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 certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) are in compliance with the provisions of 37
CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first arm”, “second arm”, and “third arm” must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, line 3, “another one of the first and second arms” should be changed to --the other one of the second and first arms--.
In claim 4, line 3, “another one of the second and third arms” should be changed to --the other one of the second and first arms--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 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.
Regarding claims 1-14, and 18-19, The term “near” within the limitation:
“and the roller is on the ramp at or near a bottom of the ramp” in claim 1, line 16
is a relative term which renders claim 1 indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 2-14 and 18-19 are subsequently rejected due to being rendered indefinite because of dependency on rejected claim 1 (see above).
The term “generally” within the limitations:
“the roller assembly having a transport configuration where the first arm is generally horizontal” in claim 1, line 15,
“the roller assembly having a plurality of compacting configurations where the first arm is generally vertical” in claim 1, line 18,
“by pivoting the first arm generally vertically” in claim 1, line 24
are relative terms which renders claim 1 indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 2-14 and 18-19 are subsequently rejected due to being rendered indefinite because of dependency on rejected claim 1 (see above).
Regarding claims 15-17, The term “generally” within the limitations:
“pivoting an arm of the articulated arm assembly from a generally horizontal position” in claim 15, line 7,
“to a generally vertical position with an arm actuator” in claim 15, line 8,
“pivoting the arm of the articulated arm assembly from the generally vertical position” in claim 15, line 13,
“to the generally horizontal position with the arm actuator” in claim 15, line 14,
are relative terms which renders claim 15 indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 16-17 are subsequently rejected due to being rendered indefinite because of dependency on rejected claim 15 (see above).
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the method of claim 1" in –line 1--. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 1 does not specify a method.
For examination purposes, “the method of claim 1” is interpreted to mean “the method of claim 15.”
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the method of claim 1" in –line 1--. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 1 does not specify a method.
For examination purposes, “the method of claim 1” is interpreted to mean “the mobile roll compactor of claim 1.”
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
92
140
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Soler et al., (hereinafter “Soler”)(WO 2006027520 A1).
PNG
media_image3.png
398
595
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Soler discloses: A mobile roll compactor (1)(fig. 1)[Abstract, lines 1-2] for compacting waste comprising: a frame; (6)(fig. 1) a ramp (see circle in modified fig. 2 above), connected to the frame; (The ramp is connected to (9) and (9) is connected to the frame (6).) and a roller assembly (2-5)(figs. 1-2) connected to the frame, the roller assembly comprising: a first arm (5)(fig. 1) having a first end portion pivotally connected to the frame about a first pivot axis; (fig. 2) a second arm (3)(fig. 1) having a first end portion pivotally connected to a second end portion of the first arm about a second pivot axis; (fig. 2) a third arm (4)(fig. 1) having a first end portion pivotally connected to a second end portion of the second arm about at third pivot axis; (fig. 2) a roller (2)(fig. 1) rotationally connected to a second end portion of the third arm; (figs. 1-2) an arm actuator (a1)(modified fig. 2 above)(A hydraulic cylinder is depicted to be connected to the frame (6) and operatively connected to the first arm (5) for selectively pivoting the first arm about the first pivot axis.) connected to the frame and operatively connected to the first arm for selectively pivoting the first arm about the first pivot axis; and a roller actuator [page 5, lines 9-11](A motor is a type of actuator, and the motor drives the roller (2) therefore the device discloses a roller actuator.) operatively connected to the roller for turning the roller; (the roller actuator drives the roller therefore is operatively connected to the roller for turning the roller) the roller assembly having a transport configuration where the first arm is generally horizontal, (fig. 1 displays the first arm (5) being horizontal, the first arm stays generally horizontal while the roller moves onto the ramp in the transport configuration.) and the roller is on the ramp at or near a bottom of the ramp; (fig. 1)(In the transport configuration, the roller assembly is able to be placed on the ramp by pivoting the arm assembly.) the roller assembly having a plurality of compacting configurations where the first arm is generally vertical and the roller is off the ramp, (When the roller assembly is off the ramp and compacting, the roller assembly has a plurality of possible compacting configurations where the first arm is generally vertical. When the arm actuator fully extends and the arm assembly is lifted up, the first arm is generally vertical and the roller is off the ramp.) the roller actuator being configured to roll the roller to move the roller assembly from one compacting configuration of the plurality of compacting configurations to another compacting configuration of the plurality of compacting configurations; [page 5, lines 9-11](The motor, or roller actuator, is configured to roll the roller thereby moving the roller assembly from one compacting configuration of the plurality of compacting configurations to another compacting configuration of the plurality of compacting configurations.) and the roller assembly being movable from the transport configuration to one of the plurality of compacting configurations by rolling the roller up the ramp and by pivoting the first arm generally vertically, (The roller assembly is movable from the transport configuration wherein the roller is on the ramp, to one of the plurality of compacting configurations by rolling the roller up the ramp and pivoting the first arm generally vertically by actuating the first arm via the arm actuator.) the roller actuator being configured to roll the roller along the ramp, [page 5, lines 9-11](fig. 1)(The roller actuator is configured to roll the roller along the ramp.) and the arm actuator being configured to pivot the first arm from horizontal to vertical. (fig. 2)(The arm actuator is configured to pivot the first arm from horizontal to vertical when the roller assembly changes at some point.)
PNG
media_image4.png
398
595
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Soler discloses: The mobile roll compactor of claim 1, wherein the roller assembly further comprises a stopper (s3)(modified fig. 2 of Soler above) connected to one of the second and third arms, (modified fig. 2 of Soler above)(A stopper (s3) is shown in modified fig. 2 connected to the top of the third arm. (4)) the stopper selectively abutting another one of the second and third arms (modified fig. 2 of Soler above)(the stopper (s3) selectively abutting the second arm (3) when the arm assembly moves.) to limit a minimum angle between the second and third arms. (modified fig. 2 of Soler above)
Regarding claim 7, Soler discloses: The mobile roll compactor of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection) wherein the arm actuator and roller actuator are rotary electric motors. [page 6, lines 14-15 of Soler](The roller actuator can be an electrical type motor which feeds the compactor roller directly, and since the compactor roller rotates, the roller actuator is a rotary electric motor.)(fig. 1)(The arm actuator as depicted in fig. 1 seems to be a hydraulic actuator. The specification of Soler specifies that the motor can be either hydraulic, thermal, or electrical. Thus, Soler teaches that the arm actuator can be a rotary electric motor.)
Regarding claim 9, Soler discloses: The mobile roll compactor of claim 1, wherein the roller has a plurality of cutters. (fig. 1 of Soler)(There is a plurality of cutters on the roller.)
PNG
media_image5.png
650
934
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Soler discloses: The mobile roll compactor of claim 1, wherein: the ramp is two ramps; (both sides)(see circle in modified fig. 1 above) and the first, second, and third arms are laterally between the two ramps. (modified fig. 1 above)
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 2, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soler in view of Bergmann et al. (hereinafter “Heinz”)(EP 1736304 A2).
PNG
media_image6.png
326
527
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Soler discloses: The mobile roll compactor of claim 1, wherein in the transport configuration the second arm rests on the first arm. (fig. 1 of Soler)
Soler fails to disclose: wherein in the transport configuration the second arm rests on the frame.
PNG
media_image7.png
189
379
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Heinz teaches: a similar mobile roll compactor [Abstract] wherein in the transport configuration (fig. 2) the second arm (a)(modified fig. 2 above) rests on the frame. (s, t)(modified fig. 2 above)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the storage support (s) connected to the base frame (c, t) on which the mobile roll compactor of Soler (1)(fig. 2) would sit on top of in order to provide a rest position for a large height of the arm assembly. [para. 0011, lines 1-3 of Heinz]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a mobile roll compactor. The combination of Heinz and Soler would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a rest position for a large height of the arm assembly.
After modification, Soler in view of Heinz teaches: the second arm would be capable of resting on the frame (c, t) in the transport configuration.
Regarding claim 14, Soler in view of Heinz discloses: The mobile roll compactor of claim 1, wherein the frame is a trailer frame of a trailer. (c, t)(modified fig. 2 of Heinz above)(The frame is a trailer frame of a trailer.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the trailer frame of a trailer in order to provide a rest position for a large height of the arm assembly. [para. 0011, lines 1-3 of Heinz] and to transport the compactor further distances.
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Soler in view of Heinz discloses: The [mobile roll compactor] of claim 1, wherein: the mobile roll compactor has a trailer; (modified fig. 2 of Heinz above)(The mobile roll compactor has a trailer.)(See claim 2 and 14 rejection above.) the frame (c,t)(modified fig. 2 of Heinz above) is a trailer frame of the trailer; (t)(modified fig. 2 of Heinz) and placing the mobile roll compactor next to the open top container comprises backing up the trailer next to the open top container. (fig. 1 of Heinz)(Placing the mobile roll compactor next to the open top container comprises backing up the trailer next to the open top container.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the trailer frame and trailer in order to provide a rest position for a large height of the arm assembly. [para. 0011, lines 1-3 of Heinz] and to transport the compactor further distances.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soler in view of Young et al. (hereinafter “Young”)(US 5913379 A).
PNG
media_image8.png
398
595
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Soler discloses: The mobile roll compactor of claim 1, wherein the roller assembly further comprises: an arm actuator; (a1)(modified fig. 2 of Soler above) wherein the arm actuator is configured to pivot the first arm. (modified fig. 2 above)(The arm actuator is configured to pivot the first arm.)
Soler does not disclose: The mobile roll compactor of claim 1, wherein the roller assembly further comprises: a first link connected to the arm actuator; (fig. 2 of Soler) and a second link pivotally connected between the first link and the first arm; wherein the arm actuator is configured to turn the first link to pivot the first arm.
Young teaches: an arm assembly, (fig. 1) wherein the arm assembly further comprises: a first link (66)(fig. 1 of Young) connected to the arm actuator; (38)(fig. 1 of Young) and a second link (76)(fig. 1 of Young) pivotally connected between the first link and the first arm; (20)(fig. 1 of Young) wherein the arm actuator is configured to turn the first link to pivot the first arm. (fig. 1 of Young)
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first and second links connected to the arm actuator and first arm of the arm assembly of Young into the invention of Soler. The references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both teach an arm assembly. The combination of Young with Soler would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to help pivot the first arm [col. 3, lines 63-67 of Young] thereby increasing the range the first arm and subsequently the roller assembly is able to move.
After modification, Soler in view of Young teaches: The mobile roll compactor of claim 1, wherein the roller assembly further comprises: a first link connected to the arm actuator; and a second link pivotally connected between the first link and the first arm; wherein the arm actuator is configured to turn the first link to pivot the first arm.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soler in view of Bergmann et al. (hereinafter “Bergmann”)(EP 3556546 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Soler discloses: The mobile roll compactor of claim 1,
Soler does not disclose wherein the roller assembly further comprises 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.
PNG
media_image9.png
327
387
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Bergmann teaches A mobile roll compactor (1)[Abstract, line 1] wherein the roller assembly (fig. 1) further comprises a stopper (s)(modified fig. 1 above) connected to one of the first (14)(modified fig. 1 above) and second arms (18)(modified fig. 1 above), the stopper selectively abutting another one of the first and second arms to limit a minimum angle between the first and second arms. (As shown in modified fig. 1 above, the stopper of the first arm selectively abuts the second arm to limit a minimum angle between the first and second arm.)
PNG
media_image10.png
398
595
media_image10.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the stopper of the mobile roll compactor of Bergmann onto the first arm of the invention of Soler at location “L” as shown above in modified fig. 2. The references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a mobile roll compactor. The combination of Bergmann with Soler would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to add protection to the arm assembly.
After modification, Soler in view of Bergmann teaches: The mobile roll compactor of claim 1, wherein the roller assembly further comprises 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.
Regarding claim 8, Soler discloses: The mobile roll compactor of claim 7, (see claim 7 rejection above)
Soler does not disclose: further comprising a plurality of batteries connected to the frame for providing electric power to the rotary electric motors.
Bergmann teaches: A mobile roll compactor (1)[Abstract, line 1] with a rechargeable battery [para. 0007, lines 1-4] for providing electric power to the electric motor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a rechargeable battery for the electric motors. The references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a mobile roll compactor. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods. In combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately and the results of the combination were predictable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of batteries to increase the operating time between charges, since it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Duplicating the batteries does not change the intended use of the prior art.
After modification, Soler in view of Bergmann teaches: The mobile roll compactor of claim 7, (see claim 7 rejection above) further comprising a plurality of batteries connected to the frame (By placing batteries of Bergmann onto the frame of Soler) for providing electric power to the rotary electric motors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if amended (see 112 rejections above) and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the mobile roll compactor comprising “the first link is turned by the arm actuator about an axis of rotation; the second link is pivotally connected to the first link about a fourth pivot axis; the second link is pivotally connected to the first arm about a fifth pivot axis; and in the plurality of compacting configurations, the axis of rotation, the fourth pivot axis and the fifth pivot axis are aligned.”, inter alia, in combination with the limitations of claim 1 and claim 5. Therefore, claim 6 is indicated allowable.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the mobile roll compactor comprising “the roller has a sprocket for engaging the track as the roller rolls along the ramp.”, inter alia, in combination with the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is indicated allowable.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the mobile roll compactor comprising “the track has a plurality of longitudinally spaced apart and laterally extending pins; and the sprocket has teeth for engaging the pins as the roller rolls along the ramp.”, inter alia, in combination with the limitations of claim 10 and claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is indicated allowable.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the mobile roll compactor comprising “the teeth of the sprocket have an asymmetrical tooth profile.” inter alia, in combination with the limitations of claim 11, claim 10, and claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is indicated allowable.
Claims 15-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the method comprising “rolling the roller up the ramp, moving the roller back onto the ramp; and rolling the roller down the ramp”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure:
US-6739535-B2 teaches A mobile trash pulverizer with a ramp on a truck.
US-20170341328-A1 teaches a portable roller compactor.
US-20050223914-A1 teaches a mobile roll compactor with a ramp.
EP-1736304-A2 teaches a compacting device on a truck.
EP-1513674-B2 teaches a mobile roll compactor with a ramp.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUEVARA SAOOD ISSA whose telephone number is (571)482-9980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-5pm and every other Friday 9:00am-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 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.
/J.S.I./ Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights