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 § 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) 1-3, 6-9, 11-12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malmassari et al. (US 10759324) in view of Beam (US 20240190687).
Regarding claim 1, Malmassari discloses a vacuum vehicle, comprising:
a chassis (104);
wheels connected to the chassis that support the chassis on the ground for rolling movement of the vacuum vehicle (wheels depicted in Fig 1 supporting the chassis);
a vacuum system mounted on the chassis, the vacuum system includes a collection tank and a vacuum hose in communication with an interior of the collection tank (Fig 1; collection tank 106 and vacuum hose 204 with portion 250 in communication with the tank);
a boom attached to the vacuum hose, the boom includes a first, mounted end and a second, free end that defines a tip of the boom (boom assembly 202 with the mounted end 214 and free end 220 and 208), and the boom is movable relative to the collection tank to manipulate the position of the vacuum hose (Figs 16-18 depict the boom assembly moving relative to the collection tank to manipulate the position of the hose);
a driver’s cab attached to the chassis (Fig 1; cab 102); and
an engine powering the vacuum vehicle (there would have to be some kind of engine powering the vacuum vehicle 100 depicted in Fig 1).
Malmassari is silent on any part of the boom assembly being electrically non-conductive. However, Beam discloses a similar general vehicle with a chassis, wheels that support the chassis, and an aerial boom that is movable relative to the vehicle to manipulate the position of the end of the boom (Beam; Fig 1; chassis 102; wheels 130; aerial boom 104). Beam further teaches the entire boom being electrically insulated from the tip to the mounting platform (abstract; mounting platform 106; boom 104).
Malmassari and Beam are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem of accidental contact of an overhead boom with electrical lines when manipulating the overhead boom (Applicant’s specification [0001]; MPEP 2141.01(a), part I). 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 Malmassari to incorporate the teachings of Beam and combined the use of an electrically insulated mounting platform to mount the boom. One would have made this combination to prevent electrocution to any personnel (Beam; para [0003], lines 6-10).
The problem of accidental contact of an overhead boom with electrical lines when manipulating the overhead boom is a common problem in the art and there are other ways the prior art have solved this goal as is apparent from the other references presented.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Malmassari and Beam discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the boom is electrically non-conductive from the second, free end to the mid-point of the boom (the entire boom of the combination is considered to be electrically non-conductive).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Malmassari and Beam discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the boom is electrically non-conductive from the second, free end to the first, mounted end (the entire boom of the combination is considered to be electrically non-conductive).
Regarding claim 6, Malmassari further discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the vacuum truck is configured as a sewer cleaning vehicle (Malmassari; col 4, lines 48-53).
Regarding claim 7, Malmassari further discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the vacuum vehicle is configured as a vacuum excavator (Malmassari; col 4, lines 48-53).
Regarding claim 8, Malmassari further discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the vacuum vehicle is configured as an industrial vacuum loader (Malmassari; col 4, lines 48-53; claim language is broad; dump truck vehicle is considered an industrial vacuum loader).
Regarding claim 9, Malmassari further discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the vacuum vehicle is a self-propelled vacuum truck (Malmassari; Fig 1 depicts the self-propelled truck with a cab and wheels).
Regarding claim 11, Malmassari discloses a vacuum vehicle, comprising:
a vacuum system mounted on a chassis, the vacuum system includes a collection tank and a vacuum hose in communication with an interior of the collection tank (Fig 1; collection tank 106 and vacuum hose 204 with portion 250 in communication with the tank);
a boom attached to the vacuum hose, the boom includes a first, mounted end and a second, free end that defines a tip of the boom, and the boom is movable relative to the collection tank to manipulate the position of the vacuum hose (boom assembly 202 with the mounted end 214 and free end 220 and 208; Figs 16-18 depict the boom assembly moving relative to the collection tank to manipulate the position of the hose).
Malmassari is silent on any part of the boom assembly being electrically non-conductive. However, Beam discloses a similar general vehicle with a chassis, wheels that support the chassis, and an aerial boom that is movable relative to the vehicle to manipulate the position of the end of the boom (Beam; Fig 1; chassis 102; wheels 130; aerial boom 104). Beam further teaches the entire boom being electrically insulated from the tip to the mounting platform (abstract; mounting platform 106; boom 104).
Malmassari and Beam are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem of accidental contact of an overhead boom with electrical lines when manipulating the overhead boom (Applicant’s specification [0001]; MPEP 2141.01(a), part I). 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 Malmassari to incorporate the teachings of Beam and combined the use of an electrically insulated mounting platform to mount the boom. One would have made this combination to prevent electrocution to any personnel (Beam; para [0003], lines 6-10).
The problem of accidental contact of an overhead boom with electrical lines when manipulating the overhead boom is a common problem in the art and there are other ways the prior art have solved this goal as is apparent from the other references presented.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Malmassari and Beam discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the boom is electrically non-conductive from the second, free end to the mid-point of the boom (the entire boom of the combination is considered to be electrically non-conductive).
Regarding claim 15, Malmassari further discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the vacuum vehicle is a self-propelled vacuum truck (Malmassari; Fig 1 depicts the self-propelled truck with a cab and wheels).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malmassari et al. (US 10759324) in view of Correll (US 4676340).
Regarding claim 1, Malmassari discloses a vacuum vehicle, comprising:
a chassis (104);
wheels connected to the chassis that support the chassis on the ground for rolling movement of the vacuum vehicle (wheels depicted in Fig 1 supporting the chassis);
a vacuum system mounted on the chassis, the vacuum system includes a collection tank and a vacuum hose in communication with an interior of the collection tank (Fig 1; collection tank 106 and vacuum hose 204 with portion 250 in communication with the tank);
a boom attached to the vacuum hose, the boom includes a first, mounted end and a second, free end that defines a tip of the boom (boom assembly 202 with the mounted end 214 and free end 220 and 208), and the boom is movable relative to the collection tank to manipulate the position of the vacuum hose (Figs 16-18 depict the boom assembly moving relative to the collection tank to manipulate the position of the hose);
a driver’s cab attached to the chassis (Fig 1; cab 102); and
an engine powering the vacuum vehicle (there would have to be some kind of engine powering the vacuum vehicle 100 depicted in Fig 1).
Malmassari is silent on any part of the boom assembly being electrically non-conductive. However, Correll discloses a similar general vehicle with a chassis, wheels that support the chassis, and an aerial boom that is movable relative to the vehicle to manipulate the position of the end of the boom (Correll; Fig 1; chassis 12; wheels depicted supporting the chassis; aerial boom 10). Correll further teaches an outer portion of the boom being electrically insulated by being constructed from dielectric material (abstract; “the third portion and the end cylinder dielectrically insulate the distal end”).
Malmassari and Correll are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem of accidental contact of an overhead boom with electrical lines when manipulating the overhead boom (Applicant’s specification [0001]; MPEP 2141.01(a), part I). 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 Malmassari to incorporate the teachings of Correll and made an outer portion of the boom from a dielectric material. One would have made this modification to provide a worker positioned at the end of the boom assembly with a substantial safety factor (Correll; col 1, lines 59-68).
The problem of accidental contact of an overhead boom with electrical lines when manipulating the overhead boom is a common problem in the art and there are other ways the prior art have solved this goal as is apparent from the other references presented.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Malmassari and Correll discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the boom is electrically non-conductive from the second, free end to the mid-point of the boom (claim language is broad; the outer portion of the boom is considered to be electrically non-conductive; Correll teaches the outer third portion of the boom being the dielectric material and there would be a point during boom extension where the free end to mid-point of the boom would be electrically non-conductive).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Malmassari and Correll discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the boom is constructed from an electrically non-conductive material from the second, free end toward the mid-point of the boom (Correll teaches the outer third portion of the boom being the dielectric material and there would be a point during boom extension where the free end to mid-point of the boom would be electrically non-conductive).
Regarding claim 6, Malmassari further discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the vacuum truck is configured as a sewer cleaning vehicle (Malmassari; col 4, lines 48-53).
Regarding claim 7, Malmassari further discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the vacuum vehicle is configured as a vacuum excavator (Malmassari; col 4, lines 48-53).
Regarding claim 8, Malmassari further discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the vacuum vehicle is configured as an industrial vacuum loader (Malmassari; col 4, lines 48-53; claim language is broad; dump truck vehicle is considered an industrial vacuum loader).
Regarding claim 9, Malmassari further discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the vacuum vehicle is a self-propelled vacuum truck (Malmassari; Fig 1 depicts the self-propelled truck with a cab and wheels).
Regarding claim 11, Malmassari discloses a vacuum vehicle, comprising:
a vacuum system mounted on a chassis, the vacuum system includes a collection tank and a vacuum hose in communication with an interior of the collection tank (Fig 1; collection tank 106 and vacuum hose 204 with portion 250 in communication with the tank);
a boom attached to the vacuum hose, the boom includes a first, mounted end and a second, free end that defines a tip of the boom, and the boom is movable relative to the collection tank to manipulate the position of the vacuum hose (boom assembly 202 with the mounted end 214 and free end 220 and 208; Figs 16-18 depict the boom assembly moving relative to the collection tank to manipulate the position of the hose).
Malmassari is silent on any part of the boom assembly being electrically non-conductive. However, Correll discloses a similar general vehicle with a chassis, wheels that support the chassis, and an aerial boom that is movable relative to the vehicle to manipulate the position of the end of the boom (Correll; Fig 1; chassis 12; wheels depicted supporting the chassis; aerial boom 10). Correll further teaches an outer portion of the boom being electrically insulated by being constructed from dielectric material (abstract; “the third portion and the end cylinder dielectrically insulate the distal end”).
Malmassari and Correll are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem of accidental contact of an overhead boom with electrical lines when manipulating the overhead boom (Applicant’s specification [0001]; MPEP 2141.01(a), part I). 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 Malmassari to incorporate the teachings of Correll and made an outer portion of the boom from a dielectric material. One would have made this modification to provide a worker positioned at the end of the boom assembly with a substantial safety factor (Correll; col 1, lines 59-68).
The problem of accidental contact of an overhead boom with electrical lines when manipulating the overhead boom is a common problem in the art and there are other ways the prior art have solved this goal as is apparent from the other references presented.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Malmassari and Correll discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the boom is electrically non-conductive from the second, free end to the mid-point of the boom (claim language is broad; the outer portion of the boom is considered to be electrically non-conductive; Correll teaches the outer third portion of the boom being the dielectric material and there would be a point during boom extension where the free end to mid-point of the boom would be electrically non-conductive).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Malmassari and Correll discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the boom is constructed from an electrically non-conductive material from the second, free end toward the mid-point of the boom (Correll teaches the outer third portion of the boom being the dielectric material and there would be a point during boom extension where the free end to mid-point of the boom would be electrically non-conductive).
Regarding claim 15, Malmassari further discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the vacuum vehicle is a self-propelled vacuum truck (Malmassari; Fig 1 depicts the self-propelled truck with a cab and wheels).
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9, 11-12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malmassari et al. (US 10759324) in view of Thompson (US 20130048425).
Regarding claim 1, Malmassari discloses a vacuum vehicle, comprising:
a chassis (104);
wheels connected to the chassis that support the chassis on the ground for rolling movement of the vacuum vehicle (wheels depicted in Fig 1 supporting the chassis);
a vacuum system mounted on the chassis, the vacuum system includes a collection tank and a vacuum hose in communication with an interior of the collection tank (Fig 1; collection tank 106 and vacuum hose 204 with portion 250 in communication with the tank);
a boom attached to the vacuum hose, the boom includes a first, mounted end and a second, free end that defines a tip of the boom (boom assembly 202 with the mounted end 214 and free end 220 and 208), and the boom is movable relative to the collection tank to manipulate the position of the vacuum hose (Figs 16-18 depict the boom assembly moving relative to the collection tank to manipulate the position of the hose);
a driver’s cab attached to the chassis (Fig 1; cab 102); and
an engine powering the vacuum vehicle (there would have to be some kind of engine powering the vacuum vehicle 100 depicted in Fig 1).
Malmassari is silent on any part of the boom assembly being electrically non-conductive. However, Thompson discloses a similar general vehicle with a chassis, wheels that support the chassis, and an aerial boom that is movable relative to the vehicle to manipulate the position of the end of the boom (Thompson; Fig 1; chassis 10; wheels depicted supporting 10; aerial boom 12). Thompson further teaches the boom being electrically insulated by use of a coating of dielectric material to an outer surface of each of one or more boom components (abstract).
Malmassari and Thompson are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem of accidental contact of an overhead boom with electrical lines when manipulating the overhead boom (Applicant’s specification [0001]; MPEP 2141.01(a), part I). 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 Malmassari to incorporate the teachings of Thompson and used of a coating of dielectric, or electrically non-conductive, material on the boom components. One would have made this combination to avoid exposure of an electrically conductive part and prevent risk of electrocution to any personnel (Thompson; para [0007], lines 9-13).
The problem of accidental contact of an overhead boom with electrical lines when manipulating the overhead boom is a common problem in the art and there are other ways the prior art have solved this goal as is apparent from the other references presented.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Malmassari and Thompson discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the boom is electrically non-conductive from the second, free end to the mid-point of the boom (claim language is broad; any portion of the boom could be electrically non-conductive; Thompson teaches the coating of electrically non-conductive material on any portion of the boom; para [0027], lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Malmassari and Thompson discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the boom includes a layer of electrically non-conductive material that extends from the second, free end toward the mid-point of the boom (Thompson; the layer of electrically non-conductive material may be applied to any components of the boom assembly; para [0027], lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 6, Malmassari further discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the vacuum truck is configured as a sewer cleaning vehicle (Malmassari; col 4, lines 48-53).
Regarding claim 7, Malmassari further discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the vacuum vehicle is configured as a vacuum excavator (Malmassari; col 4, lines 48-53).
Regarding claim 8, Malmassari further discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the vacuum vehicle is configured as an industrial vacuum loader (Malmassari; col 4, lines 48-53; claim language is broad; dump truck vehicle is considered an industrial vacuum loader).
Regarding claim 9, Malmassari further discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the vacuum vehicle is a self-propelled vacuum truck (Malmassari; Fig 1 depicts the self-propelled truck with a cab and wheels).
Regarding claim 11, Malmassari discloses a vacuum vehicle, comprising:
a vacuum system mounted on a chassis, the vacuum system includes a collection tank and a vacuum hose in communication with an interior of the collection tank (Fig 1; collection tank 106 and vacuum hose 204 with portion 250 in communication with the tank);
a boom attached to the vacuum hose, the boom includes a first, mounted end and a second, free end that defines a tip of the boom, and the boom is movable relative to the collection tank to manipulate the position of the vacuum hose (boom assembly 202 with the mounted end 214 and free end 220 and 208; Figs 16-18 depict the boom assembly moving relative to the collection tank to manipulate the position of the hose).
Malmassari is silent on any part of the boom assembly being electrically non-conductive. However, Thompson discloses a similar general vehicle with a chassis, wheels that support the chassis, and an aerial boom that is movable relative to the vehicle to manipulate the position of the end of the boom (Thompson; Fig 1; chassis 10; wheels depicted supporting 10; aerial boom 12). Thompson further teaches the boom being electrically insulated by use of a coating of dielectric material to an outer surface of each of one or more boom components (abstract).
Malmassari and Thompson are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem of accidental contact of an overhead boom with electrical lines when manipulating the overhead boom (Applicant’s specification [0001]; MPEP 2141.01(a), part I). 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 Malmassari to incorporate the teachings of Thompson and used of a coating of dielectric, or electrically non-conductive, material on the boom components. One would have made this combination to avoid exposure of an electrically conductive part and prevent risk of electrocution to any personnel (Thompson; para [0007], lines 9-13).
The problem of accidental contact of an overhead boom with electrical lines when manipulating the overhead boom is a common problem in the art and there are other ways the prior art have solved this goal as is apparent from the other references presented.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Malmassari and Thompson discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the boom is electrically non-conductive from the second, free end to the mid-point of the boom (claim language is broad; any portion of the boom could be electrically non-conductive; Thompson teaches the coating of electrically non-conductive material on any portion of the boom; para [0027], lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Malmassari and Thompson discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the boom includes a layer of electrically non-conductive material that extends from the second, free end toward the mid-point of the boom (Thompson; the layer of electrically non-conductive material may be applied to any components of the boom assembly; para [0027], lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 15, Malmassari further discloses the vacuum vehicle wherein the vacuum vehicle is a self-propelled vacuum truck (Malmassari; Fig 1 depicts the self-propelled truck with a cab and wheels).
Claim(s) 10, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malmassari and Correll as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Buckner (US 10041227).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Malmassari and Correll fails to specifically disclose the vacuum vehicle wherein the vacuum vehicle is a towed vacuum trailer.
However, towed vacuum trailers are known in the art of vacuum vehicles. For example, Buckner discloses a similar vacuum with a chassis, wheels, and boom (Fig 1; chassis 104; wheels 107; boom 102) and teaches the assembly being a towed trailer (Fig 1; col 1, lines 23-28).
Malmassari, Correll, and Buckner are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of vacuum excavators with booms and reasonably pertinent to the problem of accidental contact of an overhead boom with electrical lines when manipulating the overhead boom (Applicant’s specification [0001]; MPEP 2141.01(a), part I). 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 Malmassari and Correll to incorporate the teachings of Buckner and make the vacuum vehicle a towed vacuum trailer. One would have made this modification to make it easier for the worker to maneuver suction wand 120 during excavation (Buckner; col 1, lines 34-38).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Malmassari and Correll fails to specifically disclose the vacuum vehicle wherein the vacuum vehicle is a towed vacuum trailer.
However, towed vacuum trailers are known in the art of vacuum vehicles. For example, Buckner discloses a similar vacuum with a chassis, wheels, and boom (Fig 1; chassis 104; wheels 107; boom 102) and teaches the assembly being a towed trailer (Fig 1; col 1, lines 23-28).
Malmassari, Correll, and Buckner are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of vacuum excavators with booms and reasonably pertinent to the problem of accidental contact of an overhead boom with electrical lines when manipulating the overhead boom (Applicant’s specification [0001]; MPEP 2141.01(a), part I). 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 Malmassari and Correll to incorporate the teachings of Buckner and make the vacuum vehicle a towed vacuum trailer. One would have made this modification to make it easier for the worker to maneuver suction wand 120 during excavation (Buckner; col 1, lines 34-38).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sheeley (US 20170174488) discloses another electrically non-conductive solution for an overhead boom 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