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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology (i.e., "means" in labeled line 10 and labeled line 11). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) 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. Such a limitation is "electric driving means" in claim 1, which the specification describes as being "constituted by the electromagnetic valve 34 and the hydraulic cylinder for a hook 232." (See Specification, labeled para. 0023.) Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) 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 § 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 1-4 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. The claims appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and contain idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites "an arm connection part to which an arm and a rod or a link are connected," in labeled line 3. It is unclear if the claim requires "an arm and a rod" or alternatively "a link" connected to the arm connection part, or if the claim requires "an arm" and either "a rod or a link" (in addition to the arm) connected to the arm connection part. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of this recitation cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Additionally, claims 2-4 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites "the arm connection part provided with: a fixed hook ... and a movable hook..." in labeled lines 4-6. First, it is unclear if "a fixed hook" and "a second hook" are elements of (i.e., sub-components of) the arm connection part. Second, it is unclear if "a fixed hook" and "a second hook" are even parts of the claimed device or are merely "provided with" the claimed device. As such, the metes and bounds of the claimed device cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Claim 1 is being further examined as though "provided with:" reads "including:" in labeled line 4.
Claim 1 recites "wherein a tilt switch ... is mounted to the arm connection part ..." in labeled lines 8-10. It is unclear if "a tilt switch" is part of (and required by) the claimed device or is merely to be mounted thereto (and used therewith). As such, the metes and bounds of the claimed device cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Claim 1 is being further examined as though "a fixed hook" and "a movable hook" are further indented, as though "attachment," reads "attachment, and" in labeled line 7, and as though labeled line 8 (i.e., "wherein") is deleted.
Claim 1 sets forth "electric driving means" in labeled line 12. It is unclear if "electric driving means" is part of (and required by) the claimed device or is merely to be used therewith. As such, the metes and bounds of the claimed device cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Claim 1 is being further examined as though "electric driving means" is an element of and required by the claimed device
Claim 2 recites "the electric driving means is a hydraulic cylinder to which an electromagnetic valve ... is connected." It is unclear if "an electromagnetic valve" is part of (and required by) the claimed device or is merely to be connected thereto (and used therewith). As such, the metes and bounds of the claimed device cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 2 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Claim 2 is being further examined as though "an electromagnetic valve" is an element of and required by the claimed device.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the tilted posture" in labeled line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 is being further examined as though it depends from claim 3.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cunningham et al. (US 7,426,796)
Regarding claim 1, Cunningham discloses an attachment attaching/detaching device comprising
an arm connection part (including 14 and 18) to which an arm (10) and a rod or a link (including or of 20) are connected, the arm connection part including:
a fixed hook (including 45; about 47) that engages a first pin (30) of an attachment (12); and
a movable hook (including 62; about 64) that moves toward and away from the fixed hook and engages a second pin (31) of the attachment, and
a tilt switch (including 190 and 191) that switches between allowing a flow of current and cutting off a flow of current depending on a posture is mounted to the arm connection part in a state in which the tilt switch is interposed along a power supply line or a signal line to electric driving means (including 70) for causing the movable hook to advance or retreat (see col. 23, line 60 - col. 24, line 25).
Regarding claim 2, Cunningham discloses the electric driving means (including 70) being a hydraulic cylinder ("hydraulic ram") to which an electromagnetic valve (including or of 184) that switches a connection port when a current flows to the power supply line or the signal line is connected (see col. 23, line 60 - col. 24, line 25).
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cunningham in view of Ramun (US 7,877,906).
Regarding claim 3, Cunningham discloses the attachment device with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Cunningham also appears to show (in Fig. 25B) the tilt switch (including 190 and 191) being mounted to the arm connection part in a tilted posture such that the tilt switch allows the flow of current (as described in col. 23, line 60 - col. 24, line 25) if the center of gravity of the attachment (12) attached to the attachment device is located on a side which is further away from the movable hook than a position directly below the center of the fixed hook (see Fig. 25B, wherein the center of gravity of 12 appears to be located on a side which is further away from the lower pin, corresponding to 31 at the movable hook, than a position directly below the upper pin, corresponding to 30 at the center of the fixed hook).
Cunningham does not explicitly disclose the location of the center of gravity of the attachment as claimed. However, Ramun teaches the use of a bucket attachment arm system wherein the center of gravity of the attachment (bucket 512) attached to an attachment device is located closer to a proximal distal coupling (115), which corresponds to attachment with the fixed hook in Cunningham. In doing so, Ramun teaches the center of gravity of the attachment (bucket 512) is based on the shape and structure of the attachment (see col. 12, line 51 - col. 13, line 3).
Ramun is analogous because Ramun discloses an attachment attaching/detaching device for an attachment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Cunningham with weighted attachment means as taught by Ramun in order to reduce overhang. (See Ramun; col. 12, line 51 - col. 13, line 3.) Additionally, the center of gravity of the attachment is based on the shape and structure of the attachment with which the claimed device is being used, and a recitation of the intended use (e.g., with an attachment) of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an attachment with a center of gravity as claimed based on the needs of the system in which the claimed device is being used with said attachment.
Regarding claim 4, Cunningham discloses the tilted posture at which the tilt switch (including 190 and 191) is mounted to the arm connection part being freely adjustable (190 and 191 being freely adjustable relative to each other; the structure providing ample locations for alternative mounting; and Cunningham explicitly sets forth that the embodiments described may be varied in construction and detail in col. 24, lines 26-28).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Edwards (US 7,255,037) teaches a tilt switch for an excavator boom. Balemi (US 2012/0266432; cited in the IDS of 11/6/2024) teaches a trigger, switch or sensor can take a number of forms, for example an electrically operated micro-switch (see para. 0270).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joel F. Mitchell whose telephone number is (571)272-7689. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00.
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.
/JFM/6/23/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights