DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to invent provisions. 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 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.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mensch (U.S. P.G. Publication No. 2009/0297311 A1; “Mensch”) in view of Lepage (U.S. P.G. Publication No. 2002/0063040 A1), Everett (U.S. Patent No. 6,022,182 A; “Everett”) and Milazo et al. (EP 1955583 A1; “Milazo”).
Mensch discloses:
Regarding claim 1:
A machine (20; FIG. 1) for the transfer of fruits from a fruit harvesting machine to a trailer or tanker truck for the transport and storage of the same (intended use; see MPEP § 2111.02(II)), comprising:
a self-propelled vehicle (¶ 13, “self-powered steerable-wheeled vehicle frame 21”) in which a frame (21) is linked through the corresponding transmission to an power plant (¶ 13, “self-powered steerable-wheeled vehicle frame 21”) for propulsion of the machine, with a steering front axle (¶ 17, “wheeled frame 21 includes four steerable wheels (see FIG. 1) for tight cornering”), the machine is controllable through a cabin (22; ¶ 15, “Controls are provided in the cabin 22 for controlling the conveyors 25 and 26, along with controlling all important aspects of the vehicle 20”); the frame on which comprises a hopper (23) open at the top (FIG. 1 depicts an open top of hopper 23) is established, with a decreasing section in width in a downward direction (FIG. 1 depicts hopper 23 reducing in width in the vertically downward direction);
a hopper having a height corresponding to the exit height of the fruit ejection conveyor belts of the corresponding fruit harvesting machine, in correspondence with connected to an unloading flap at one end its extremity, as well as; further comprising a longitudinal and unloading conveyor belt (25) on a bottom of the hopper that can be operated from inside the cabin (FIG. 2 depicts the conveyor belt 25 on the floor/bottom of hopper 23).
Although Mensch discloses a “wheeled frame 21 includes four steerable wheels (see FIG. 1) for tight cornering” (¶ 17) it does not expressly disclose that the frame is a rolling frame.
In certain circumstances where appropriate, an examiner may take official notice of facts not in the record or rely on "common knowledge" in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2144.03. Official notice unsupported by documentary evidence should only be taken by the examiner where the facts asserted to be well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420 (CCPA 1970). Here, the Examiner takes official notice that using a rolling frame for a steerable wheeled frame, e.g. for tight cornering, is instantly and unquestionably well-known and common knowledge in the art. As such, 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 wheeled frame in Mensch to be a rolling frame as such combination of elements are instantly and unquestionably well-known and common knowledge in the art.
Although Mensch discloses a power plant (¶ 13, “self-powered steerable-wheeled vehicle frame 21”) it does not expressly disclose that the power plant is an engine.
In certain circumstances where appropriate, an examiner may take official notice of facts not in the record or rely on "common knowledge" in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2144.03. Official notice unsupported by documentary evidence should only be taken by the examiner where the facts asserted to be well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420 (CCPA 1970). Here, the Examiner takes official notice that using an engine for a vehicle power plant is instantly and unquestionably well-known and common knowledge in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mensch such that its power plant is an engine s such combination of elements are instantly and unquestionably well-known and common knowledge in the art.
Mensch does not expressly disclose the cabin including a mechanism for regulating the relative angular position with respect to said frame.
Everett teaches a cabin (9) including a mechanism for regulating a relative angular position with respect to a frame (3; see angled position in FIG. 8) for the purpose of allowing an operator to have a full and clear view of the load (col. 3, ll. 46-55; see also col. 1, ll. 15-19).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, Mensch such that the cabin includes a mechanism for regulating the relative angular position with respect to said frame, as taught by Wilcox, for the purpose of allowing an operator to have a full and clear view of the load.
Mensch does not expressly disclose that the hopper has one or more longitudinal augers.
Lepage teaches a hopper (23) having one or more longitudinal augers (25, 27) operable from the cabin determining means of homogeneous distribution of the loaded product along the whole length of the hopper (¶ 6, “the auger members 25 and 27 are rotated such that particulate material deposited within the hopper 17 engages with one of the auger members which assists in driving the material toward the center of the front end 21 of the hopper”; FIG. 2 depicts the auger having a spiral shape that would homogenously distribute material along the length of the hopper 23) for the purpose of assisting the conveyor to move material (¶ 30; ¶ 6, “it is known to use augers mounted above such belts within intake feed hoppers of conveyors for assisting feed of material to be conveyed to the tube conveying portion of such conveyors”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, Mensch such that the hopper has one or more longitudinal augers, as taught by Lepage, for the purpose of assisting the conveyor to move material.
Mensch does not expressly disclose that the hopper is connected to the frame by a scissor-type lifting mechanism that can be controlled from the cabin.
Milazo teaches a hopper (8) is connected to a frame (1) by a scissor-type lifting mechanism (4) for the purpose of helping isolate the frame from vibrations that may be produced by the transfer operation within the hopper (pg. 2, “since its operation is based on vibratiing system, the latter
affects all the mechanisms and linkages of the trailer, shortening the useful life thereof. . . . The distributing trailer proposed by the invention fully and satisfactorily solves the drawbacks previously set forth, ensuring a perfectly homogeneous and controlled unloading of the product contained therein and eliminating the problem of the vibrations insofar as said trailer does not base its unloading on this system as will be seen below. To that end and more specifically the proposed trailer, provided with the classic and inevitable rolling frame, with its pole for coupling to a tractor vehicle, incorporates a chassis which can be raised, for example by means of scissor type mechanisms with the collaboration of an actuator element such as a hydraulic cylinder, said chassis supporting a hopper for loading the product, which hopper unloads at the lower part on a conveyor belt channeling the product towards an outlet located in correspondence with one of the ends of said belt.”).
Mensch as modified above further teaches the following: Regarding claim 1 (continued):
The scissor-type lifting mechanism can be controlled from the cabin (¶ 15, “Controls are provided in the cabin 22 for controlling the conveyors 25 and 26, along with controlling all important aspects of the vehicle 20.”).
Regarding claim 2, Mensch does not expressly disclose that the hopper has a maximum width of 2.50 meters.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mensch, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the hopper has a maximum width of 2.50 meters as a matter of design choice because it has been held that, limitations relating to the size of the claimed invention is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); see also In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). Here, because the limitation relates merely to the size (i.e. width) of the hopper, this limitation does not amount to a patentable difference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL D YABUT whose telephone number is (571)270-5526. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 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 John Olszewski can be reached on (571) 272-2706. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL D YABUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights