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 § 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.
Claim 1, 5-7 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 limitation, " one of the hinge shafts of the coupler". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, examiner will interpret “one of the hinge shafts of the coupler” to be “a hinge shaft of the coupler” as a new element introduced in the claim.
Further, the recitation of “one of the hinge shafts of the coupler” in claim 7 will be interpreted as the same “a hinge shaft of the coupler” element defined in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation, “the second heel portion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of the claim. For the purposes of examination, examiner will interpret “the second heel portion” to be a new element introduced in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation, “the first heel portion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of the claim. For the purposes of examination, examiner will interpret “the first heel portion” to be a new element introduced in the 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wimmer as part of US 7198451 B2, hereinafter referred to as Wimmer.
Regarding Claim 1: Wimmer teaches of a bracket for reversibly mounting an excavation bucket on a coupler of an articulated arm, the bracket comprising:
a body (Fig. 2, coupling part 2 comprises a body, defined by plates 14 and 19);
a rear concavity, the rear concavity rearwardly located and oriented rearwardly with respect to a center of the body;
a front concavity frontwardly located with respect to a center of the body and oriented rearwardly (Fig. 9-10, free spaces 24’ and 24 are concave in shape and located forwardly and rearwardly of a vertical centerline of coupling part 2 to define a rear concavity and front concavity respectively, wherein free spaces 24 and 24’ comprise rearwardly oriented sections);
a rear abutment edge and a front abutment edge, by a center of the body (Fig. 10, free space 24 comprises hook 9 (front abutment) and wedge stop face 11' (rear abutment); free space 24' comprises hook 9 (rear abutment) and wedge stop face 11 (front abutment), all disposed by a horizontal centerline of the coupling part 2);
wherein the rear concavity and the front concavity are for alternately receiving one of the hinge shafts of the coupler (Fig. 2, hooks 9 alternatingly receive transverse bar 8);
wherein the front abutment edge and the rear abutment edge are for alternately receiving a stopper of the coupler, thus allowing reversible mounting on the coupler on the bracket (Fig. 2, wedge stop faces 11 and 11' alternatingly receive wedge 10).
Regarding Claim 7: Wimmer teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Wimmer further teaches wherein the rear concavity and the front concavity have a same radius of curvature and respectively form an arc-of-circle, the radius of curvature corresponding to a corresponding portion on one of the hinge shafts of the coupler (Fig. 9, the free spaces 24 and 24' comprise a portion within hook 9 with the same radius of curvature corresponding to bar 8 of the coupling part 1).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wimmer in view of Luyendijk et al as part of US 20110262212 A1, hereinafter referred to as Luyendijk.
Regarding Claim 2: Wimmer teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Wimmer does not teach of a heel portion formed at a rear portion of the body for receiving a blocking bar of the coupler.
Luyendijk teaches of a coupling and bracket for mounting an excavation bucket on an articulated arm, comprising a body (Luyendijk: Fig. 2, mounting bracket 6 comprises flanges 18)
further comprising a heel portion formed at a rear portion of the body for receiving a blocking bar of the coupler in the first one of two reversible configurations (Luyendijk: Fig. 2, flanges 18 further comprise receiving elements 20 configured to receive locking member 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to modify the body of the bracket and coupler taught by Wimmer to comprise a heel portion and blocking bar as taught by Luyendijk to create an apparatus that locks the work tool to the machine to prevent the bracket from unlocking by accident (Luyendijk: Paragraph 20, locking member 19 is arranged to keep brackets 5 and 6 in a locked condition to prevent accidental unlocking). Such a modification would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of adding a locking member that engages the body of the bracket.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wimmer in view of Doyle as part of US 20180002888 A1, hereinafter referred to as Doyle.
Regarding Claim 3: Wimmer teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
While Wimmer does teach that the bracket connects to a bucket (Wimmer: Col. 4, line 67 – Col. 5, line 4, the design allows for an excavator bucket to be attached via the coupling tool to be used with the opening upward or downward), Wimmer does not teach of any specific details of the connection between the bucket and the bracket.
Doyle teaches of a bracket for reversibly mounting an excavation bucket on a coupler of an articulated arm (Fig. 2, bucket 18 is shown to be reversibly mounted on arm 32), comprising a notch at a bottom of the mounting bracket for conforming to a corresponding portion of a bucket assembled with the coupler (Doyle: Fig. 1-2, quick hitch body 12 comprises second attachment point 502, which corresponds to a bucket attachment shown within second attachment point 502).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the unspecified attachment structure of Wimmer with the specific attachment point mechanism of Doyle to create an apparatus that securely couples the work tool to the arm of the machine (Doyle: Paragraph 24, the attachment points 501, 502, and 503 secure a bucket or attachment to an excavator to carry a load). Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of securing a bucket to an arm in a releasable, reversible fashion (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding Claim 4: Wimmer in view of Doyle teaches of the apparatus described in claim 3.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 3, Doyle further teaches wherein the notch is formed at a bottom of a downward arm, a base thereof located by the second abutment formed at a front portion of the body (Doyle: Fig. 1-2, quick hitch body 12 comprises first attachment point 501 disposed at the bottom/distal end of arm 32, which is located by its position as an abutment surface for a bucket attachment shown in Fig. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 5: Wimmer in view of Doyle teaches of the apparatus described in claim 4.
Wimmer further teaches wherein the front concavity is formed by a front arm extending upwardly at the front portion of the body, a base of said front arm comprising the second heel portion (Wimmer: Fig. 2, hooks 9 extend upward from the base of coupling part 2; hooks 9 comprise bearing surfaces 13).
Regarding Claim 6: Wimmer in view of Doyle teaches of the apparatus described in claim 5.
Wimmer further teaches wherein the rear concavity is formed by a rear arm extending upwardly at the rear portion of the body, a base of said rear arm comprising the first heel portion (Wimmer: Fig. 2, hooks 9 extend upward from the base of coupling part 2; hooks 9 comprise bearing surfaces 13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 are allowable over prior art.
Claims 8-9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, while examples of multiple, circular arc shaped abutment surfaces as part of a coupling bracket for an excavation bucket are known in prior art, such as those taught by Wimmer, no such examples were found wherein the rear abutment edge and the front abutment edge have a same radius of curvature and respectively form an arc-of-circle, both being in contact and joined at an apex.
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent on claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, while methods for mounting an excavation bucket on a coupler of an articulated arm are common in the art, and the individual components of the coupler and bracket are found in the art as described in the claim language, such as the coupler described by Lim et al as part of US 7014385 B2 (Fig. Lim: Fig. 3-5, coupling 200), hereinafter referred to as Lim, and the bracket described by Wimmer (Wimmer: Fig. 2, coupling part 2), the combination of such elements to arrive at the claimed invention would be inappropriate. To combine such elements of prior art references would require fundamental changes to the individual elements of each disclosure to allow an unrelated coupler and bracket to securely engage with one another, and as such, would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed.
Claim 11 is allowable as being dependent on claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Busch as part of US 4948328 A teaches of a bracket for reversibly mounting an excavation bucket on a coupler of an articulated arm, the bracket comprising:
a body, a rear concavity, the rear concavity rearwardly located with respect to a center of the body, a front concavity frontwardly located with respect to a center of the body, and a rear abutment edge and a front abutment edge, by a center of the body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN ANTHONY BREGEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0922. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 Eastern, M-F.
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 J 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.
/EVAN A BREGEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights