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) 12-13, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parrott (GB 2104574).
Regarding claim 12, Parrott discloses a mechanical arrangement for an excavation machine, the mechanical arrangement comprising:
a cutting tool (21);
a head shaft coupled to the cutting tool and defining a longitudinal axis (Fig 4; shaft supports tool 21 with axis 22);
a gearbox coupled to the head shaft such that the head shaft supports the gearbox (gearbox 29); and
a motor coupled to the gearbox, wherein the motor is offset from the longitudinal axis of the head shaft, and wherein the motor is configured to drive rotation of the head shaft and the cutting tool via the gearbox (motor 23 is offset from the longitudinal axis 22 in Fig 4; motor 23 drives shaft via gear train 28 and gearbox 29).
Regarding claim 13, Parrott discloses the mechanical arrangement wherein the motor is an electric motor (electric motor 23; abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Parrott discloses the mechanical arrangement wherein the cutting tool is a drum of a surface miner (drum 21 of mining machine; abstract; Fig 1).
Regarding claim 17, Parrott discloses the mechanical arrangement wherein the motor is coupled to the gearbox using a flexible coupling (claim language is broad; the coupling 28 couples the motor 23 to gearbox 29 and is considered flexible as it may effect speed reduction; pg 2, lines 73-81).
Claim(s) 19, 21, 24, 26, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joy (GB 1290907).
Regarding claim 19, Joy discloses a mechanical arrangement for an excavation machine, the mechanical arrangement comprising:
a cutting tool (76);
a head shaft coupled to the cutting tool (head shaft 70);
at least one gearbox coupled to the head shaft such that the head shaft supports the gearbox (Fig 4; series of gears 48/50/58/60/62/64/66/68 are considered a gearbox); and
a plurality of motors, wherein the plurality of motors are configured to drive rotation of the head shaft and the cutting tool, and wherein at least one of the plurality of motors is coupled to the at least one gearbox (Fig 4; motors 36 drive head shaft 70 and tool 76 through the gear box).
Regarding claim 21, Joy discloses the mechanical arrangement wherein the at least one gearbox comprises a first gearbox and a second gearbox, the first and second gearboxes being located on opposite sides of the cutting tool, and wherein the plurality of motors comprises a first motor coupled to the first gearbox and a second motor coupled to the second gearbox (Fig 4; each motor 36 is coupled to a respective gear box; Figs 2-4 depict the motors and gearboxes on opposite sides of the tool).
Regarding claim 24, Joy discloses the mechanical arrangement wherein the cutting tool is a chain of a chain trencher (chain 76).
Regarding claim 26, Joy discloses the mechanical arrangement wherein at least one of the plurality of motors is coupled to the at least one gearbox using a flexible coupling (claim language is broad; coupling 46 is considered flexible because it allows shaft 44 to rotate).
Regarding claim 28, Joy discloses the mechanical arrangement wherein at least one of the plurality of motors is offset from a longitudinal axis of the head shaft (Figs 1-4; the motors 36 are considered offset from the shaft 70).
Claim(s) 19-20, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Green et al. (CN 105401940).
Regarding claim 19, Green discloses a mechanical arrangement for an excavation machine, the mechanical arrangement comprising:
a cutting tool (78 and 88);
a head shaft coupled to the cutting tool (shaft of the tools with axis 87);
at least one gearbox coupled to the head shaft such that the head shaft supports the gearbox (gearbox 86); and
a plurality of motors, wherein the plurality of motors are configured to drive rotation of the head shaft and the cutting tool, and wherein at least one of the plurality of motors is coupled to the at least one gearbox (motors 82 drive rotation of the tool about axis 87).
Regarding claim 20, Green discloses the mechanical arrangement wherein the at least one gearbox comprises a single gearbox, and wherein the plurality of motors comprises a first motor and a second motor, each of the first motor and the second motor being coupled to the single gearbox (one gearbox 86; first and second motors 82 are coupled to the single gearbox; Fig 2A).
Regarding claim 25, Green discloses the mechanical arrangement wherein the cutting tool is a drum of a surface miner (drum tool 78).
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parrott as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Cribb et al. (US 6626500).
Regarding claim 14, Parrott fails to specifically disclose the mechanical arrangement wherein the motor is a hydraulic motor. As stated above, Parrott clearly discloses the motor being an electric motor.
However, 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 motor hydraulic, 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 using a hydraulic motor rather than an electric motor as long as the motor of the prior art machine still achieves its intended purpose of powering the cutting head.
For the sake of argument, Cribb discloses a similar cutting head machine (Figs 1-5) and teaches the use of a hydraulic motor to power the cutting heads (abstract). Parrott and Cribb are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of excavation by rotating cutting heads. 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 Parrott to incorporate the teachings of Cribb and substituted the electric motor for a hydraulic motor. One would have made this modification as a design choice or to attach the hydraulic rotary cutting tool to a different hydraulic machine such as a hydraulic excavator, backhoe , or underground mining machinery (Cribb; col 1, lines 11-13).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parrott as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Joy.
Regarding claim 15, Parrott fails to specifically disclose the mechanical arrangement wherein the cutting tool is a chain of a chain trencher.
However, Joy discloses a similar mining machine (Fig 1) where the cutting tool is a chain of a chain trencher (chain 76).
Parrott and Joy are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of surface mining machines. 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 Parrott to incorporate the teachings of Joy and made the cutting tool of Parrott a chain of a chain trencher. One would have made this modification to have the chain cooperate with a conveyor to facilitate removal of mined material (Joy; abstract; Fig 1; pg 1, lines 82-92).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parrott as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Farbotnik et al. (US 6742619).
Regarding claim 18, Parrott fails to specifically disclose the mechanical arrangement wherein the motor is mounted to a frame of the excavation machine via at least one isolator.
However, 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 mount the motor to the frame via at least one isolator, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. Isolator mounts are well-known in the art of motors to dampen any vibration or shocks created by the motor. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by mounting the motor to the frame using isolator mounts as long as the prior art motor still adequately powers the cutting head.
For the sake of argument, Farbotnik discloses a similar excavation machine (abstract; Fig 1) and teaches mounting the engine or motor with shock and vibration isolator mounts (abstract). 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 Parrott to incorporate the teachings of Farbotnik and mounted the motor with vibration and shock isolator mounts. One would have made this modification to minimize shocks from the chassis to the engine and vibrations from the engine to the chassis (Farbotnik; col 1, lines 10-15).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joy as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Parrott.
Regarding claim 22, Joy fails to specifically disclose the mechanical arrangement wherein at least one of the plurality of motors is an electric motor.
However, 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 motor electric, 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 using an electric motor rather than a hydraulic motor as long as the motor of the prior art machine still achieves its intended purpose of powering the cutting head.
For the sake of argument, Parrott discloses a similar cutting head machine (Figs 1-4) and teaches the use of an electric motor to power the cutting heads (abstract). Joy and Parrott are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of excavation by rotating cutting heads. 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 Joy to incorporate the teachings of Parrott and substituted the hydraulic motor for an electric motor. One would have made this modification as a design choice or provide the possibility of additional power take off for ancillary devices, such as a mineral breaker (Parrott; pg 1, lines 123-129).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joy as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Cribb et al. (US 6626500).
Regarding claim 23, Joy is silent on the mechanical arrangement wherein at least one of the plurality of motors is a hydraulic motor.
However, 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 use a hydraulic motor, 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 using a hydraulic motor as long as the motor of the prior art machine still achieves its intended purpose of powering the cutting head.
For the sake of argument, Cribb discloses a similar cutting head machine (Figs 1-5) and teaches the use of a hydraulic motor to power the cutting heads (abstract). Joy and Cribb are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of excavation by rotating cutting heads. 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 Joy to incorporate the teachings of Cribb and made the motor a hydraulic motor. One would have made this modification as a design choice or to attach the hydraulic rotary cutting tool to a different hydraulic machine such as a hydraulic excavator, backhoe , or underground mining machinery (Cribb; col 1, lines 11-13).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joy as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Farbotnik et al. (US 6742619).
Regarding claim 27, Joy fails to specifically disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of motors is mounted to a frame of the excavation machine via at least one isolator.
However, 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 mount the motor to the frame via at least one isolator, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. Isolator mounts are well-known in the art of motors to dampen any vibration or shocks created by the motor. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by mounting the motor to the frame using isolator mounts as long as the prior art motor still adequately powers the cutting head.
For the sake of argument, Farbotnik discloses a similar excavation machine (abstract; Fig 1) and teaches mounting the engine or motor with shock and vibration isolator mounts (abstract). 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 Joy to incorporate the teachings of Farbotnik and mounted the motor with vibration and shock isolator mounts. One would have made this modification to minimize shocks from the chassis to the engine and vibrations from the engine to the chassis (Farbotnik; col 1, lines 10-15).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Gilbert (US 5070632) discloses a similar trenching machine with structure similar to the claimed invention.
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