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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osgood et al. (7,360,327) in view of Davis (7,631,446).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Osgood et al. discloses A multi-mode material moving attachment and method of use for a vehicle, comprising:
a box frame (10)enclosing a material collection space laterally (at 26 and 28) and from behind (at 14);
a working panel (30) movably mounted to the box frame (10) and selectively movable between:
a bucket bottom position for operating the attachment in a bucket mode, and in which the working panel encloses the material collection space from below when the box frame is in an upright position to support material received in the material collection space (Figure 2) (column 5 line 65 through column 6 line 8), and
a blade position for operating the attachment in a pusher mode, and in which the working panel encloses the material collection space from behind when the box frame is in the upright position to serve as a pusher blade for pushing material received in the material collection space along a ground surface in a direction away from the vehicle (Figure 3) (column 6 lines 9-15);\
While Osgood discloses the invention as described above, it fails to disclose a back drag assembly projecting from an upper end of the box frame. Like Osgood, Davis discloses a bucket/blade device. Unlike Osgood, Davis further discloses a movable back drag device projecting from an upper end of the bucket for deployment during back dragging and to be used as a grapple. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a back blade/grapple attachment on the box blade of Osgood as taught by Davis as it would be combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)) because it would make the Osgood device more versatile.
Regarding claim 18, the combination discloses at least one actuator (264) energizable for urging pivoting of the working panel between the bucket bottom position and the blade position.
Regarding claim 20, the combination discloses that the working panel is in a first position for the bucket mode and in a second position spaced apart from the first position for both the pusher and back drag modes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tulibaski (8,631,596) discloses a multi mode box blade, but the bottom edges of the side plate are not aligned/in contact with the ground in the pushin position. Wells (2,530,414) discloses a multi mode box blade but the rear edge of the working panel does not extedn between the lower edges of the box side plates to serve as a pusher blade edge.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jamie L McGowan whose telephone number is (571)272-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00-5:00 CST.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/JAMIE L MCGOWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights