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 because the lead line of reference number “48” in Fig. 2 points to the platform and not the turntable . 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 112
Claims 9-11 are 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.
With respect to Claim 9, the recitation “a second effector is secured to a distal end of the first jib” appears to be inaccurate and/or misdescriptive. It appears that the second effector is secured to the distal end of the second jib and not the first jib.
Claims 10 and 11 depend from claim 9.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fukaya (U.S. Patent no. 7,730,648B2).
With respect to Claim 1, Fukaya discloses a loader with multiple knucklebooms, comprising: a platform 1; a first knuckleboom 4a,4b,4c rotatably mounted (via 20) on the platform; and a second knuckleboom 5a-1,5a-2,5b mounted (via 2) on the platform, wherein the first and second knucklebooms are spaced apart with respect to one another (Fig. 1, for example, shows the spacing between 4a,4b,4c and 5a-1,5a-2,5b).
With respect to Claim 2, Fukaya discloses the loader with multiple knucklebooms as recited in claim 1, wherein the first knuckleboom comprises: a first boom 4a; and a first jib 4b pivotally connected (at 44) to the first boom.
With respect to Claim 3, Fukaya discloses the loader with multiple knucklebooms as recited in claim 2, further comprising a turntable 2 mounted (via 20) on the platform 1, wherein a proximal end (at or around 43) of the first boom 4a is mounted on the turntable (col. 5, ll. 60-64).
With respect to Claim 4, Fukaya discloses the loader with multiple knucklebooms as recited in claim 3, further comprising a cab 3 mounted on the turntable 2.
With respect to Claim 5, Fukaya discloses the loader with multiple knucklebooms as recited in claim 3, wherein a distal end (at or near 44) of the first boom 4a is pivotally connected 44 to a proximal end (portion of 4b at or near 44) of the first jib, and wherein a first effector 4c is secured to a distal end of the first jib.
With respect to Claim 6, Fukaya discloses the loader with multiple knucklebooms as recited in claim 5, wherein the first effector comprises a crane tip (at or near 45).
With respect to Claim 7, Fukaya discloses the loader with multiple knucklebooms as recited in claim 5, further comprising means (31 and “hydraulic circuit”; col. 6, line 1) for controllably driving movement of the first boom and the first jib.
With respect to Claim 8, Fukaya discloses the loader with multiple knucklebooms as recited in claim 1, wherein the second knuckleboom comprises: a second boom 5a-1; and a second jib pivotally 5a-2 connected to the second boom.
With respect to Claim 9, Fukaya discloses the loader with multiple knucklebooms as recited in claim 8, wherein a distal end of the second boom 5a-1 is pivotally connected (Fig. 4 shows the pivot connection between 5a-1 and 5a-2) to a proximal end of the second jib 5a-2, and wherein a second effector 5 is secured to a distal end of the first jib.
With respect to Claim 10, Fukaya discloses the loader with multiple knucklebooms as recited in claim 9, wherein the second effector comprises a crane tip 5.
With respect to Claim 11, Fukaya discloses the loader with multiple knucklebooms as recited in claim 9, further comprising means for controllably driving movement of the second boom and the second jib 31.
With respect to Claim 12, Fukaya discloses the loader with multiple knucklebooms as recited in claim 1, further comprising a plurality of wheels 10 rotatably mounted to the platform.
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.
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukaya in view of Hayes et al (U.S. Patent no. 3,854,606).
With respect to Claim 13, Fukaya does not teach at least one outrigger mounted to the platform.
Hayes et al discloses a vehicle with material loader. Figs. 1 and 2 of Hayes et al teach an outrigger (in phantom lines) to achieve stability when on uneven ground while lifting heavy loads.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Fukaya with outriggers, as taught by Hayes et al so that the loader is stable while on uneven ground while lifting heavy loads.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art shows various construction vehicles and loaders.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL M MARCELO whose telephone number is (571)272-6949. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 am-3:30pm 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, 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.
/EMMANUEL M MARCELO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/emm/