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, 3, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maeda et al. (JP 2009179958).
Regarding claim 1, Maeda discloses an adhesion suppressing member, which is configured to suppress a work piece from adhering to a work tool of a construction machinery (adhesion suppressing member 22; work piece 25; abstract),
wherein the adhesion suppressing member is formed in a plate shape and comprises, on a front surface thereof, a resin material having a water repellent property (para [0020]), and the adhesion suppressing member is installed at a predetermined portion of the work tool such that the front surface forms a part of a surface of the work tool held in contact with the work piece (Fig 2 depicts 22 forming a part of the surface of the tool).
Regarding claim 3, Maeda discloses a work tool comprising the adhesion suppressing member
wherein the construction machinery is a backhoe (Fig 1),
wherein the work tool is a bucket, which is turnably mounted to a distal end of an arm of the backhoe, and which includes a bottom plate portion and a side plate portion forming an accommodating portion that accommodates the excavated work piece (bucket 11 turnably mounted at end of arm 5/6; bottom plate portion 12; side plate portions 13/14; accommodating portion 15), and
wherein the adhesion suppressing member is installed on any one or both of the bottom plate portion and the side plate portion (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 17, Maeda discloses an adhesion suppressing method using the adhesion suppressing member comprising installing the adhesion suppressing member on the predetermined portion of the work tool such that the front surface of the adhesion suppressing member forms a part of the surface of the work tool held in contact with the work piece (Fig 2 depicts 22 forming a part of the surface of the tool; adhesion suppressing member 22 is installed on the tool by bolt holes 12B and 22D).
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) 2, 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda as applied to claims 1 and 3.
Regarding claim 2, Maeda discloses the adhesion suppressing member having a plate shape (member 22 is plate-shaped); however, Maeda fails to disclose the adhesion suppressing member further comprising a metal material, which is bonded to a surface of the resin material on a side opposite to the front surface. Maeda does teach the suppressing member being made from either resin or steel (the suppressing member 22 is stated to be capable of being formed from steel or a resin material; claim language is broad; the back of the member 22 is bonded, or coupled, to the plate 12 of the bucket).
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the suppressing member comprising both metal and resin, as 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 make the suppressing member of both metal and resin to better repel water or sticky clay soil.
Regarding claim 5, Maeda discloses the work tool wherein the adhesion suppressing member is formed in an oblong plate shape (claim language is broad; member 22 is formed in an oblong plate shape). Maeda fails to specifically disclose the suppressing member comprising a plurality of member each installed on the bottom plate such that a longitudinal direction of the member is substantially parallel to a rotation axis of the bucket.
However, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to either form an integral structure from a plurality of parts or to form a plurality of parts from an integral structure. In the instant case the single suppressing member 22 could be made into a plurality of separate suppressing members. In addition, the claim language is broad. The plurality of suppressing members are considered to be installed in parallel on the bottom plate portion such that the longitudinal direction of each suppressing member is parallel to the rotation axis of the bucket.
Regarding claim 6, Maeda discloses the work tool
wherein the bottom plate portion includes a flat surface portion extending from an opening side of the accommodating portion, and a curved surface portion curved from an end portion of the flat surface portion on a side opposite to the opening side so as to be convex toward an outer side of the accommodating portion (Maeda; Fig 5 depicts a flat surface at the bottom extending from an opening side and a curved surface curved from the end of the flat portion to the opening side being convex toward the outer side), and
wherein the adhesion suppressing member comprises a plurality of the adhesion suppressing members, which are installed on the flat surface portion and at least a portion of the curved surface portion on the flat surface portion side (Fig 2 depicts the suppressing member, or plurality thereof, being installed on the flat and curved surface).
Regarding claim 7, Maeda discloses the work tool
wherein the bucket includes an edge plate portion bonded to an end portion of the bottom plate portion to form a part of an opening edge of the accommodating portion (Fig 2 depicts an edge plate portion 19), and
wherein the adhesion suppressing member is installed on at least one or all of the bottom plate portion, the side plate portion, and the edge plate portion (adhesion suppressing member 22 is installed on the bottom plate 12).
Regarding claim 8, Maeda discloses the work tool
wherein the bucket further includes a claw portion mounted to a distal end of the edge plate portion through intermediation of an adaptor (claw portion 20), and
wherein the adhesion suppressing member is installed on at least one or all of the bottom plate portion, the side plate portion, the edge plate portion, and the claw portion (adhesion suppressing member 22 is installed on the bottom plate 12).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Tasovski (US 20090101370) and Paski (US 20150252550).
Regarding claim 4, Maeda fails to specifically disclose the work tool wherein the bucket is a skeleton bucket in which a plurality of grids are provided to the bottom plate portion, and wherein the adhesion suppressing member is installed at any one or both of a portion of the bottom plate portion on which the grids are not provided and the side plate portion.
However, Tasovski discloses a similar soil anti-adhesion device (Fig 2; 22) and teaches the use of this device on excavators, bulldozers, or similar soil transport machines (Fig 1, Fig 4, Fig 5; para [0005], lines 13-15). Further, Paski discloses another soil transport machine (Fig 1) and teaches the tool where the bucket is a skeleton bucket with a grid (Fig 3).
Maeda, Tasovski, and Paski are all analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of earth working. 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 Maeda to incorporate the teachings of Tasovski and Paski and used the adhesion suppressing member of Maeda on the skeleton bucket of Paski. One would have made this modification to use a skeleton bucket to work soil while suppressing soil adhesion to the bucket (Paski; Fig 3).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tasovski (US 20090101370) and Itou et al. (US 20130071214).
Regarding claim 10, Maeda fails to specifically disclose a work tool comprising the adhesion suppressing member of wherein the construction machinery is a wheel loader, wherein the work tool is a bucket, which is turnably mounted to a distal end of a boom of the wheel loader, and which includes a bottom plate portion and a side plate portion forming an accommodating portion that accommodates the work piece, and wherein the adhesion suppressing member is installed on any one or both of the bottom plate portion and the side plate portion.
However, Tasovski discloses a similar soil anti-adhesion device (Fig 2; 22) and teaches the use of this device on excavators, bulldozers, or similar soil transport machines (Fig 1, Fig 4, Fig 5; para [0005], lines 13-15). Further, Itou discloses another soil transport machine (Fig 1) and teaches the tool where the machine is a wheel loader with a bucket (Fig 1; bucket 6B).
Maeda, Tasovski, and Itou are all analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of earth working. 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 Maeda to incorporate the teachings of Tasovski and Itou and used the adhesion suppressing member of Maeda on the wheel loader bucket of Itou. One would have made this modification to use a wheel loader bucket to work soil while suppressing soil adhesion to the bucket (Itou; Fig 1).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tasovski (US 20090101370).
Regarding claim 11, Maeda fails to specifically disclose a work tool comprising the adhesion suppressing member of wherein the construction machinery is a bulldozer, wherein the work tool is a blade, which is mounted to a distal end of a support frame of the bulldozer, and which is configured to push out the work piece, and wherein the adhesion suppressing member is installed on a front face of the blade. However, Tasovski discloses a similar soil anti-adhesion device (Fig 2; 22) and teaches the use of this device on excavators, bulldozers, or similar soil transport machines (Fig 1, Fig 4, Fig 5; para [0005], lines 13-15).
Maeda and Tasovski are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of earth working. 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 Maeda to incorporate the teachings of Tasovski and used the adhesion suppressing member of Maeda on the bulldozer of Tasovski. One would have made this modification to use a bulldozer blade to work soil while suppressing soil adhesion to the blade (Tasovski; Fig 1).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tasovski (US 20090101370) and Broussard (US 20150267492).
Regarding claim 12, Maeda fails to disclose a work tool comprising the adhesion suppressing member of wherein the construction machinery is an earth drill excavator to be used in an earth drill method of pile work, wherein the work tool is a drilling bucket, which is mounted to a distal end of a kelly bar included in the earth drill excavator, and which is configured to take in excavated soil and sand as the work piece and discharge the excavated soil and sand, wherein the drilling bucket includes a bucket main body having a cylindrical shape, and a bottom lid configured to close a lower end opening of the bucket main body, and wherein the adhesion suppressing member is installed on any one or both of an inner peripheral surface of the bucket main body and an inner surface of the bottom lid.
However, Tasovski discloses a similar soil anti-adhesion device (Fig 2; 22) and teaches the use of this device on excavators, bulldozers, or similar soil transport machines (Fig 1, Fig 4, Fig 5; para [0005], lines 13-15). Further, Broussard discloses another soil transport machine (Figs 1-8) and teaches the tool where the machine is a drill excavator with the tool mounted at the end of a Kelly bar where the tool has a cylindrical shape (Fig 1; Kelly bar 14; tool 24; drill 28).
Maeda, Tasovski, and Broussard are all analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of earth working. 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 Maeda to incorporate the teachings of Tasovski and Broussard and used the adhesion suppressing member of Maeda on the excavator drill of Broussard. One would have made this modification to use an excavator drill to work soil while suppressing soil adhesion to the drill (Broussard; Fig 5).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tasovski (US 20090101370) and Trevisani et al. (US 20150128458).
Regarding claim 13, Maeda fails to specifically disclose a work tool comprising the adhesion suppressing member wherein the construction machinery is an all-casing excavator to be used in an all-casing method of pile work, wherein the work tool is a hammer grab, which is suspended from a lifting machine included in the all-casing excavator, and which is configured to grab excavated soil and sand as the work piece and discharge the excavated soil and sand, wherein the hammer grab includes a hammer grab main body, and a pair of shells openably and closably mounted to a lower end portion of the hammer grab main body, and wherein the adhesion suppressing member is installed on an inner peripheral surface of each of the pair of shells.
However, Tasovski discloses a similar soil anti-adhesion device (Fig 2; 22) and teaches the use of this device on excavators, bulldozers, or similar soil transport machines (Fig 1, Fig 4, Fig 5; para [0005], lines 13-15). Further, Trevisani discloses another soil transport machine (Fig 1) and teaches the tool where the machine is a hammer grab excavator with the tool suspended by a lifting machine (Figs 1-4).
Maeda, Tasovski, and Trevisani are all analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of earth working. 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 Maeda to incorporate the teachings of Tasovski and Trevisani and used the adhesion suppressing member of Maeda on the hammer grab of Trevisani. One would have made this modification to use a hammer grab to work soil while suppressing soil adhesion to the drill (Trevisani; Fig 1).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tasovski (US 20090101370) and Siepi (US 20100307825).
Regarding claim 14, Maeda fails to specifically disclose a work tool comprising the adhesion suppressing member wherein the construction machinery is a horizontal multi-shaft digging machine to be used in an underground continuous wall construction method, wherein the work tool is a pair of rotary cutters, which are arranged side by side at a lower end of a digging unit main body included in the horizontal multi-shaft digging machine, and which are configured to be rotationally driven to dig a ground, wherein the rotary cutters each include a rotary drum having a cylindrical shape, and a plurality of blades provided on an outer peripheral surface of the rotary drum so as to protrude in a radial direction, each of the plurality of blades having a cutter bit fixed to a distal end of each of the plurality of blades, and wherein the adhesion suppressing member is installed on a front surface of each of the plurality of blades.
However, Tasovski discloses a similar soil anti-adhesion device (Fig 2; 22) and teaches the use of this device on excavators, bulldozers, or similar soil transport machines (Fig 1, Fig 4, Fig 5; para [0005], lines 13-15). Further, Siepi discloses another soil transport machine (Fig 1) and teaches the tool as a pair of cylindrical drum cutters (Fig 1; cutters 2).
Maeda, Tasovski, and Siepi are all analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of earth working. 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 Maeda to incorporate the teachings of Tasovski and Siepi and used the adhesion suppressing member of Maeda on the rotary cutter of Siepi. One would have made this modification to use a rotary cutter to work soil while suppressing soil adhesion to the drill (Siepi; Fig 1).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Tasovski (US 20090101370) and Hagenbuch (US 20170016322).
Regarding claim 15, Maeda fails to specifically disclose a work tool comprising the adhesion suppressing member of wherein the construction machinery is a ground improvement machine to be used in a power blender method, wherein the work tool is a trencher-type stirring mixing machine included in the ground improvement machine, wherein the trencher-type stirring mixing machine includes a frame having a columnar shape, sprockets provided to an upper end and a lower end of the frame, respectively, an endless chain wound around each of the sprockets, and a plurality of stirring blades provided on an outer periphery of the endless chain, and wherein the adhesion suppressing member is installed on any one or both of a front surface of the frame and a front surface of each of the stirring blades.
However, Tasovski discloses a similar soil anti-adhesion device (Fig 2; 22) and teaches the use of this device on excavators, bulldozers, or similar soil transport machines (Fig 1, Fig 4, Fig 5; para [0005], lines 13-15). Further, Hagenbuch discloses another soil transport machine (Fig 1) and teaches the tool as an endless chain with sprockets (Fig 1; chain 16; sprockets 17/18).
Maeda, Tasovski, and Hagenbuch are all analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of earth working. 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 Maeda to incorporate the teachings of Tasovski and Hagenbuch and used the adhesion suppressing member of Maeda on the trencher of Hagenbuch. One would have made this modification to use a trencher to work soil while suppressing soil adhesion to the drill (Hagenbuch; Fig 1).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Bares et al. (US 20050211449).
Regarding claim 9, Maeda fails to specifically disclose the work tool further comprising a vibration generating machine that is provided to the bucket and is configured to transmit vibration to the bucket.
However, Bares discloses a similar earth working machine (Fig 1) and teaches the use of a vibration generating machine to transmit vibration to the bucket (Fig 2; actuator 58 vibrates the bucket).
Maeda and Bares are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of earth working. 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 Maeda to incorporate the teachings of Bares and combined the use of a vibration generating machine on the excavator bucket. One would have made this combination to pack down material with the bucket (Bares; para [0017]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Dollar (US 20210324601).
Regarding claim 16, Maeda discloses a claw member (20), but fails to specifically disclose the claw member comprising a claw main body portion having a flat surface portion formed to have a length substantially equal to an opening width of the bucket, wherein the claw main body portion is mounted to a distal end of the edge plate portion through intermediation of an adaptor, and the adhesion suppressing member is installed on the flat surface portion.
However, Dollar discloses a similar excavation bucket (Fig 1; bucket 10) and teach the use of an attachment to the claw portion of the bucket with a flat surface portion (attachment 25 with flat surface 21a).
Maeda and Dollar and considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of excavating tools. 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 Maeda to incorporate the teachings of Dollar and combined the use of a excavation attachment with the flat surface. One would have made this modification to have the digging equipment be capable of bending when encountering underground utility lines (Dollar; para [0006]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Winter (US 20160069047) discloses a similar plate for earth working buckets that for the purpose of prolonging the bucket life.
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