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) 1-8, 13, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okumura et al. (JP 2001200553).
Regarding claim 1, Okumura discloses a system comprising:
self-propelled cart comprising:
a chassis (1);
a body pivotally coupled to the chassis and configured to contain a volume of material (body 4 contains a volume of material);
an actuator configured to cause the body to rotate 360o relative to the chassis in a direction (actuator 2a is a turning motor);
a tractive element coupled to the chassis (1b);
a motor configured to drive the tractive element to propel the self-propelled cart (“motor of the travelling body 1”; para [0018]); and
a controller operatively coupled to the motor and the actuator (para [0017] details the control block diagram in Fig 4; receiver 31 is operatively coupled to the valve driver 32); and
a user device, wherein the user device is configured to transmit a control signal to the controller in response receiving instructions from an operator interface, and wherein the controller is configured to activate at least one of the actuator or the motor in response to receiving the control signal (operator interface 30 transmits a wireless signal to the receiver 31 to drive the hydraulics valves and actuators).
Regarding claim 2, Okumura discloses the system wherein the user device is configured to transmit the control signal wirelessly to the controller of the self-propelled cart to remotely control the self-propelled cart (the signal is stated to be wireless; para [0017]).
Regarding claim 3, Okumura discloses the system wherein the self-propelled cart is a buggy for loading and unloading construction material (para [0002]-[0003]).
Regarding claim 4, Okumura discloses the system wherein the self-propelled cart does not include manual controls onboard the self-propelled cart (only remote control is mentioned in para [0017] and manual controls are not stated anywhere).
Regarding claim 5, Okumura discloses the system wherein the tractive element is one of a tread, wheel, and track (a track vehicle is depicted in the Figures, but a wheel type vehicle is also used).
Regarding claim 6, Okumura discloses the system wherein the self-propelled cart further comprises a bucket coupled to a bottom portion of the body, the bucket configured to rotate relative to the body (claim language is broad; bucket 23 rotates relative to the body 1 and is coupled to a bottom portion of the body through mount 5).
Regarding claim 7, Okumura discloses the system wherein the self-propelled cart further comprises a second actuator configured to rotate the body relative to the chassis in a second direction, wherein the second direction provides for dumping of the volume of material out of the body (second actuator 20 dumps the material out).
Regarding claim 8, Okumura discloses the system wherein the user device is a handheld remote control configured to remotely control one or more actions of the self-propelled cart (Fig 9; user control 30 with user 50 holding it).
Regarding claim 13, Okumura discloses a self-propelled cart comprising:
a chassis (1);
a body pivotally coupled to the chassis and configured to contain a volume of material (body 4 contains a volume of material);
an actuator configured to cause the body to rotate 360o relative to the chassis in a direction (actuator 2a is a turning motor);
a tractive element coupled to the chassis (1b);
a motor configured to drive the tractive element to propel the self-propelled cart (“motor of the travelling body 1”; para [0018]); and
a controller operatively coupled to the motor and the actuator (para [0017] details the control block diagram in Fig 4; receiver 31 is operatively coupled to the valve driver 32).
Regarding claim 15, Okumura discloses the self-propelled cart wherein the self-propelled cart does not include manual controls onboard the self-propelled cart (only remote control is mentioned in para [0017] and manual controls are not stated anywhere).
Regarding claim 16, Okumura discloses the self-propelled cart wherein the self-propelled cart further comprises a bucket coupled to a bottom portion of the body, the bucket configured to rotate relative the body (claim language is broad; bucket 23 rotates relative to the body 1 and is coupled to a bottom portion of the body through mount 5).
Regarding claim 17, Okumura discloses the self-propelled cart wherein the self-propelled cart further comprises a second actuator configured to rotate the body relative to the chassis in a second direction, wherein the second direction provides for a dumping of the volume of material out of the body (second actuator 20 dumps the material out).
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) 9, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Kurenuma et al. (US 6317669).
Regarding claim 9, Okumura discloses the system wherein the self-propelled cart further comprises;
an ignition for initiating power to the self-propelled cart (there would have to be some kind of ignition for the engine to start and the machine to run; power unit 7).
Okumura is silent on the presence of an emergency shut-off control to remove power to the machine. However, these controls are notoriously old and well-known in the art of controllers. For example, Kurenuma discloses a similar remote controlled shovel (Fig 2) and teaches the use of an emergency stop button (52).
Okumura and Kurenuma are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of remote controlled excavators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okumura to incorporate the teachings of Kurenuma and combined the use of an emergency shut-off control to remove power. One would have made this combination for the obvious purpose of safety and preventing injury or damage in the machine begins to perform unexpectedly.
Regarding claim 18, Okumura discloses the self-propelled cart wherein the self-propelled cart further comprises;
an ignition for initiating power to the self-propelled cart (there would have to be some kind of ignition for the engine to start and the machine to run; power unit 7); and
Okumura is silent on the presence of an emergency shut-off control to remove power to the machine. However, these controls are notoriously old and well-known in the art of controllers. For example, Kurenuma discloses a similar remote controlled shovel (Fig 2) and teaches the use of an emergency stop button (52).
Okumura and Kurenuma are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of remote controlled excavators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okumura to incorporate the teachings of Kurenuma and combined the use of an emergency shut-off control to remove power. One would have made this combination for the obvious purpose of safety and preventing injury or damage in the machine begins to perform unexpectedly.
Claim(s) 10-12, 14, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Boroni et al. (US 20220227613).
Regarding claim 10, it could be contemplated that Okumura discloses a slew ring to allow the body to rotate 360o about the chassis; however, Okumura is silent on any details of this structure.
Applicant’s own prior art, Boroni, discloses a similar chassis/body structure (chassis 12 and body 14 are analogous to the chassis/body structure of Okumura) and teaches a slew ring allowing the body to rotate 360o about the chassis (Fig 2; turntable 70 and slew ring 71 rotates 360 degrees about the central axis 42; para [0045], lines 27-30).
Okumura and Boroni and considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of work vehicles with a rigid frame or chassis and a rotatable body or tool of some kind. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okumura to incorporate the teachings of Boroni and combined the use of the slew ring. One would have made this modification to facilitate the volume-containing body of Okumura to access various angularly offset locations (Boroni; para [0045], lines 14-15).
Regarding claim 11, Okumura discloses the system with an engine/hydraulic pump (41) and is silent on any presence of batteries to provide power.
A modification of an engine to battery would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by using batteries to power the machine rather than an engine.
However, for the sake of argument, Boroni discloses a similar chassis/body structure (chassis 12 and body 14 are analogous to the chassis/body structure of Okumura) and teaches the use of batteries to power any of the motors/sensors/actuators/etc. (batteries 64; para [0046], lines 18-21).
Okumura and Boroni and considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of work vehicles with a rigid frame or chassis and a rotatable body or tool of some kind. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okumura to incorporate the teachings of Boroni and replaced the power source to be batteries. One would have made this replacement as a simple substitution of the power unit comprising an engine with batteries and located the batteries at a similar location to Boroni (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Okumura and Boroni discloses the system the self-propelled cart further comprising a second tractive element (Okumura, Fig 11 element 1b; Boroni, Fig 2 elements 82), wherein the battery is positioned between the tractive element and the second tractive element (Boroni teaches the battery located within the base and between the elements 82).
Regarding claim 14, Okumura discloses the system with an engine/hydraulic pump (41) and is silent on any presence of batteries to provide power.
However, Boroni discloses a similar chassis/body structure (chassis 12 and body 14 are analogous to the chassis/body structure of Okumura) and teaches the use of batteries to power any of the motors/sensors/actuators/etc. (batteries 64; para [0046], lines 18-21). Boroni further teaches the battery located within the base and between the elements 82 in Fig 2.
Okumura and Boroni and considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of work vehicles with a rigid frame or chassis and a rotatable body or tool of some kind. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okumura to incorporate the teachings of Boroni and replaced the power source to be batteries. One would have made this replacement as a simple substitution of the power unit comprising an engine with batteries and located the batteries at a similar location to Boroni (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 19, Okumura discloses it could be contemplated that Okumura discloses a slew ring to allow the body to rotate 360o about the chassis; however, Okumura is silent on any details of this structure.
Applicant’s own prior art, Boroni, discloses a similar chassis/body structure (chassis 12 and body 14 are analogous to the chassis/body structure of Okumura) and teaches a slew ring allowing the body to rotate 360o about the chassis (Fig 2; turntable 70 and slew ring 71 rotates 360 degrees about the central axis 42; para [0045], lines 27-30).
Okumura and Boroni and considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of work vehicles with a rigid frame or chassis and a rotatable body or tool of some kind. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okumura to incorporate the teachings of Boroni and combined the use of the slew ring. One would have made this modification to facilitate the volume-containing body of Okumura to access various angularly offset locations (Boroni; para [0045], lines 14-15).
Regarding claim 20, Okumura discloses a self-propelled cart comprising:
a chassis (1);
a body pivotally coupled to the chassis and configured to contain a volume of material (body 4 contains a volume of material);
an actuator configured to cause the body to rotate 360o relative to the chassis in a direction (actuator 2a is a turning motor);
a tractive element coupled to the chassis (1b);
a motor configured to drive the tractive element to propel the self-propelled cart (“motor of the travelling body 1”; para [0018]); and
a controller operatively coupled to the motor and the actuator (para [0017] details the control block diagram in Fig 4; receiver 31 is operatively coupled to the valve driver 32).
It could be contemplated that Okumura discloses a slew ring to pivotally couple the body to the chassis; however, Okumura is silent on any details of this structure.
Applicant’s own prior art, Boroni, discloses a similar chassis/body structure (chassis 12 and body 14 are analogous to the chassis/body structure of Okumura) and teaches a slew ring to pivotally couple the body to the chassis (Fig 2; turntable 70 and slew ring 71 rotates 360 degrees about the central axis 42; para [0045], lines 27-30).
Okumura and Boroni and considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of work vehicles with a rigid frame or chassis and a rotatable body or tool of some kind. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okumura to incorporate the teachings of Boroni and combined the use of the slew ring. One would have made this modification to facilitate the volume-containing body of Okumura to access various angularly offset locations (Boroni; para [0045], lines 14-15).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Valere (US 20090116943) discloses a similar excavator with a bucket that dumps overhead of the machine into a container. While the overall structure of Valere is very similar to the claimed invention, the container (body) does not rotate 360o relative to the main chassis and does not read of the claims for that reason.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE SCOVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30-6 (ET).
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, Christopher 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.
/BLAKE E SCOVILLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights