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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 18 January 2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “804” has been used to designate both “flange” and “flange mount”.
The drawings are objected to because:
Regarding Fig. 26, reference character “110” has been used to designate a hose rather than a reel as described in the specification.
Regarding Fig. 26, multiple reference characters (i.e. “104” and “502”) have been used to designate the same structural element. Only one reference character and its associated lead line should be used to designate a particular structural element as illustrated in a figure. Fig. 34 contains a similar error.
Fig. 29 contains two separate views. Each figure should contain a single view and should be assigned a unique figure ID.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0064, Fig. 35 should be labeled “Prior Art” since it is identified as prior art in Fig. 35.
In line 8 of paragraph 0077, the term “Figures” should not be capitalized because it does not refer to a specific figure.
In line 3 of paragraph 0109, “1310. 1312” should be changed to “1310, 1312”.
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 10 - 12 and 16 - 18 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.
The of the term “its” as recited in lines 3 and 5 of claim 10 renders the claim(s) vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which structural element the term is referring. Structural elements and limitations should always be referred to by name.
Regarding claim 16, it is unclear whether the “dynamic blade assembly” refers to one of the trenching blade assemblies recited in claim 1, from which claim 16 depends, or if it represents an additional structural element.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the blade" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to which of the blades (one of the trenching blades or the blade of the dynamic blade assembly) the aforementioned limitation is referring.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the blade" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to which of the blades (one of the trenching blades or the blade of the dynamic blade assembly) the aforementioned limitation is referring.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the blade" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to which of the blades (one of the trenching blades or the blade of the dynamic blade assembly) the aforementioned limitation is referring.
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.
Claims 1 - 7, 13 - 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tollefson et al. (US 4,637,755) in view of Scott (US 7,524,142) and Peterson (US 6,273,637).
Regarding claim 1, Tollefson discloses an apparatus for installing multiple strands of hose below a surface of terrain, comprising: a chassis (frame comprising bars 11 - 15) having a longitudinal axis and a width; a first module coupled to the chassis, wherein the first module comprises: a first trenching blade assembly comprising a first trenching blade (blade 21 on the left side of Fig. 1) configured to dig a first trench in terrain along a first trench axis (Figs. 4A and 4B illustrate spoil located on either side of blade 21 and located above the depth Z of the trench cut by blade 21); a first hose guide (sleeve 41) configured to guide hose into the first trench; a second module coupled to the chassis (11 - 15), wherein the second module comprises: a second trenching blade assembly comprising a second trenching blade (blade 21 on the right side of Fig. 1) configured to dig a second trench in the terrain along a second trench axis; wherein a lateral spacing between the first trench axis and the second trench axis is adjustable (brackets 24 can slide laterally along arm 13) (Figs. 1, 2, 4A - 4C, and 5; col. 3, line 58 - col. 6, line 54). Tollefson fails to disclose a first trench filler-packer, wherein the first trench filler-packer is configured to dispose soil excavated from the first trench back into the first trench and to pack at least a portion of the soil disposed back into the first trench; and a second hose guide configured to guide hose into the second trench; and a second trench filler-packer, wherein the second trench filler-packer is configured to dispose soil excavated from the second trench back into the second trench and to pack at least a portion of the soil disposed back into the second trench. Scott teaches an apparatus comprising a plurality of modules each coupled to a chassis, each module comprising: a trenching blade assembly comprising a trenching blade (plow blade 108) configured to dig a first trench in terrain along a first trench axis; and a hose guide (feed tube 106) configured to guide hose into the first trench (Figs. 1 - 3; col. 4, lines 1 - 64). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the first module and second module as disclosed by Tollefson so that each module comprises a trenching blade and a hose guide as taught by Scott to allow strands to be laid simultaneously in adjacent trenches, thereby reducing the amount of time to lay multiple, parallel strands below a surface of terrain. Scott fails to teach dispose soil excavated from the first trench back into the first trench and to pack at least a portion of the soil disposed back into the first trench; and wherein the second trench filler-packer is configured to dispose soil excavated from the second trench back into the second trench and to pack at least a portion of the soil disposed back into the second trench. Peterson teaches a trench filler-packer connected to the chassis (frame 14); wherein the trench filler-packer comprises one or more filler blades (diverter wings 26, 28) configured to dispose soil excavated from the trench back into the trench; and at least one first packing wheel (48) configured to pack at least a portion of the soil disposed back into the trench (Figs. 1 - 3; col. 2, line 28 - col. 3, line 44). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above such that each module includes a separate trench filler-packer as taught by Peterson to provide a means for backfilling and packing the trench without the need for the use of additional fill material, thereby reducing cost of materials associated with the hose installation and allowing the forming of the trench, the laying of strands of hose, the backfilling, and the packing of the trench to be performed in a single pass.
Regarding claim 2, Tollefson further discloses at least one of the first module and the second module is configured to be selectively and operably coupled to the chassis (11 - 15) in two or more locations along the width of the chassis (brackets 18 and 24 can slide laterally along arm 13 to two or more locations along the width of the chassis) (Fig. 1; col. 3, line 61 - col. 4, line 16).
Regarding claim 3, Tollefson further discloses at least one of the first module and the second module is slideably coupled to the chassis and configured to be selectively fixed (via set screws 19, unlabeled screws in bracket 24) in two or more laterally spaced locations along the width of the chassis (11 - 15) (Fig. 1; col. 3, line 61 - col. 4, line 16).
Regarding claim 4, Tollefson further discloses at least one of the first module and the second module comprises a module frame (bracket 18) configured to be selectively and removably coupled (via set screws) to the chassis in a plurality of laterally spaced locations along the width of the chassis (11 - 15) (Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 61 - 68).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Tollefson further discloses the first module and the second module are modular and are removably coupled to the chassis (11 - 15) (Fig. 1; col. 3, line 61 - col. 4, line 16). Examiner notes that claim 6 only recites intended use and since the apparatus as disclosed above is capable of performing the tasks recited in claim 6 the apparatus as disclosed above reads on the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Tollefson further discloses the first module further comprises a first reel mount (support member 31) configured to hold a first reel (roll 25) of hose in hose-feeding communication with the first hose guide (41) (Figs. 1 and 2; col. 4, lines 33 - 40).
Regarding claim 13, Tollefson further discloses each of the first and second modules is selectively positionable between a down position and an up position (arm 20 and shaft 43 allow the blades 21 and the hose guide to be adjusted vertically with respect to rod 13), wherein its respective trenching blade assembly, hose guide and trench filler-packer are out of trenching communication with the terrain; and wherein each of the first and second modules is configured to be selectively and removably retained (via set screws) in each of the up and down positions (Figs. 1 and 2; col. 4, lines 11 - 60).
Regarding claim 14, Tollefson further discloses the first and second modules (see blades 21) are configured to dig the first and second trenches simultaneously (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Tollefson further discloses the first and second modules (see blades 21) are configured to dig the first and second trenches at a selective trench spacing of from 10 inches to 24 inches on-center (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 11 - 14). Examiner takes the position that although Tollefson fails to explicitly teach a trench spacing of from 10 inches to 24 inches, the distance between the blades as taught by Tollefson is adjustable, thus making the apparatus of Tollefson capable of digging the first and second trenches at the claimed trench spacing, thereby reading on the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 19, Tollefson further discloses the apparatus is configured to be removably coupled to a skid steer (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 12 - 15).
Regarding claim 20, Tollefson fails to disclose one or more additional modules coupled to the chassis, wherein each of the one or more additional modules comprises an additional trenching blade assembly comprising an additional trenching blade configured to dig an additional trench in the terrain along an additional trench axis; an additional hose guide configured to guide hose into the additional trench; and an additional trench filler-packer, wherein the additional trench filler-packer is configured to dispose soil excavated from the additional trench back into the additional trench and to pack at least a portion of the soil disposed back into the additional trench. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above to include one or more additional modules coupled to the chassis, wherein each of the one or more additional modules comprises an additional trenching blade assembly comprising an additional trenching blade configured to dig an additional trench in the terrain along an additional trench axis; an additional hose guide configured to guide hose into the additional trench; and an additional trench filler-packer, wherein the additional trench filler-packer is configured to dispose soil excavated from the additional trench back into the additional trench and to pack at least a portion of the soil disposed back into the additional trench to allow the apparatus to lay more than two parallel hoses in parallel trenches in a single pass. Duplicating the components of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Additionally, Scott teaches one or more additional modules, each module comprising a reel (coiled conduit source 110), a blade (108), and a hose guide (106) coupled to the chassis (Figs. 1 - 3). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the one or more additional modules as taught by Scott to allow more than two parallel hoses in to be laid in parallel trenches in a single pass.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tollefson et al. in view of Scott and Peterson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miller (US 2016/0376767).
Regarding claim 16, Tollefson fails to disclose a dynamic blade assembly configured to dispose soil into at least one of the first and second trenches, wherein the dynamic blade assembly comprises a support member, a blade moveably coupled to the support member and at least one biasing device configured to bias the blade towards the terrain. Peterson teaches a dynamic blade assembly configured to dispose soil into at least one of the first and second trenches, wherein the dynamic blade assembly comprises a support member (side member 16) and a blade (diverter wing 26) moveably coupled to the support member (via hydraulic cylinder 36) (Fig. 2; col. 2, lines 41 - 57). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the dynamic blade assembly as taught by Peterson to provide a means for backfilling and packing the trench without the need for the use of additional fill material, thereby reducing cost of materials associated with the hose installation and allowing the forming of the trench, the laying of strands of hose, the backfilling, and the packing of the trench to be performed in a single pass. Scott and Peterson fail to teach at least one biasing device configured to bias the blade towards the terrain. Miller teaches a blade adjustment mechanism comprising: at least one biasing device comprising a spring or a hydraulically-powered mechanism (paragraph 0081). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the biasing device comprising a spring as taught by Miller for the biasing device comprising a hydraulic cylinder as disclosed above as a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10 - 12, 17, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
11/26/2025