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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-10 and 14-20, drawn to a debris collection apparatus utilizing a ramp and tip, classified in E01H1/04.
II. Claims 11-13, drawn to a supporting/ storing structure for the debris collecting modules with a folded and unfolded configuration, classified in B62D63/061.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination II has separate utility such as “store one or more collection debris modules in travel configuration”. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, as noted above;
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter as subcombinations;
the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries) due to differences between the subcombinations;
the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with VUONG, THANH on 4 August 2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of a debris collection apparatus utilizing a ramp and tip, claims 1-10 and 14-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11-13 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a debris bin mounted at the distal end”, and should be “a debris bin mounted at a distal end”, to avoid an antecedent error. Similarly, “a brush mounted at the proximal end” should be “a brush mounted at the proximal end”.
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the direction of motion” and should be “a direction of motion”, to avoid an antecedent error.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the center of the bottom surface”, and should be “a center of a bottom surface”, to avoid an antecedent error.
Claims 5 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the ground surface”, and should be “a ground surface”, to avoid an antecedent error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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: “a lead in mechanism” in claim 17.
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 1-10 and 14-20 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “rifling” in claims 1, 5, and 14 are used by the claim to mean “ ridges”; “protrusions”; “obtrusion”; “projections”, while the accepted meaning is “spiral grooves.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For examination purposes, the term has been construed, as best understood, as “ridges”.
Claim 1 recites: “one or more rigid main ramps with rifling and side wheels”. It is unclear if the “side wheels” are the same “plurality of wheels” which was previously introduced.
Claims 4 and 5, which are dependent on claim 1, recite: “wherein one or more rows/ (sets) of ramps with or without tips”. Claim 1 recites: “a ramp and tip assembly mounted between the brush and debris bin, the ramp and tip assembly further comprising: one or more rigid main ramps with rifling”.
It is unclear if the “one or more rows of ramps” are the same ramps introduced in claim 1, or entirely different ramps. It is also unclear as claim 1 requires at least one “tip” and claim 4 provides the option of not having “tips”.
Claim 4 recites: “the debris collection module”, and lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear what “debris collection module” is being referred to.
Claim 8 recites: “configured to a multiple apparatus”, and it is unclear what is a “multiple apparatus”. The specification’s paragraph [00077] does not clarify what it is.
Claim 14 recites: “A ramp and tip assembly configured for … comprising… a ramp connected to tip… the ramp assembly consists of an angled ramp”. As claimed, the ramp and tip assembly comprises both a ramp and an angled ramp. It is unclear if the ramps are the same or different ramps since the common definition of ramp is defined with a slope. It is also unclear since the claim further recites “ramps”, whereas the previous ramp has been referred to in singular form. For examination purposes, the ramps have been construed as the same.
Claim 14 recites: “direct it to the ramps and into the debris bin”. As claimed, it is unclear whether “the debris bin” is part of the claimed invention or functional language. Additionally, it lacks antecedent basis since “a debris bin” has not been introduced.
Claim 15, which depends on claim 14, recites: “the tip can be removed and replaced if worn out or damaged”. Claim 14 introduces “a replaceable tip”. As claimed, it is unclear if the tips are the same or different structure. For examination purposes, the tips have been construed as the same.
Claim 16 recites: “the front ramp” and lacks antecedent basis since “a front ramp” has not been introduced. For examination purposes, the front ramp has been construed as the same ramp introduced in claim 14.
Claim 17 recites: “the tip over obstructions.”, and it is unclear what structure is being referred to and it also lacks antecedent basis since it has not been introduced with “a”.
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 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIFFORD (US 3010523 A) and Tozer (US 8839878 B2).
Referring to claim 1: GIFFORD teaches a debris collection apparatus (shown in Figs. 1 and 2) for the collection of non-metallic and metallic foreign object debris (capable of collecting non-metallic and metallic foreign object debris), configured for motion, the debris collection apparatus comprising:
a chassis (chassis of 5, 6, 11, 35, 37 Figs. 1 and 2);
a plurality of wheels (9 and 10) mounted on the chassis;
a debris bin (12, 37, and 35 shown in Fig. 2) mounted at the distal end (end of 37);
a brush (plurality of “tines” 26) mounted at the proximal end (end of 6);
a ramp and tip assembly (plurality of ramps and ramp tips 15 and 18; “Separate spring means 18 are shown for pressing each plate into contact with the ground.” Col. 2, lines 9-10) mounted between the brush (plurality of “tines” 26) and debris bin (12, 37, and 35 shown in Fig. 2), the ramp and tip assembly (15) further comprising: one or more rigid main ramps and side wheels (10);
a latch (latch of 6 shown in Fig. 2) and capable of connecting the apparatus to a tow trailer;
wherein foreign object debris is collected by the brush (plurality of “tines” 26), tips (ramp tips of 15 and 18), ramps (15 and 18) and deposited into the debris bin (12, 37, and 35 shown in Fig. 2) in the direction of motion.
But is silent on one or more rigid main ramps specifically with rifling.
Tozer in an analogous debris collection apparatus teaches one or more rigid main ramps (multiple ramps 42 Figs. 2-4 which are in segments of 16 shown in Fig. 1) specifically with “rifling” (68 Figs. 2-4) for collecting debris in the similar configuration debris bin (25 and 56 Fig. 2).
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 debris collection apparatus of GIFFORD with the ramp configuration and ridges as taught by Tozer for the purpose of an alternate manner of scooping/ collecting debris.
Referring to claim 3: GIFFORD as modified teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the brushes (plurality of “tines” 26) are mounted on a pivot (27 “pivot bar” Col. 2, line 61) to extend the use life of the brushes.
Referring to claim 4: GIFFORD as modified teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein one or more rows of ramps (plurality of 15 and 18 of GIFFORD) with or without tips are placed near the center of the bottom surface (shown in Fig. 2 of GIFFORD) of the debris collection module.
Referring to claim 5: GIFFORD as modified teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein one or more sets of ramps (multiple ramps 42 Figs. 2-4 which are in segments of 16 shown in Fig. 1 of Tozer) with or without tips scoop debris from the ground surface (shown in Fig. 2 of Tozer) and wherein the ramps are angled towards the debris bin (25 and 56 Fig. 2 of Tozer) and further consists of rifling (68 Figs. 2-4 of Tozer).
Referring to claim 6: GIFFORD as modified teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the wheels (9 and 10) on the sides (front and rear sides shown in Fig. 2 of GIFFORD) of the apparatus help to ensure even wear on all parts.
Referring to claim 7: GIFFORD as modified teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising wear plates (plates of 5 which control the brush erosion from the sides shown in Fig. 2 of GIFFORD) configured to control brush erosion.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIFFORD (US 3010523 A) and Tozer (US 8839878 B2), as applied above in claim 1, and in further view of ARAKAWA (US 20220313042 A1)
Referring to claim 2: GIFFORD as modified teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising a cover (35 Fig. 2) configured to be held in place (“a lid 35 over the bottom or screen in order to prevent high flying debris from being thrown too far. Such lid may be removably secured to the frame such as by screw and wing nuts 36” Col. 3, lines 28-32).
But is silent on held in place specifically with magnets.
ARAKAWA teaches a similar configuration cover held in place specifically with magnets (“The permanent magnet 264b is arranged corresponding to a metal screw 108d for fixing the body cover 108 to the chassis 14. When the battery cover 264 is closed, a magnetic force between the permanent magnet 264b and the screw 108d acts in a direction that brings the battery cover 264 to be closed” [0153]).
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 apparatus of GIFFORD as modified with the magnetically held cover configuration as taught by ARAKAWA for the purpose of having an alternate manner of securing the cover which doesn’t require removal of parts.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIFFORD (US 3010523 A) and Tozer (US 8839878 B2), as applied above in claim 1, and in further view of Kellermann (US 20220315281 A1).
Referring to claim 8: GIFFORD as modified teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, but is silent on further comprising a module stacking flange configured to a multiple apparatus to be able to stack on top of each other.
Kellermann teaches a module stacking flange (221; “In order to provide stacking in a secure and stable manner, the inner container wall 22 has a rim section 221 at the top thereof with a completely encircling L-shaped stop.” [0032]) configured to a multiple apparatus to be able to stack on top of each other (shown in Figs. 4a and 4b).
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 apparatus of GIFFORD as modified with the module stacking flange as taught by Kellermann for the purpose of facilitating storage and transportation.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIFFORD (US 3010523 A) and Tozer (US 8839878 B2), as applied above in claim 1, and in further view of TOZER (US 20180282959 A1), herein referred to as “TOZER II”.
Referring to claim 9: GIFFORD as modified teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, but is silent on further comprising a ramp tip replacement plate that can be open and closed to allow access to the tips to be maintained or replaced.
TOZER II in an analogous debris collection apparatus teaches a ramp tip replacement plate (88) that can be open and closed (“removable cover 88” [0064]) to allow access to the tips (tips of ramps 68) to be maintained or replaced.
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 apparatus of GIFFORD as modified with the ramp tip replacement plate as taught by TOZER II for the purpose of having a plate which covers the all the components of the collection apparatus.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIFFORD (US 3010523 A) and Tozer (US 8839878 B2), as applied above in claim 1, and in further view of Brewer (US 9307827 B2).
Referring to claim 10: GIFFORD as modified teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising and a brush pivot.
But is silent on a brush wear indicator.
Brewer teaches a brush wear indicator (180 Figs. 10A and 10B).
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 apparatus of GIFFORD as modified with the brush wear indicator as taught by Brewer for the purpose of assisting the user in determining the appropriate time to replace the brush.
Claims 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tozer (US 8839878 B2) and PEARCH (US 1937243 A).
Referring to claim 14: Tozer teaches a ramp and tip assembly (shown in Figs. 1 and 2) configured for the collection of non-metallic and metallic foreign object debris, the ramp and tip assembly comprising:
a ramp (multiple ramps 42 Figs. 2-4 which are in segments of 16 shown in Fig. 1) connected to tip (70 Figs. 2 and 4) which is close to or contacting the ground surface (shown in Fig. 2);
wherein the ramp assembly consists of an angled ramp with rifling (68 Figs. 2-4); wherein the tips collect debris and direct it to the ramps and into the debris bin (25 and 56 Fig. 2).
But is silent on a replaceable tip.
PEARCH, in an analogous debris collector, teaches a similar configuration ramp (C Fig. 1) connected via slot (F Fig. 1) to a replaceable tip (H Fig. 1).
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 apparatus of Tozer with the replaceable tip as taught by PEARCH for the purpose of allowing the apparatus’s parts to be easily repaired/ replaced.
Referring to claim 15: Tozer as modified teaches the ramp and tip assembly of Claim 14 wherein the tip can be removed and replaced (H Fig. 1 of PEARCH) if worn out or damaged.
Referring to claim 16: Tozer as modified teaches the ramp and tip assembly of Claim 14, wherein the tip (H Fig. 1 of PEARCH) engages with the front ramp (C Fig. 1 of PEARCH) at connection point (shown Fig. 1 of PEARCH) to reduce the chance of the tip rolling under the ramp.
Referring to claim 17: Tozer as modified teaches the ramp and tip assembly of Claim 14, further comprising a lead in mechanism (30 Fig. 1 of Tozer), the lead in mechanism configured to guide the tip over obstructions.
Referring to claim 18: Tozer as modified teaches the ramp and tip assembly of Claim 14, further comprising a rigid slot (F Fig. 1 of PEARCH) that connects to the tip (H Fig. 1 of PEARCH).
Referring to claim 20: Tozer as modified teaches the ramp and tip assembly of Claim 14 wherein the tip (70 Figs. 2 and 4 of Tozer) remains above the ground surface to catch larger debris (shown in Fig. 2 of Tozer).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tozer (US 8839878 B2) and PEARCH (US 1937243 A), as applied above in claim 14, and in further view of Shishido (US 4942639 A1).
Referring to claim 19: Tozer as modified teaches the ramp and tip assembly of Claim 14, but is silent on wherein the tip is made of a metal, rubber or plastic.
Shishido in an analogous debris collector teaches a similar configuration tip of a metal, rubber (“and 19 denotes a ground engaging plate which is made of a rubber material.” Col. 4, lines 9-10) or plastic.
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 apparatus of Tozer as modified with the rubber tip as taught by Shishido for the purpose of having the adequate material capable of accomplishing the intended task.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER SOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-8172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
CHRISTOPHER SOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/CHRISTOPHER SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights