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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pirri et al. (EP2772339A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pirri et al. discloses A truck mixer (vehicle 11) comprising a mixing device (concrete mixer 15), wherein the mixing device includes:
a rotatable mixing drum (drum 16),
an electric drive which is configured for controlling a rotational speed of the mixing drum (auxiliary device, electric motor 31), and
a brake, wherein the brake can be adjusted between a released state, in which rotation of the mixing drum is released, and a stopping state, in which the mixing drum is locked (abstract; braking member 50a, 50b, 50c, 50d; [0027]; [0053]-[0057]), and
wherein the truck mixer is configured to lock the mixing drum automatically with the brake in an event of a fault of the electric drive ([0031]; [0057]).
Regarding claim 2, Pirri et al. discloses wherein the electric drive has an electric drive motor (electric motor 31) and a power supply (electric energy generator unit 30),
wherein the brake is configured as an electric brake which, in a de-energized state, automatically changes to its stopping state (safety devices 50; [0023]; [0025]; [0057]), and
wherein the power supply is configured to supply electric power to the drive motor for rotating the mixing drum and to the brake for keeping the brake in its released state (electric energy generator 30; [0025]; [0037]; [0057]).
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) 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirri et al. in view of Scherzinger et al. (EP3915746A1) (with paragraph numbers referring to machine translation).
Regarding claims 3, 4 and 9, Pirri et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. While Pirri et al. discloses wherein the electric drive has a device which is configured to detect a fault case in the electric drive and, in a detected fault case, to set the brake to the stopping state (activation/deactivation device 47, control means 49, control unit 60; [0055]-[0057]; [0083]-[0087]); wherein the inverter is configured to monitor at least one of the following state variables of the electric drive and to compare it with a desired state in order to detect the fault case: an operating temperature, a rotational speed, and a direction of rotation (activation/deactivation device 47, control means 49, control unit 60; [0055]-[0057]; [0083]-[0087]); and wherein the device is configured to monitor a state of the brake and to switch off the electric drive motor if the brake has changed to the stopping state (activation/deactivation device 47, control means 49, control unit 60; [0055]-[0057]; [0083]-[0087]e), Pirri et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein that device is an inverter. It is well known in the area of truck mixer to have an inverter connected to the electric motor for detecting, monitoring and controlling the operation of the electric drive, as evidenced by (Scherzinger et al. inverter 50, [0012]-[0017]; [0021]-[0023]; [0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the inverter of Scherzinger et al. as the device of Pirri et al. for detecting, monitoring and controlling the operation of the electric drive in order to more efficiently drive and operate the electric motor (Scherzinger et al. [0012]-[0017]; [0021]-[0023]; [0026]).
Regarding claim 5, Pirri et al. in view of Scherzinger et al. further discloses wherein the electric drive has a first electrical energy source, which is configured for supplying the brake with electric power (electric energy generator unit 30; [0037]), and a second electrical energy source, which is configured for supplying the inverter for detecting fault cases (electric service unit 51; [0082]).
Regarding claim 6, Pirri et al. in view of Scherzinger et al. further discloses wherein the truck mixer has an electric traction drive ([0036]; [0039]).
Regarding claim 7, Pirri et al. in view of Scherzinger et al. further discloses wherein the first electrical energy source is also configured for supplying the electric traction drive with electric power ([0036]; [0039]).
Regarding claim 8, Pirri et al. in view of Scherzinger et al. further discloses wherein the first electrical energy source is connected to the brake by a DC-to-DC voltage converter (Scherzinger et al. [0013]; [0015]-[0016]; [0022]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights