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 Objections
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(claim 1, line 4) “one side of support” should be changed to “one side of the support”.
(claim 1, line 5) “the other side of support” should be changed to “the other side of the support”.
(claim 1, lines 7-8) “the second pin-like coupling element” should be changed to “the second coupling element”.
(claim 1, line 10) “the at least one locking element” should be changed to “the at least one locking element of the locking device”.
(claim 2, line 1) “the at least one blocking element” should be changed to “the at least one locking element of the safety device”.
(claim 3, line 1) “the at least one locking element” should be changed to “the at least one locking element of the safety device”.
(claim 3, lines 2-3) “the locking position” should be changed to “the blocking position”.
(claim 3, line 3) “an extended locking position” should be changed to “the locking position”.
(claim 3, lines 4-5) “an extended locking position and a retracted release position” should be changed to “the locking position and the release position”.
(claim 5, line 1) “The quick-change system according to one of the claims 1” should be changed to “The quick-change system according to claim 1”.
(claim 6, line 5) “the side wall” should be changed to “one of the side walls”.
(claim 7, line 1) “the locking element” should be changed to “the locking element of the safety device”.
(claim 9, line 2) “side walls” should be changed to “the side walls”.
(claim 10, lines 1-2) “at least one side wall” should be changed to “at least one of the side walls”.
(claim 10, lines 2-3) “the raised blocking position” should be changed to “the raised locking position”.
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.
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. 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “coupling elements” in claims 1 and 6, “at least one locking element…for securely locking the second coupling element on the second receptacles” in claim 1, “at least one locking element…for locking the at least one locking element in the locking position” in claim 1, “at least one locking element…for locking at least one locking element of the locking device” in claim 6, “at least one locking element” in claim 6, “actuation elements” in claim 9, and “a retaining device…for securing the two locking elements” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-5 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the first coupling element" in lines 4-5 and “the second coupling element” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear, based on the claim language, whether applicant is referring to the coupling elements in lines 2-3, or introducing additional coupling elements. It appears that the limitation “coupling elements” in lines 2-3 should be changed to “a first coupling element and a second coupling element”.
Claims 2-5 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shamblin et al. (US 6,379,075).
As concerns claim 1, Shamblin shows a quick-change system for changing attachments on a construction machine, with a quick changer (10) and an adapter (22) connectable to the quick changer, in which the adapter contains coupling elements (132, 134) arranged at a predetermined spacing from each other between two side walls (Fig. 1), and the quick changer has a support (28), first receptacles (64) arranged on one side of support for receiving the first coupling element (132), second receptacles (62) arranged on the other side of support for receiving the second coupling element (134) and a locking device (78) with at least one locking element (80) movable by means of a drive (94) between a release position (Fig. 4) and a locking position (Fig. 5) for securely locking the second coupling element (134) on the second receptacles (Fig. 5), wherein a mechanical safety device (146, 150) which cooperates with (via 74) the locking device of the quick changer (Fig. 5) and which contains at least one locking element (146) movable into a blocking position for locking the at least one locking element (80) in the locking position (Fig. 5).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yeager et al. (US 7,654,019).
As concerns claim 6, Yeager shows an adapter for a quick-change system for changing attachments on a construction machine, which contains coupling elements (15, 23) arranged at a predetermined spacing from each other between two side walls (11) for coupling to a quick changer (103) provided with a locking device (121, 131, 133), wherein a mechanical safety device (135), which contains at least one locking element (135, 145) movable on an inside of the side wall (Fig. 1 & 10) between a lowered release position (Fig. 11 & 12) and a raised locking position (Fig. 13) for locking at least one locking element (121) of the locking device (Fig. 13).
As concerns claim 7, Yeager shows wherein the locking element has a U-shaped cross section (Fig. 13).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. alone.
As concerns claim 8, Yeager discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the mechanical safety device contains two locking elements connected to each other and arranged on the inside of the two side walls, which can be moved between the lowered release position and the raised locking position. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized two locking elements in place of one locking element for the expected benefit of providing redundancy and/or increasing the holding power of the locking element to prevent the wedge of the locking device from moving out of the closed position. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using two locking elements for locking the at least one locking element of the locking device would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Yeager to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 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.
Claims 2-5 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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 does not appear to anticipate and/or render obvious:
a) a quick-change system for changing attachments on a construction machine, with a quick changer and an adapter connectable to the quick changer, in which the adapter contains coupling elements arranged at a predetermined spacing from each other between two side walls, and the quick changer has a support, first receptacles arranged on one side of support for receiving the first coupling element, second receptacles arranged on the other side of support for receiving the second coupling element and a locking device with at least one locking element movable by means of a drive between a release position and a locking position for securely locking the second pin-like coupling element on the second receptacles, wherein a mechanical safety device which cooperates with the locking device of the quick changer and which contains at least one locking element movable into a blocking position for locking the at least one locking element in the locking position, wherein the at least one blocking element has a U-shaped cross section for engaging above a piston rod of the drive of the locking device.
b) a quick-change system for changing attachments on a construction machine, with a quick changer and an adapter connectable to the quick changer, in which the adapter contains coupling elements arranged at a predetermined spacing from each other between two side walls, and the quick changer has a support, first receptacles arranged on one side of support for receiving the first coupling element, second receptacles arranged on the other side of support for receiving the second coupling element and a locking device with at least one locking element movable by means of a drive between a release position and a locking position for securely locking the second pin-like coupling element on the second receptacles, wherein a mechanical safety device which cooperates with the locking device of the quick changer and which contains at least one locking element movable into a blocking position for locking the at least one locking element in the locking position, wherein the at least one locking element comprises two locking elements connected to each other, which are movable between the locking position for locking two pin-like locking elements in an extended locking position, and a release position that enables the two pin-like locking elements to be moved between an extended locking position and a retracted release position.
c) a quick-change system for changing attachments on a construction machine, with a quick changer and an adapter connectable to the quick changer, in which the adapter contains coupling elements arranged at a predetermined spacing from each other between two side walls, and the quick changer has a support, first receptacles arranged on one side of support for receiving the first coupling element, second receptacles arranged on the other side of support for receiving the second coupling element and a locking device with at least one locking element movable by means of a drive between a release position and a locking position for securely locking the second pin-like coupling element on the second receptacles, wherein a mechanical safety device which cooperates with the locking device of the quick changer and which contains at least one locking element movable into a blocking position for locking the at least one locking element in the locking position, wherein the mechanical safety device is integrated into the adapter.
d) an adapter for a quick-change system for changing attachments on a construction machine, which contains coupling elements arranged at a predetermined spacing from each other between two side walls for coupling to a quick changer provided with a locking device, wherein a mechanical safety device, which contains at least one locking element movable on an inside of the side wall between a lowered release position and a raised locking position for locking at least one locking element of the locking device, wherein the mechanical safety device contains two locking elements connected to each other and arranged on the inside of the two side walls, which can be moved between the lowered release position and the raised locking position, and wherein the two locking elements are arranged on actuation elements protruding outwardly relative to side walls and extending through slit-like openings in the side walls.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pisco et al. (US 6,254,331) shows a quick-change system for changing attachments on a construction machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone. 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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights