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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 56, line 4, number “152” should be changed to -- 140 --. See “..container 140” in line 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 7, “at” should be changed to – a – for clarity.
Regarding claim 11, line 7, “at” should be changed to – a – for clarity.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
If claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step"), they are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, if claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step"), they are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, 17-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergmann (EP 3 556 546 A1) in view of LaBarbera (US 2003/0230656 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bergmann discloses a roll compactor (1) attachment for a loader (4) comprising:
a first arm (see a vertical arm below a pivot axis 16 in fig. 6) having a first end portion configured for connecting to a boom assembly (126, 192, and 196) of the loader (4) [It is noted that the structure of 126, 192, and 196 can be interpreted as a boom assembly because it is a mechanical structure consisting of a rotatable boom arm (see the structure is rotatable from fig. 10 to fig. 11) to lift, move, and position the roll compactor (figs. 10-12);
a second arm (14) having a first end portion pivotally connected to a second end portion of the first arm (fig. 6) about a first pivot axis (16);
a third arm (18) having a first end portion pivotally connected to a second end portion of the second arm (14) about a second pivot axis (at 20 in fig. 1);
a roller (12) rotationally connected to a second end portion of the third arm (18); a roller actuator (see “a drive motor” on page 4, lines 9-10 of the English translation) operatively connected to the roller for turning the roller.
Bergmann discloses the second arm is pivotable connected to the first arm, but Bergmann does not disclose a stopper connected to one of the first and second arms, the stopper selectively abutting another one of the first and second arms to limit a minimum angle between the first and second arms.
LaBarbera, in a related compacting art, discloses two arms (66 and 64) pivotable connected to one another (fig. 2), a stopper (84) connected to one of the arms (fig. 2), the stopper selectively abutting another one (86) of the arms to limit a minimum angle between the arms (fig. 2 and 5A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pivotable connected first and second arms of Bergmann, with stoppers, as taught by LaBarbera, for safety issues (see para. 41 of LaBarbera).
Regarding claim 2, the roll compactor attachment of claim 1, modified Bergmann discloses wherein the stopper is connected to the first arm and selectively abuts the second arm (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, the roll compactor attachment of claim 1, Bergmann discloses wherein the first arm has two pins (154, 190, 196) for connecting the first arm to the boom assembly (figs. 8-10).
Regarding claim 4, the roll compactor attachment of claim 1, Bergmann discloses wherein the roller actuator and is a rotary motor (see “a drive motor” on page 4, lines 9-10 of the English translation). Bergmann does not expressly disclose the motor is a hydraulic motor.
LaBarbera can be applied to teach a roller (40) of a roll compactor, driven by either an electrical or hydraulic motor (50) (see para. 33).
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a hydraulic motor, as taught by LaBarbera, to drive the roller, since such hydraulic drive system is old and well-known in the roll compacting art and both drive systems (electrical and hydraulic) work equally as well, one skilled in the art would make a choice for convenience or economic reason.
Regarding claim 6, the roll compactor attachment of claim 1, Bergmann does not disclose a lock selectively locking the first arm to the third arm.
LaBarbera discloses a lock (88A and 88B) selectively locking two arms (64 and 66) as a safety measure (para. 42) during motion of the loader.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the arms of Bergmann with a lock as taught by LaBarbera, as a safety measure during motion of the loader.
Regarding claim 7, the, the roll compactor attachment claim 1, Bergmann discloses wherein:
a first distance between a lower end of the first arm (see the bottom end of the vertical arm in fig. 1) and the first pivot axis (16) is smaller than a second distance between the first pivot axis (16) and the second pivot axis (20) (fig. 1); and
the first distance is smaller than a third distance between the second pivot axis (20) and an axis of rotation (22) of the roller (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, the roll compactor attachment of claim 1, Bergmann discloses wherein:
a first distance between a lower end of the first arm (see the bottom end of the vertical arm in fig. 1) and the first pivot axis (16) is smaller than a second distance between the first pivot axis (16) and the second pivot axis (20).
Bergmann does not expressly disclose the second distance is smaller than a maximum distance between the second pivot axis and a circumference of the roller.
However, it is an obvious matter of design choice to make the second distance smaller than a maximum distance between the second pivot axis and a circumference of the roller because applicant has not disclose any benefits to the embodiment claimed and one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would make a choice dependent on the size of the roll compactor.
Regarding claim 9, the roll compactor attachment of claim 1, Bergman discloses the roller as set forth above. Bergmann does not expressly disclose wherein the roller has a plurality of cutters.
LaBarbera can also be applied to teach a roller (40) having a plurality of cutters (46) (fig. 4A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the roller of Bergmann with a plurality of cutters, as taught by LaBarbera, in order to pulverize trash during rotation of the roller (see para. 31 of LaBarbera).
Regarding claim 10, Bergmann discloses a loader (4) comprising:
a frame (fig. 1),
a driver cabin (fig. 1) mounted to the frame;
at least four wheels (see figs. 1-2) operatively connected to the frame;
a boom assembly (126, 192, and 196) pivotally (see the pivot from figure 10 to figure 11) mounted to the frame (fig. 11).
Modified Bergmann discloses the roll compactor attachment of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above) selectively connected to the boom assembly (figs. 8-13).
Regarding claim 11, Bergmann discloses a roll compactor (1) attachment for a loader (4) comprising:
a first arm (see a vertical arm below a pivot axis 16 in fig. 6) having a first end portion configured for connecting to a boom assembly (126, 192, and 196) of the loader (4) [It is noted that the structure of 126, 192, and 196 can be interpreted as a boom assembly because it is a mechanical structure consisting of a rotatable boom arm (see the structure is rotatable from fig. 10 to fig. 11) to lift, move, and position the roll compactor (figs. 10-12);
a second arm (14) having a first end portion pivotally connected to a second end portion of the first arm (fig. 6) about a first pivot axis (16);
a third arm (18) having a first end portion pivotally connected to a second end portion of the second arm (14) about a second pivot axis (at 20 in fig. 1);
a roller (12) rotationally connected to a second end portion of the third arm (18); a roller actuator (see “a drive motor” on page 4, lines 9-10 of the English translation) operatively connected to the roller for turning the roller.
Bergmann does not disclose a lock selectively locking the first arm to the third arm.
LaBarbera, in a related compacting art, discloses a lock (88A and 88B) selectively locking two arms (64 and 66) as a safety measure (para. 42) during motion of the loader.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the arms of Bergmann with a lock as taught by LaBarbera, as a safety measure during motion of the loader.
Regarding claim 12, the roll compactor attachment of claim 11,
Bergmann discloses the second arm is pivotable connected to the first arm, but Bergmann does not disclose a stopper connected to one of the first and second arms, the stopper selectively abutting another one of the first and second arms to limit a minimum angle between the first and second arms.
LaBarbera can also be applied to disclose two arms (66 and 64) pivotable connected to one another (fig. 2), a stopper (84) connected to one of the arms (fig. 2), the stopper selectively abutting another one (86) of the arms to limit a minimum angle between the arms (fig. 2 and 5A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pivotable connected first and second arms of Bergmann, with stoppers, as taught by LaBarbera, for safety issues (see para. 41 of LaBarbera).
Regarding claim 13, the roll compactor attachment of claim 11, Bergmann discloses wherein the first arm has two pins (154, 190, 196) for connecting the first arm to the boom assembly (figs. 8-10).
Regarding claim 14, the roll compactor attachment of claim 11, Bergmann discloses wherein the roller actuator and is a rotary motor (see “a drive motor” on page 4, lines 9-10 of the English translation). Bergmann does not expressly disclose the motor is a hydraulic motor.
LaBarbera can be applied to teach a roller (40) of a roll compactor, driven by either an electrical or hydraulic motor (50) (see para. 33).
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a hydraulic motor, as taught by LaBarbera, to drive the roller, since such hydraulic drive system is old and well-known in the roll compacting art and both drive systems (electrical and hydraulic) work equally as well, one skilled in the art would make a choice for convenience or economic reason.
Regarding claim 17, the roll compactor attachment of claim 11, modified Bergmann discloses the lock comprises a hook (88A) and a pin (88B) (see pintle or hook and eye system in para. 43 of LaBarbera).
Regarding claim 18, the, the roll compactor attachment claim 11, Bergmann discloses wherein:
a first distance between a lower end of the first arm (see the bottom end of the vertical arm in fig. 1) and the first pivot axis (16) is smaller than a second distance between the first pivot axis (16) and the second pivot axis (20) (fig. 1); and
the first distance is smaller than a third distance between the second pivot axis (20) and an axis of rotation (22) of the roller (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, the roll compactor attachment of claim 11, Bergmann discloses wherein:
a first distance between a lower end of the first arm (see the bottom end of the vertical arm in fig. 1) and the first pivot axis (16) is smaller than a second distance between the first pivot axis (16) and the second pivot axis (20).
Bergmann does not expressly disclose the second distance is smaller than a maximum distance between the second pivot axis and a circumference of the roller.
However, it is an obvious matter of design choice to make the second distance smaller than a maximum distance between the second pivot axis and a circumference of the roller because applicant has not disclose any benefits to the embodiment claimed and one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would make a choice dependent on the size of the roll compactor.
Regarding claim 21, Bergmann discloses a loader (4) comprising:
a frame (fig. 1),
a driver cabin (fig. 1) mounted to the frame;
at least four wheels (see figs. 1-2) operatively connected to the frame;
a boom assembly (126, 192, and 196) pivotally (see the pivot from figure 10 to figure 11) mounted to the frame (fig. 11).
Modified Bergmann discloses the roll compactor attachment of claim 11 (see the rejection of claim 11 above) selectively connected to the boom assembly (figs. 8-13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 15-16 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record, considered alone or combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious “first hydraulic lines fluidly connected to the rotary hydraulic motor; a hydraulic lock actuator operatively connected to the lock for unlocking the lock; and second hydraulic lines fluidly connecting the first hydraulic lines to the hydraulic lock actuator”, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Claim 16 would be allowable in virtue of its dependents upon claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 7,500,804 and US 4,278,368 disclose a roll compactor attachment connected to a boob assembly of an excavator.
US 4,702,643 discloses a roll compactor attached to a backhoe boom arm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4520. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5pm.
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 L TEMPLETON can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
JIMMY T. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/JIMMY T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights