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 4 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “a locking arm pivotally mounted to the second segment of the foldable arm and movable between an engaged position and a disengaged position; a locking bolt coupled to a distal end portion of the locking arm” in lines 7-9. However, these limitations are repeated from claim 1 in lines 14-16 which was amended to set forth the locking arm and locking bolt as previously claimed. For purposes of examination, the Examiner has omitted this portion from claim 4.
Claim 8 was amended to recite and depend from “clam 1” which should be –claim 1--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp (US 20190194907 A1) in view of Pryor (US 4061195 A) and Erickson et al. (US 20200317050 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sharp discloses a box blade assembly (1, Fig. 1) for a work vehicle, the box blade assembly comprising:
a frame member (2);
a box blade (11) extending from the frame member;
a foldable arm extending from the frame member and positioned above the box blade, the foldable arm having a first segment (30) mounted to the frame member at a proximal end of the first segment, a second segment (31) extending from a distal end of the first segment, and a pivotal connector positioned between the first segment and the second segment so as to allow the foldable arm to move between a folded configuration (Figs. 4-5) and an unfolded configuration (Figs. 6-7) (para. [0152]).
Sharp fails to teach an actuator extending between the first and second segment and movable between an extended position and a retracted position to fold or unfold the foldable arm, and a locking mechanism configured to lock the foldable arm in the unfolded configuration, the locking mechanism comprising:
a locking arm pivotally mounted to the second segment of the foldable arm and movable between an engaged position and a disengaged position;
a locking bolt coupled to a distal end portion of the locking arm;
a member configured to receive the locking bolt when the locking arm is in the engaged position, thereby retaining the foldable arm in the unfolded configuration.
However, such a mechanism is old and well-known. Pryor discloses a foldable arm for an earth-working implement , the foldable arm comprising a first segment (28), a second segment (30), a pivotal connector (36), and an actuator (38 + 40) extending between the segments so as to allow the foldable arm to move between a folded configuration (Fig. 3) and an unfolded configuration (Fig. 2,4), wherein the actuator is movable between an extended position and a retracted position to fold or unfold the foldable arm (col. 3 lines 14-23). Pryor further teaches a locking mechanism (42) configured to lock the foldable arm in the unfolded configuration (see Fig. 4, col. 2 line 65 - col. 3 line 1), the locking mechanism comprising:
a locking arm (78) pivotally mounted to the second segment (30) of the foldable arm and movable between an engaged position (Fig. 4) and a disengaged position (Fig. 5);
a locking bolt (48) coupled to a distal end portion of the locking arm (78) (col. 4 lines 8-11 “lower extending end portions of linkage members 78 are pivotally secured to pin means 48…by bolt or pin 82”);
a member (58, 64) configured to receive (in apertures 62 and 68 respectively) the locking bolt when the locking arm is in the engaged position, thereby retaining the foldable arm in the unfolded configuration (col. 4 lines 54-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar actuator and locking mechanism for the foldable arm of Sharp, as taught by Pryor, in order to reduce operator work by providing an automatic means for moving the foldable arm between its folded and unfolded configurations, as well as for automatically locking it in its unfolded configuration (Pryor at col. 4 lines 40-58).
Pryor fails to teach a biasing element configured to return the locking arm from the engaged position to the disengaged position.
However, such a biasing mechanism is known.
Erickson discloses a pivoting arrangement for a support arm (34) of a work vehicle, wherein the support arm is pivotable between a lowered operating position (Fig. 5) and a raised position (Fig. 7) and configured to be retained in the lowered operating position via a locking mechanism (200), the locking mechanism comprising:
a spring-biased locking bolt (204, Fig. 8) received in aligned openings (168, 242) by means of a locking bolt actuator (240) (para. [0045] “to transition…from the raised position (FIG. 7) to the lowered operating position (FIG. 5), the cam portion 240 contacts the collar 208 causing the pin 210 to move…into the respective latch opening 242”), and
a biasing spring (212) wrapped around the locking bolt and configured to return the locking bolt from an engaged position (Fig. 5) to a disengaged position (Fig. 7) (para. [0047] “latch pin 204 is biased toward the unlatched position such that the pin 210 recedes from…opening 242…when the frame 180…is pivoted about the horizontal pivot axis…to transition the support arm 134 from the lowered position to the raised position, the cam portion 240 rotates allowing the spring 212 to extend and force the pin 210 upwards from the base 154, such that the pin 210 will be disengaged with the respective latch opening 242”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar biasing spring encircling the locking bolt of Pryor, as taught by Erickson, in order to urge the locking pin out of engagement with the receiving member to ensure release of the locking pin when the foldable arm is raised (Erickson at para. [0047]).
Regarding claim 3, Sharp in view of Pryor and Erickson discloses the box blade assembly of claim 1. Pryor further discloses wherein the locking mechanism (42) is engaged by the actuator (38) when the actuator moves from the retracted position to the extended position (col. 3 lines 14-23 “piston rod 38 is caused to be extended…continued movement of the piston rod 38 activates lock means 42”).
Regarding claim 4, Sharp in view of Pryor and Erickson discloses the box blade assembly of claim 1. Pryor further teaches wherein the locking mechanism (42) comprises:
a first bracket (64) mounted to the first segment (28) of the foldable arm and including a first aperture (68) (col. 3 lines 49-52 “Plate member 64 is secured to the end portion of…28 and is provided with…apertures 68 therein”) (see Figs. 4 and 7);
a second bracket (58) mounted to the second segment (30) of the foldable arm and including a second aperture (62) (col. 3 lines 47-49 “plate member 58 is secured to the end portion of…30 and is provided with…apertures 62”);
wherein the first aperture (68) and the second aperture (62) are configured to receive the locking bolt (48), and wherein moving the locking arm from the disengaged position (Fig. 5) to the engaged position (Fig. 4) introduces the locking bolt into the first aperture (col. 3 lines 54-58 “apertures 68…for receiving pin means 48 when wing tool bar 30 is in an extended, unfolded position”).
Regarding claim 5, Sharp in view of Pryor and Erickson discloses the box blade assembly of claim 4. Pryor further discloses wherein the locking arm (78) is operationally coupled to the actuator (38), such that when the actuator moves from the retracted position to the extended position, the locking arm moves from the disengaged position to the engaged position (col. 4 lines 24-27,40-64 linkage member 78 is operationally coupled to an end portion of piston rod 38 such that upon continued extension of piston rod 38, linkage member 78 pivots from its disengaged position in Fig. 5 to its engaged position in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Sharp in view of Pryor and Erickson discloses the box blade assembly of claim 5. Pryor further teaches wherein the actuator (38) is coupled to the second segment (30) of the foldable arm by the locking arm (78), which extends between the actuator and the second segment of the foldable arm (as seen in Pryor Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 8, Sharp in view of Pryor and Erickson discloses the box blade assembly of claim 1, wherein the biasing element is a spring disposed around the locking bolt (inherent from combination, see Fig. 7, para. [0044] of Erickson teaches biasing spring 212 wrapped around locking bolt 204).
Regarding claim 9, Sharp in view of Pryor and Erickson discloses the box blade assembly of claim 7. Pryor further discloses wherein a distal end portion of the locking arm (78) comprises a groove, and a proximal end portion of the locking bolt (48) comprises a pin (82) that extends through the groove to movably couple the locking bolt to the locking arm (see Figs. 4-5, col. 4 lines 7-11 “The lower extending end portions of linkage members 78 are pivotally secured to pin means 48…by bolt or pin 82”).
Regarding claim 10, Sharp in view of Pryor and Erickson discloses the box blade assembly of claim 1. Pryor further discloses wherein the actuator (38) is a hydraulic cylinder (col. 3 lines 5-6 “piston rod 38 carried by fluid pressure cylinder 40”).
Regarding claim 11, Sharp in view of Pryor and Erickson discloses the box blade assembly of claim 1. Pryor further discloses a controller (e.g. “valve means”, col. 2 lines 49-52) configured to control the actuator (38) in response to a user input to move the actuator from the extended position to the retracted position (col. 4 lines 59-61 “the operator activates cylinder 40 to retract piston rod 38”) or from the retracted position to the extended position (col. 4 lines 40-42 “the operator activates fluid pressure cylinder 40 thereby causing piston rod 38 to extend”).
Regarding claim 12, Sharp in view of Pryor and Erickson discloses the box blade assembly of claim 11. Pryor further discloses wherein the controller comprises a user interface that receives the user input from a remote user (implicit from col. 2 lines 49-52 valve means is controlled by/receives input from an operator on the vehicle).
Regarding claim 13, Sharp in view of Pryor and Erickson discloses the box blade assembly of claim 1. Pryor further discloses wherein when the actuator (38) moves from the retracted position (Fig. 3) to the extended position (Fig. 2), the second segment (30) of the foldable arm pivots around the pivotal connector (36) from a raised position (Fig. 3) to a lowered position (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Sharp in view of Pryor and Erickson discloses the box blade assembly of claim 1. Sharp further discloses one or more ground engaging features (32) attached to a distal end portion of the second segment (31) of the foldable arm (see Sharp at Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 15, Sharp in view of Pryor and Erickson discloses a work vehicle comprising the box blade assembly of claim 1 (Sharp at para. [0070] “the vehicle is a skid-steer vehicle, an excavator, or a tracked vehicle”).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor (US 4061195 A) in view of Erickson et al. (US 20200317050 A1).
Regarding independent claim 16, Pryor discloses a foldable hydraulic assembly, comprising:
a foldable arm having a first segment (28), a second segment (30), and a pivotal connector (36) connecting the first segment to the second segment such that the second segment is movable between a folded configuration (Fig. 3) and an unfolded configuration (Fig. 2) (col. 2 line 65 – col. 3 line 3);
a hydraulic cylinder (38 + 40) extending between the first segment and the second segment of the foldable arm and configured to move between a retracted position (Fig. 3), an extended position (Fig. 5), and a locked position (Figs. 2 and 4);
a ground engaging feature (32) attached to an end portion of the second segment of the foldable arm opposite to the pivotal connector (Fig. 2); and
a locking mechanism (42) operatively coupled to the hydraulic cylinder and configured to move between a disengaged position (Fig. 5) and an engaged position (Fig. 4);
wherein moving the hydraulic cylinder from the retracted position to the extended position moves the foldable arm from the folded configuration to the unfolded configuration (col. 3 lines 14-17 “upon activation of cylinder 40, piston rod 38 is caused to be extended thus lowering extension tool bar 30 through hinge means 36 into a working position”),
wherein moving the hydraulic cylinder from the extended position to the locked position moves the locking mechanism from the disengaged position to the engaged position (col. 3 lines 17-19 “Thereafter, continued movement of the piston rod 38 activates lock means 42 thereby locking and securing wing tool bar 30 in position”), and
wherein when the locking mechanism is in the engaged position, the second segment of the foldable arm is fixed relative to the first segment of the foldable arm (col. 2 line 67 – col. 3 line 1 “wing tool bar 30 to be securely affixed in a horizontal working position with central tool bar 28 by lock means 42”).
Pryor fails to teach wherein the locking mechanism comprises a biasing element configured to return the locking mechanism from the engaged position to the disengaged position
However, such a biasing mechanism is known.
Erickson discloses a pivoting arrangement for a support arm (34) of a work vehicle, wherein the support arm is pivotable between a lowered operating position (Fig. 5) and a raised position (Fig. 7) and configured to be retained in the lowered operating position via a locking mechanism (200), the locking mechanism comprising:
a spring-biased locking bolt (204, Fig. 8) received in aligned openings (168, 242) by means of a locking bolt actuator (240) (para. [0045] “to transition…from the raised position (FIG. 7) to the lowered operating position (FIG. 5), the cam portion 240 contacts the collar 208 causing the pin 210 to move…into the respective latch opening 242”), and
a biasing spring (212) wrapped around the locking bolt and configured to return the locking bolt from an engaged position (Fig. 5) to a disengaged position (Fig. 7) (para. [0047] “latch pin 204 is biased toward the unlatched position such that the pin 210 recedes from…opening 242…when the frame 180…is pivoted about the horizontal pivot axis…to transition the support arm 134 from the lowered position to the raised position, the cam portion 240 rotates allowing the spring 212 to extend and force the pin 210 upwards from the base 154, such that the pin 210 will be disengaged with the respective latch opening 242”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar biasing spring encircling the locking bolt of Pryor, as taught by Erickson, in order to urge the locking pin out of engagement with the receiving member to ensure release of the locking pin when the foldable arm is raised (Erickson at para. [0047]).
Regarding claim 17, Pryor in view Erickson discloses the foldable hydraulic assembly of claim 16. Pryor further teaches wherein the locking mechanism (42) comprises:
a bracket (64) mounted to the first segment (28) of the foldable arm and including an aperture (68) (col. 3 lines 49-52 “Plate member 64 is secured to the end portion of…28 and is provided with…apertures 68 therein”);
a locking arm (78) pivotally mounted (at 80) to the second segment (30) of the foldable arm (col. 4 lines 3-7) and connected to a distal end portion of the hydraulic cylinder (38 + 40) (see Figs. 4-5);
a locking bolt (48) connected to a distal end portion of the locking arm (col. 4 lines 8-11 “lower extending end portions of linkage members 78 are pivotally secured to pin means 48”), wherein when the locking mechanism is in the engaged position, the locking bolt extends through the aperture of the bracket (as seen in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, Pryor in view Erickson discloses the foldable hydraulic assembly of claim 16. Pryor further teaches a controller (e.g. “valve means”, col. 2 lines 49-52) configured to control the operation of the hydraulic cylinder (38 + 40) in response to a user input, wherein the controller generates a control signal (i.e. the valve “signals” the cylinder by redirecting, restricting, or changing the fluid pressure) to move the hydraulic cylinder between the retracted position (col. 4 lines 59-61 “the operator activates cylinder 40 to retract piston rod 38”), the extended position (col. 4 lines 40-42 “the operator activates fluid pressure cylinder 40 thereby causing piston rod 38 to extend”), and the locked position (col. 3 lines 17-19 “continued movement of the piston rod 38 activates lock means 42”).
Regarding independent claim 19, Pryor discloses a method for remotely deploying a locking hydraulic arm (28 + 30) of a work vehicle, the method comprising:
transmitting a control signal to drive a hydraulic cylinder (38 + 40) (col. 2 lines 49-52 valve means is provided in the drawing vehicle and under control of the operator for directing the flow of the fluid, i.e. the valve “signals” the cylinder by redirecting, restricting, or changing the fluid pressure);
extending the hydraulic cylinder from a retracted position (Fig. 3) to an extended position Fig. 2) in response to the control signal to move the locking hydraulic arm from a folded configuration (Fig. 3) to an unfolded configuration (Fig. 2);
engaging a locking mechanism (42) to prevent the locking hydraulic arm from returning to the folded configuration from the unfolded configuration (col. 4 lines 50-58 “lock means 42…to maintain wing 26 in a locked, unfolded position”),
wherein the locking mechanism is operatively connected to the hydraulic cylinder (col. 3 lines 11-13 “Hinge means 36 is operatively connected to lock means 42 so that activation…by fluid cylinder 40 results in activation of lock means 42”), such that the locking mechanism is automatically engaged by the extending of the hydraulic cylinder after the locking hydraulic arm reaches the unfolded configuration (col. 3 lines 14-19 “upon activation of cylinder 40, piston rod 38 is caused to be extended thus lowering extension tool bar 30…into a working position. Thereafter, continued movement of the piston rod 38 activates lock means 42 thereby locking…tool bar 30 in position”).
Pryor fails to teach wherein the locking mechanism comprises a biasing element configured to return the locking mechanism from the engaged position to the disengaged position
However, such a biasing mechanism is known.
Erickson discloses a pivoting arrangement for a support arm (34) of a work vehicle, wherein the support arm is pivotable between a lowered operating position (Fig. 5) and a raised position (Fig. 7) and configured to be retained in the lowered operating position via a locking mechanism (200), the locking mechanism comprising:
a spring-biased locking bolt (204, Fig. 8) received in aligned openings (168, 242) by means of a locking bolt actuator (240) (para. [0045] “to transition…from the raised position (FIG. 7) to the lowered operating position (FIG. 5), the cam portion 240 contacts the collar 208 causing the pin 210 to move…into the respective latch opening 242”), and
a biasing spring (212) wrapped around the locking bolt and configured to return the locking bolt from an engaged position (Fig. 5) to a disengaged position (Fig. 7) (para. [0047] “latch pin 204 is biased toward the unlatched position such that the pin 210 recedes from…opening 242…when the frame 180…is pivoted about the horizontal pivot axis…to transition the support arm 134 from the lowered position to the raised position, the cam portion 240 rotates allowing the spring 212 to extend and force the pin 210 upwards from the base 154, such that the pin 210 will be disengaged with the respective latch opening 242”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar biasing spring encircling the locking bolt of Pryor, as taught by Erickson, in order to urge the locking pin out of engagement with the receiving member to ensure release of the locking pin when the foldable arm is raised (Erickson at para. [0047]).
Regarding claim 20, Pryor in view of Erickson discloses the method of claim 19. Pryor further teaches retracting the hydraulic cylinder (38 + 40) from the extended position (Fig. 2) to the retracted position (Fig. 3) to disengage the locking mechanism (42) and move the locking hydraulic arm (28 + 30) from the unfolded configuration (Fig. 2) to the folded configuration (Fig. 3) (col. 3 lines 19-23 “piston rod 38 can be caused to be retracted, thus unlocking lock means 42 so that wing 26 can be raised up and over main section 24 by continued retraction of piston rod 38”).
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, these arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment, which does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for the teaching/matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ball et al. (US 4997333 A) discloses a locking pin (80) for reception in aligned holes (81,82), the locking pin having a spring (83) concentrically mounted thereon, the spring being compressed against a mounting member (42) when the locking pin moves into engagement with the holes to create a biasing force urging the locking pin out of engagement with the holes, such that an actuation of an actuating linkage (85) to pivotally move a locking plate (72) allows the spring to move the locking pin to a disengaged position.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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 on (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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights