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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following positively recited features must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
The “attachment mechanism mounted on the rear surface of the bucket, the attachment mechanism configured to secure the salt spreader to a front of an earth moving equipment”, as recited in each of claims 6 and 14, is not shown in the drawings. It should be noted that paragraph [0025] of Applicant’s specification admits to this feature as not being shown in the drawings.
The “first and second spinner shields within the bucket”, as recited in each of claims 7 and 15, are not shown in the drawings. It should be noted that the originally-filed drawings for parent Application No. 16/440,672 included “first and second spinner shields 156, 158”. However, those features were removed from the drawings prior to that application being issued as US Patent No. 11,066,797. Further, even if those features were to be re-introduced into the instant continuing application drawings, it is unclear how one could reasonably characterize the “spinner shields” as being located “within the bucket”, as they were clearly depicted outside of the bucket in the originally-filed drawings of the aforementioned parent application.
No new matter should be entered.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“attachment mechanism” in claims 6 and 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 7 and 15 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.
Regarding each of claims 7 and 15, the limitation regarding the salt spreader as further including “first and second spinner shields within the bucket” is unclear. This Office cannot determine exactly what these elements are. As discussed above in paragraph 2 of the instant Office action, the originally-filed drawings for parent Application No. 16/440,672 included “first and second spinner shields 156, 158”. However, those features were removed from the drawings prior to that application being issued as US Patent No. 11,066,797, and remain omitted from the drawings of the instant continuing application. And, even if those features were to be re-introduced into the instant application drawings, it is unclear how one could reasonably characterize the “spinner shields” as being located “within the bucket”, as they were clearly depicted outside of the bucket in the originally-filed drawings of the aforementioned parent application. Further, based on where the “spinners” of the disclosed apparatus are located, it doesn’t seem to make logical sense for such “shields” to be located “within the bucket”. Moreover, the “salt spreader” of the instant application claims does not even positively recite inclusion of any “spinner” elements. Thus, the purpose of the “spinner shields” recited in claims 7 and 15 is unclear. Applicant’s explanation is respectfully requested.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8 and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,066,797 in view of Norkus et al., USPN 9,085,862.
As to claim 1, the aforementioned patented claim 1 includes all of the recited limitations of the “salt spreader”, including the “bucket” and the “first and second covers”, and the interrelated details and limitations thereof. Further, with respect to the “cavity of the bucket” recited in claim 1, such is implicit based on the interrelated “surface” limitations of the “bucket” in patented claim 1. However, the patented claims do not expressly recite that the salt spreader further includes a “salt grate” element mounted within the cavity.
It should be noted that it was old and well known in the prior art for salt spreading devices to include a grate/screen element within a cavity of a material “bucket” or hopper element of such salt spreading devices. Indeed, Norkus (see Figs. 1 and 2) shows a salt spreader (10) which includes a salt grate (14) mounted within the corresponding cavity (20) of the corresponding bucket (12), which Norkus expressly teaches as being desirable for preventing large debris from being received within the cavity, and which Norkus also expressly discloses as being desirable for causing clumps of salt to be broken during filling of the bucket/hopper (see column 4, lines 35-38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a salt grate, as taught by Norkus, within the bucket cavity of the salt spreader of the patented claim, thereby desirably preventing large debris from being received within the cavity, and also desirably causing clumps of salt to be broken during filling of the bucket/hopper.
As to claim 8, the aforementioned patented claim 6 includes or clearly implies all of the recited limitations of the “method”, including the structural limitations of the provided “salt spreader”, including the “bucket” and the “first and second covers”, and the interrelated details and limitations thereof. Further, with respect to the “cavity” defined by the “surface” features of the bucket recited in claim 8, such is implicit based on the interrelated “surface” limitations of the “bucket” in patented claim 6. However, the patented claims do not expressly recite that the salt spreader further includes a “salt grate” element mounted within the cavity.
It should again be noted that it was old and well known in the prior art for salt spreading devices to include a grate/screen element within a cavity of a material “bucket” or hopper element of such salt spreading devices. Indeed, Norkus (see Figs. 1 and 2) shows a salt spreader (10) which includes a salt grate (14) mounted within the corresponding cavity (20) of the corresponding bucket (12), which Norkus expressly teaches as being desirable for preventing large debris from being received within the cavity, and which Norkus also expressly discloses as being desirable for causing clumps of salt to be broken during filling of the bucket/hopper (see column 4, lines 35-38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a salt grate, as taught by Norkus, within the bucket cavity of the salt spreader of the patented claim, thereby desirably preventing large debris from being received within the cavity, and also desirably causing clumps of salt to be broken during filling of the bucket/hopper.
As to claim 9, the recited “wherein” clause would clearly be met by the method of patented claim 6, as modified above by Norkus and applied to claim 8.
Claims 4, 5, 12 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,066,797, as modified above by Norkus et al. and applied to claim 1 and 8, respectively, and further in view of Bogenschutz, USPN 3,583,646.
As to claims 4, 5, 12 and 13, the aforementioned (modified) patented claims 1 and 6 include each and every limitation of claims 1 and 8, respectively, of the instant application. However, the patented claims do not expressly recite that the salt spreader further includes one or more gussets, with each gusset extending along a height of an external side of the front surface, wherein each gusset extends below the base of the bucket.
It should first be noted, based on the recited construction of the bucket of the patented claims, and particularly with respect to the fact that the front and rear surfaces “tend toward one another...”, with “first and second ejection ports” being included in the “base” portion, that the front (and/or rear) surface portion(s) of the bucket of the patented claims would be substantially elongated, and thus could have measurable weakness, absent some kind of reinforcing feature. Thus, one having ordinary skill would be motivated to reinforce such elongated surface portion(s). Bogenschutz (see Figs. 1 and 5) shows a salt spreader having a bucket (“hopper”) with elongated surfaces (10, 12) which tend toward one another at a base (12) of the bucket, and Bogenschutz teaches inclusion of one or more gussets (16), with each gusset extending along a height of an external side of the elongated surfaces, wherein each gusset extends below the base of the bucket, whereby the gusset(s) provide reinforcement for the elongated surfaces of the bucket (see column 1, lines 72-73). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include one or more gussets, as taught by Bogenschutz, extending along a height of an external side of (at least) the elongated front surface of the bucket of the (modified) patented claims, thus providing reinforcement for the elongated front surface of the bucket.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,066,797, as modified above by Norkus et al. and applied to claim 1 and 8, respectively, and further in view of Hadler et al., USPN 6,702,208.
As to claims 6 and 14, the aforementioned (modified) patented claims 1 and 6 include each and every limitation of claims 1 and 8, respectively, of the instant application. However, the patented claims do not expressly recite that the salt spreader further includes an attachment mechanism mounted on the rear surface of the bucket, with the attachment mechanism configured to secure the salt spreader to a front of an earth moving equipment.
It should be noted that it was old and well known in the prior art for salt spreading devices to be secured to various types of moving vehicles, in order to facilitate spreading of materials on a large surface, depending on where a user intends to utilize such salt spreading devices. Indeed, Hadler (see Figs. 1-3 and 8) shows a salt spreader (10) which includes an attachment mechanism (19) mounted on a corresponding rear surface of the corresponding bucket (12), with the attachment mechanism configured to secure the salt spreader to a front of an earth moving equipment (20), whereby the attachment mechanism “facilitates removable mounting of the hopper spreader apparatus 10 to a vehicle” (see column 3, lines 24-26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an attachment mechanism, as taught by Hadler, to the salt spreader of the (modified) patented claims, in order to facilitate removable mounting of the salt spreader to a vehicle, such as to a front of an earth moving equipment, as shown by Hadler, whereby spreading of materials over a large surface can be achieved.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,066,797, as modified above by Norkus et al. and applied to claim 1 and 8, respectively, and further in view of Kerr, USPN 2,988,368.
As to claims 7 and 15, the aforementioned (modified) patented claims 1 and 6 include each and every limitation of claims 1 and 8, respectively, of the instant application. However, the patented claims do not expressly recite that the salt spreader further includes first and second spinner shields (Note: Although claims 8 and 14 recite that the “first and second spinner shields” are located “within the bucket”, as discussed above in paragraph 7 of the instant Office action, locating spinner shields within the claimed bucket, at the very least, doesn’t seem to make any logical sense, and thus this particular limitation will be ignored for purposes of this ground of rejection).
It should first be noted, although the claims of the instant application don’t actually positively include “first and second spinners” for which “first and second spinner shields” would be useful, claims 1 and 6 of the aforementioned patent do positively include “first and second spinners”. Thus, it should also be noted that it was old and well known in the prior art for salt spreading devices which include one or more spinners to include a corresponding spinner shield element for each spinner in order to direct material leaving the spinner in a desired manner. Indeed, Kerr (see Fig. 3) shows a salt spreader having first and second spinners (40, 40’), as well as corresponding first and second spinner shields (77, 77’), whereby the spread of material leaving the spinners can be “effectively controller” by the user (see column 5, lines 36-46). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add first and second spinner shields, as taught by Kerr, to the salt spreader of the (modified) patented claims, particularly since the patented claims expressly include first and second spinner elements, thereby facilitating control of the spread of material leaving the spinners.
Claims 1, 8 and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,692,321 in view of Norkus et al., USPN 9,085,862.
As to claim 1, the aforementioned patented claim 1 includes all of the recited limitations of the “salt spreader”, including the “bucket” and the “first and second covers”, and the interrelated details and limitations thereof. Further, with respect to the “cavity of the bucket” recited in claim 1, such is implicit based on the interrelated “surface” limitations of the “bucket” in patented claim 1. However, the patented claims do not expressly recite that the salt spreader further includes a “salt grate” element mounted within the cavity.
It should be noted that it was old and well known in the prior art for salt spreading devices to include a grate/screen element within a cavity of a material “bucket” or hopper element of such salt spreading devices. Indeed, Norkus (see Figs. 1 and 2) shows a salt spreader (10) which includes a salt grate (14) mounted within the corresponding cavity (20) of the corresponding bucket (12), which Norkus expressly teaches as being desirable for preventing large debris from being received within the cavity, and which Norkus also expressly discloses as being desirable for causing clumps of salt to be broken during filling of the bucket/hopper (see column 4, lines 35-38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a salt grate, as taught by Norkus, within the bucket cavity of the salt spreader of the patented claim, thereby desirably preventing large debris from being received within the cavity, and also desirably causing clumps of salt to be broken during filling of the bucket/hopper.
As to claim 8, the aforementioned patented claim 6 includes or clearly implies all of the recited limitations of the “method”, including the structural limitations of the provided “salt spreader”, including the “bucket” and the “first and second covers”, and the interrelated details and limitations thereof. Further, with respect to the “cavity” defined by the “surface” features of the bucket recited in claim 8, such is implicit based on the interrelated “surface” limitations of the “bucket” in patented claim 6. However, the patented claims do not expressly recite that the salt spreader further includes a “salt grate” element mounted within the cavity.
It should again be noted that it was old and well known in the prior art for salt spreading devices to include a grate/screen element within a cavity of a material “bucket” or hopper element of such salt spreading devices. Indeed, Norkus (see Figs. 1 and 2) shows a salt spreader (10) which includes a salt grate (14) mounted within the corresponding cavity (20) of the corresponding bucket (12), which Norkus expressly teaches as being desirable for preventing large debris from being received within the cavity, and which Norkus also expressly discloses as being desirable for causing clumps of salt to be broken during filling of the bucket/hopper (see column 4, lines 35-38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a salt grate, as taught by Norkus, within the bucket cavity of the salt spreader of the patented claim, thereby desirably preventing large debris from being received within the cavity, and also desirably causing clumps of salt to be broken during filling of the bucket/hopper.
As to claim 9, the recited “wherein” clause would clearly be met by the method of patented claim 6, as modified above by Norkus and applied to claim 8.
Claims 4, 5, 12 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,692,321, as modified above by Norkus et al. and applied to claim 1 and 8, respectively, and further in view of Bogenschutz, USPN 3,583,646.
As to claims 4, 5, 12 and 13, the aforementioned (modified) patented claims 1 and 6 include each and every limitation of claims 1 and 8, respectively, of the instant application. However, the patented claims do not expressly recite that the salt spreader further includes one or more gussets, with each gusset extending along a height of an external side of the front surface, wherein each gusset extends below the base of the bucket.
It should first be noted, based on the recited construction of the bucket of the patented claims, and particularly with respect to the fact that the front and rear surfaces “tend toward one another...”, with “first and second ejection ports” being included in the “base” portion, that the front (and/or rear) surface portion(s) of the bucket of the patented claims would be substantially elongated, and thus could have measurable weakness, absent some kind of reinforcing feature. Thus, one having ordinary skill would be motivated to reinforce such elongated surface portion(s). Bogenschutz (see Figs. 1 and 5) shows a salt spreader having a bucket (“hopper”) with elongated surfaces (10, 12) which tend toward one another at a base (12) of the bucket, and Bogenschutz teaches inclusion of one or more gussets (16), with each gusset extending along a height of an external side of the elongated surfaces, wherein each gusset extends below the base of the bucket, whereby the gusset(s) provide reinforcement for the elongated surfaces of the bucket (see column 1, lines 72-73). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include one or more gussets, as taught by Bogenschutz, extending along a height of an external side of (at least) the elongated front surface of the bucket of the (modified) patented claims, thus providing reinforcement for the elongated front surface of the bucket.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,692,321, as modified above by Norkus et al. and applied to claim 1 and 8, respectively, and further in view of Hadler et al., USPN 6,702,208.
As to claims 6 and 14, the aforementioned (modified) patented claims 1 and 6 include each and every limitation of claims 1 and 8, respectively, of the instant application. However, the patented claims do not expressly recite that the salt spreader further includes an attachment mechanism mounted on the rear surface of the bucket, with the attachment mechanism configured to secure the salt spreader to a front of an earth moving equipment.
It should be noted that it was old and well known in the prior art for salt spreading devices to be secured to various types of moving vehicles, in order to facilitate spreading of materials on a large surface, depending on where a user intends to utilize such salt spreading devices. Indeed, Hadler (see Figs. 1-3 and 8) shows a salt spreader (10) which includes an attachment mechanism (19) mounted on a corresponding rear surface of the corresponding bucket (12), with the attachment mechanism configured to secure the salt spreader to a front of an earth moving equipment (20), whereby the attachment mechanism “facilitates removable mounting of the hopper spreader apparatus 10 to a vehicle” (see column 3, lines 24-26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an attachment mechanism, as taught by Hadler, to the salt spreader of the (modified) patented claims, in order to facilitate removable mounting of the salt spreader to a vehicle, such as to a front of an earth moving equipment, as shown by Hadler, whereby spreading of materials over a large surface can be achieved.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,692,321, as modified above by Norkus et al. and applied to claim 1 and 8, respectively, and further in view of Kerr, USPN 2,988,368.
As to claims 7 and 15, the aforementioned (modified) patented claims 1 and 6 include each and every limitation of claims 1 and 8, respectively, of the instant application. However, the patented claims do not expressly recite that the salt spreader further includes first and second spinner shields (Note: Although claims 8 and 14 recite that the “first and second spinner shields” are located “within the bucket”, as discussed above in paragraph 7 of the instant Office action, locating spinner shields within the claimed bucket, at the very least, doesn’t seem to make any logical sense, and thus this particular limitation will be ignored for purposes of this ground of rejection).
It should first be noted, although the claims of the instant application don’t actually positively include “first and second spinners” for which “first and second spinner shields” would be useful, claims 1 and 6 of the aforementioned patent do positively include “first and second spinners”. Thus, it should also be noted that it was old and well known in the prior art for salt spreading devices which include one or more spinners to include a corresponding spinner shield element for each spinner in order to direct material leaving the spinner in a desired manner. Indeed, Kerr (see Fig. 3) shows a salt spreader having first and second spinners (40, 40’), as well as corresponding first and second spinner shields (77, 77’), whereby the spread of material leaving the spinners can be “effectively controller” by the user (see column 5, lines 36-46). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add first and second spinner shields, as taught by Kerr, to the salt spreader of the (modified) patented claims, particularly since the patented claims expressly include first and second spinner elements, thereby facilitating control of the spread of material leaving the spinners.
Claims 1-5 and 8-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-7 and 10-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,031,283. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the aforementioned patented claims include each of the recited limitations of the aforementioned instant application claims, as set forth below.
As to claim 1, patented claims 1, 11 and 15 each include the “bucket” and the “first and second covers”, and the interrelated details and limitations thereof. Also, patented claims 5 and 6 include the “salt grate” and “cavity” limitations.
As to claim 2, patented claims 12 and 16 each include the “front wing” and “rear wing” limitations, and thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to include such “wing” features with the “salt spreader” of patented claim 6, which also includes the “salt grate” and “cavity” limitations required by the instant application claim 1.
As to claim 3, patented claims 13 and 17 each include the “bottom surface” limitation.
As to claim 4, patented claims 11 and 15 each include the “gusset” limitations, and thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to include such “gusset” features with the “salt spreader” of patented claim 6, which also includes the “salt grate” and “cavity” limitations required by the instant application claim 1.
As to claim 5, patented claims 14 and 18 each include the additional limitation regarding the one or more gussets.
As to claim 8, patented claim 7 includes all of the recited limitations of the “method”, including the structural limitations of the provided “salt spreader”, including the “bucket” and the “first and second covers”, and the interrelated details and limitations thereof. Further, with respect to the “cavity” defined by the “surface” features of the bucket recited in claim 8, such is recited in patented claim 10.
As to claim 9, the recited “wherein” clause would clearly be met by the method of patented claim 10.
As to claim 10, patented “salt spreader” claims 12 and 16 each include the “front wing” and “rear wing” limitations, and thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to include such “wing” features with the “salt spreader” of patented claim 6, which also includes the “salt grate” and “cavity” limitations required by the instant application claim 8.
As to claim 11, patented claims 13 and 17 each include the “bottom surface” limitation.
As to claim 12, patented claims 11 and 15 each include the “gusset” limitations, and thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to include such “gusset” features with the “salt spreader” of patented claim 6, which also includes the “salt grate” and “cavity” limitations required by the instant application claim 8.
As to claim 13, patented claims 14 and 18 each include the additional limitation regarding the one or more gussets.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-7 and 10-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,031,283, in view of Hadler et al., USPN 6,702,208.
As to claims 6 and 14, the patented claims include each and every limitation of claims 1 and 8, respectively, of the instant application. However, the patented claims do not expressly recite that the salt spreader further includes an attachment mechanism mounted on the rear surface of the bucket, with the attachment mechanism configured to secure the salt spreader to a front of an earth moving equipment.
It should be noted that it was old and well known in the prior art for salt spreading devices to be secured to various types of moving vehicles, in order to facilitate spreading of materials on a large surface, depending on where a user intends to utilize such salt spreading devices. Indeed, Hadler (see Figs. 1-3 and 8) shows a salt spreader (10) which includes an attachment mechanism (19) mounted on a corresponding rear surface of the corresponding bucket (12), with the attachment mechanism configured to secure the salt spreader to a front of an earth moving equipment (20), whereby the attachment mechanism “facilitates removable mounting of the hopper spreader apparatus 10 to a vehicle” (see column 3, lines 24-26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an attachment mechanism, as taught by Hadler, to the salt spreader of the patented claims, in order to facilitate removable mounting of the salt spreader to a vehicle, such as to a front of an earth moving equipment, as shown by Hadler, whereby spreading of materials over a large surface can be achieved.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-7 and 10-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,031,283, in view of Kerr, USPN 2,988,368.
As to claims 7 and 15, the patented claims include each and every limitation of claims 1 and 8, respectively, of the instant application. However, the patented claims do not expressly recite that the salt spreader further includes first and second spinner shields (Note: Although claims 8 and 14 recite that the “first and second spinner shields” are located “within the bucket”, as discussed above in paragraph 7 of the instant Office action, locating spinner shields within the claimed bucket, at the very least, doesn’t seem to make any logical sense, and thus this particular limitation will be ignored for purposes of this ground of rejection).
It should first be noted, although both the claims of the instant application and the claims of the aforementioned patent don’t actually positively include “first and second spinners” for which “first and second spinner shields” would be useful, the fact that the patented claims are directed to a “salt spreader” and an associated “method of distributing a material” essentially implies inclusion of spinner elements respectively associated with each of the “first and second ejection ports”. Thus, it should also be noted that it was old and well known in the prior art for salt spreading devices (which include one or more spinners) to include a corresponding spinner shield element for each spinner in order to direct material leaving the spinner in a desired manner. Indeed, Kerr (see Fig. 3) shows a salt spreader having first and second spinners (40, 40’), as well as corresponding first and second spinner shields (77, 77’), whereby the spread of material leaving the spinners can be “effectively controller” by the user (see column 5, lines 36-46). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add first and second spinner shields, as taught by Kerr, to the salt spreader of the patented claims, thereby facilitating control of the spread of material leaving the (implied) spinners of the patented claims.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truan et al., USPN 6,422,490, in view of Kime, US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0330045.
As to claim 1, Truan (see Figs. 1-4) shows a salt spreader (10) for distributing a salt material (see column 1, line 16), comprising: a bucket (14) including: a front surface (defined by the front portion of 14) and a rear surface (defined by the rear portion of 14), wherein the front and rear surfaces tend toward one another (at least portions 24 and 26 of the front and rear surfaces tend toward one another) at a base (22) of the bucket; first and second side surfaces (clearly shown in Figs. 1-3); wherein the base includes a first ejection port (18); wherein the spreader further includes: a first cover (78; see Figs. 2 and 3) within the bucket extending downwardly (at least a portion of 78 extends downwardly) from the first side surface, with the first ejection port being located under the first cover (see column 3, lines 47); and a salt grate (119) mounted within a cavity of the bucket (see Fig. 2) formed by the front surface, rear surface, and first and second side surfaces. However, Truan is silent as to the base also including a second ejection port, and wherein the spreader further includes a second cover within the bucket extending downwardly from the second side surface, with the second ejection port being located under the second cover.
Kime shows a salt spreader (see Figs. 1-8) for distributing a salt material (88, 90), comprising: a bucket (16) which defines a base (40; as shown in Fig. 5, and as described in at least paragraph [0032]), which includes first and second ejection ports (each of 68, which are correspondingly located at opposing lateral ends of the base; see Figs. 4 and 5; and see again, paragraph [0032]), which receive the salt material from respective, independently-controlled auger assemblies (42, 44), and through which the salt material is ejected to respective, independently-controlled first and second spinner assemblies (12, 14), wherein the salt spreader further includes first and second covers (46, 48) located within the bucket and extending downwardly from the corresponding first and second side surfaces of the bucket (see Figs. 3-5), and wherein the first and second ejection ports are located under the first and second covers, respectively (see again, Figs. 3-5). As can be gleaned from the disclosure of Kime, inclusion of first and second ejection ports, with the respective independently-controlled auger and spinner assemblies, allows for broader spreading of salt materials in a single pass of the vehicle, as well as independent, selective control of the spreading of salt materials from either one or the other side of the bucket base (see paragraph [0009]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the salt spreader of Truan, to include a second ejection port, and a second cover within the bucket extending downwardly from the second side surface, with the second ejection port being located under the second cover, as taught by Kime, thereby allowing for broader spreading of salt materials in a single pass of the vehicle, as well as independent, selective control of the spreading of salt materials from either one or the other side of the bucket base.
As to claim 2, Truan, as modified above by Kime, shows the salt spreader of claim 1, and wherein the base includes a front wing (the inwardly-directed, internal shelf feature of 22, which goes to define the front portion of the external “support surface 58”; see Figs. 2 and 4 of Truan) connected to the front surface and a rear wing (the inwardly-directed, internal shelf feature of 22, which goes to define the rear portion of the external “support surface 58”; see again, Figs. 2 and 4 of Truan) connected to the rear surface. Alternatively, Truan, as modified above by Kime, shows the salt spreader of claim 1, and wherein the base (when fully assembled, as shown in Fig. 1 of Truan) includes a front wing (50; see Fig. 2 of Truan) connected to the front surface and a rear wing (42; see again, Fig. 2 of Truan) connected to the rear surface.
As to claim 3, Truan, as modified above by Kime, shows the salt spreader of claim 2, and wherein the base further includes a bottom surface (surface of 22) spanning the front wing and the rear wing (see Figs. 2 and 4 of Truan).
As to claim 7, as discussed above in paragraph 7 of the instant Office action, locating spinner shields within the claimed bucket, at the very least, doesn’t seem to make any logical sense, and thus this particular limitation will be ignored for purposes of this ground of rejection. Truan, as modified above by Kime, shows the salt spreader of claim 1. Further, Truan shows inclusion of a first spinner shield (151 or 152; see Fig. 2; and see column 4, lines 32-34 of Truan). Also, with the modification of Truan by the teachings of Kime, as applied to claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Truan to further include a second spinner shield associated with the second spinner assembly, thus also preventing salt material from being discharged from the second spinner assembly against the vehicle, and/or also protecting the spinner (62) of the second spinner assembly.
As to claim 8, the recited method of distributing a material follows use of the salt spreader shown by Truan, as modified by Kime and applied to claim 1 above.
As to claim 9, with the use of the salt spreader shown by Truan, as modified by Kime and applied to claims 1 and 8 above, it is clear that at least a portion of the salt material will pass through at least a portion of the salt grate (119) before reaching either or both of the first and second ejection ports.
As to claim 10, the recited method follows use of the salt spreader shown by Truan, as modified by Kime and applied to claim 2 above.
As to claim 11, the recited method follows use of the salt spreader shown by Truan, as modified by Kime and applied to claim 3 above.
As to claim 15, the recited method follows use of the salt spreader shown by Truan, as modified by Kime and applied to claim 7 above.
Claims 4, 5, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truan et al., as modified by Kime and applied to claims 1 and 8, respectively, above, and further in view of Bogenschutz, USPN 3,583,646.
As to claim 4, Truan, as modified above by Kime, shows the salt spreader of claim 1. However, the modified Truan does not show the salt spreader further including one or more gussets, with each gusset extending along a height of an external side of the front surface.
It should first be noted, based on the shown construction of the bucket of Truan, and particularly with respect to the front and rear surfaces thereof being substantially elongated, such surfaces could have measurable weakness, absent some kind of reinforcing feature. Thus, one having ordinary skill would be motivated to reinforce such elongated surface portion(s). Bogenschutz (see Figs. 1 and 5) shows a salt spreader having a bucket (“hopper”) with elongated surfaces (10, 12) which tend toward one another at a base (12) of the bucket, and Bogenschutz teaches inclusion of one or more gussets (16), with each gusset extending along a height of an external side of the elongated surfaces, whereby the gusset(s) provide reinforcement for the elongated surfaces of the bucket (see column 1, lines 72-73). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include one or more gussets, as taught by Bogenschutz, extending along a height of an external side of (at least) the elongated front surface of the bucket of (modified) Truan, thus providing reinforcement for the elongated front surface of the bucket.
As to claim 5, Truan, as modified and applied to claim 4 above, shows the salt spreader wherein each gusset extends below the base of the bucket (see Fig. 5 of Bogenschutz, which shows the gussets (16) extending below the corresponding base (12).
As to claim 12, the recited method follows use of the salt spreader shown by Truan, as modified by Kime and Bogenschutz, and applied to claim 4 above.
As to claim 13, the recited method follows use of the salt spreader shown by Truan, as modified by Kime and Bogenschutz, and applied to claim 5 above.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truan et al., as modified by Kime and applied to claims 1 and 8, respectively, above, and further in view of Hadler et al., USPN 6,702,208.
As to claim 6, Truan, as modified above by Kime, shows the salt spreader of claim 1. However, modified Truan does not show the salt spreader further including an attachment mechanism mounted on the rear surface of the bucket, with the attachment mechanism configured to secure the salt spreader to a front of an earth moving equipment, particularly with the salt spreader of Truan being shown as mounted to the rear end of a pick-up truck (12).
It should be noted that it was old and well known in the prior art for dry material-spreading devices to be secured to various types of moving vehicles, such as pick-up trucks and earth moving equipment, in order to facilitate spreading of such dry materials on a large surface, depending on where a user intends to utilize such salt spreading devices. Indeed, Hadler (see Figs. 1-3 and 8) shows a salt spreader (10) which includes an attachment mechanism (19) mounted on a corresponding rear surface of the corresponding bucket (12), with the attachment mechanism configured to secure the salt spreader to a front of an earth moving equipment (20), whereby the attachment mechanism “facilitates removable mounting of the hopper spreader apparatus 10 to a vehicle” (see column 3, lines 24-26). Further, Hadler teaches the concept of attaching the bucket (via the attachment mechanism) alternatively to “pick-up trucks” (see column 3, lines 32-35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an attachment mechanism, as taught by Hadler, to the rear surface of the bucket of the salt spreader of (modified) Truan, thereby facilitating removable mounting of the system to more than one type of vehicle, and allowing the salt spreader to alternatively be secured to a front of an earth moving equipment, when it is desired to spread a material in a location where earth moving equipment is determined to provide optimal transportation of the system.
As to claim 14, the recited method follows use of the salt spreader shown by Truan, as modified by Kime and Hadler, and applied to claim 6 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patents to Becker and Garnett, and US Patent Application Publications to Owenby, Becker and Gray et al., are cited as of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752