches (figures 2,14) the rocking shaft 55 of the first link member, the coupling portion 56 between the first link member and the second link member, and a coupling portion 57 between the second link member and the bucket cylinder are located on substantially a same straight line in a side view.
Re claim 9, Boyd teaches (figures 2,14) front loader 10 comprising the attitude maintenance mechanism 50.
Re claim 10, Boyd teaches (figures 2,14) a rocking shaft 54 of the second link member is provided so as to cross an internal space of the boom 12,12A.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-6,8,13-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd (US 10,036,138) in view of Kapfer (EP1997960A2).
Re claims 4,5,13-18, Boyd does not show a pair of the left and right first link members includes bent portions bent inward from each other. However, Kapfer (10,20,figures 1,11,13,etc.) teaches bent sections as claimed which increase strength over flat structures and provide aesthetic appeal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Boyd as claimed in order to improve strength and aesthetic appeal as desired / needed for a given situational need.
Re claims 6,19,20, Boyd does not show the second link member including a first member and a second member fixed to one of left and right sides of the first member. However, Kapfer teaches links with multiple members connected on sides is known (10,20,etc., figures 1,3,7-13) and separation, duplication and rearrangement of parts are obvious modifications (MPEP2144, In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961); In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Boyd as claimed in order to increase maintainability by allowing replacement of smaller individual parts as needed rather than entire larger parts.
Re claim 8, Boyd does not show whether a pair of the left and right first link members is formed to be bilaterally symmetrical with each other, and a pair of the left and right second link members is formed to be bilaterally symmetrical with each other. However, Kapfer (10,20,figures 1,9,11,13,etc.) teaches various support sections bilaterally symmetrical with each other which would be easier to produce in bulk (over random shaped) and which provide aesthetic appeal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Boyd in view of Kapfer as claimed in order to simplify production and provide aesthetic appeal.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd (US 10,036,138) in view of Iwamoto (US 9,637,888).
Re claim 11, Boyd teaches there is tubing but gives little detail about tubing or its guiding. Iwamoto teaches a loader (figure 1) with tubing 14 guided via through various at least partially, or totally internal structures (22,20, etc., figure 2,7) to protect the tubing and prevent interference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Boyd in view of Iwamoto as claimed in order to efficiently guide and protect tubing and prevent interference throughout operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miyanishi & Higashikawa teach hose/ tubing guides (abstract, figures).
Frey & Oyama teach front loaders with attitude maintenance mechanisms (abstract, figures).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LOWE whose telephone number is (571)272-6929. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling M,Th,F & alternating W 6:30am-6:30pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 5712727097. 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.
MICHAEL S. LOWE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/MICHAEL S LOWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652