The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claims 2, 8, 15 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 2, line 2, and claim 17, line 2, “a” (2nd occurrence) should be --the--;
claim 8, penultimate line, “with” should be --when--;
claim 15, penultimate line, --the-- should be inserted before “shaker” (1st occurrence).
Appropriate correction is required.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims {1, 2, 5 and 6} and { 8, 9, 12 and 13} are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5/4/2/1 and 12/11/9/8, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/755127 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims of the instant application are fully encompassed within the claims of the reference application (i.e., they are merely broader).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3/1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,168,568. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims sought to be patented are fully encompassed within the scope of the patented claim (i.e., the pending claims are merely broader).
Claims {1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12 and 13} and {15, 16, 19 and 20} are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9/1 and 11/1, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,065,308. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims sought to be patented are fully encompassed within the scope of the patented claims (i.e., the pending claims are merely broader).
Claims {1-3, 5-10 and 12-14} and {15-17, 19 and 20} are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8/7/1 and 10/7/1, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11,414,267. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims sought to be patented are fully encompassed within the scope of the patented claims (i.e., the pending claims are merely broader).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-10 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hachenberg (DE 102008013940, cited by applicant).
Hachenberg discloses several embodiments of a tipper assembly comprising:
a base (such as but not necessarily limited to 36; Figs 14-22);
an actuator 34 coupled to the base, the actuator including a transmission (not shown but described in the paragraph spanning pages 5-6 of the English translation provided in the parent application);
an arm 35 coupled to the actuator;
an implement 33/41 coupled to the arm and configured to engage with a container 6 such that operation of the actuator facilitates pivoting the container from a base position to a dump position (Figs. 18-22); and
a shaker assembly configured to facilitate providing a shake function when the container is in the dump position (not separately identified but described in the last full paragraph on page 5 of the above-noted translation).
Hachenberg further discloses one or more linkages (e.g., the lower arm of 33) extending between the transmission and the lower retainer (at least indirectly).
Hachenberg does not explicitly disclose that the shaker assembly is coupled to the actuator and includes the one or more linkages to provide the shake function via movement of the transmission when the container is in the dump position.
However, since the transmission is disclosed as being between the rotation axis of the motor and the pivoting device (as noted in the paragraph spanning pages 5 and 6 of the above-noted translation), and since the shaking function involves moving the waste container back and forth several times, it is believed that one of ordinary skill in the art would logically conclude that repeatedly reversing the output of the actuator through the use of the transmission rather than the actuator itself is implicit within the reference, or at the very least that utilizing movement of the transmission would have been an obvious means for providing the shake function. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Hachenberg such that the shaker assembly was coupled to the actuator and included the one or more linkages to provide the shake function via movement of the transmission, as the examiner takes Official Notice that a transmission is a well-known means of converting rotary motion of an output from an actuator into an alternating rotary (i.e., "shaking) motion of a device or implement coupled to the actuator, and would preclude the necessity of repeatedly reversing the motion of the actuator itself, thus simplifying the movement operation and extending the life of the motor.
Re claim 2, the implement includes an upper retainer 33 and a lower retainer 41 that are configured to engage with [a] the container.
Re claim 3, Hachenberg shows at least that the one or more linkages are coupled to the lower retainer.
Re claim 7, Hachenberg further discloses in the above-noted passage of the translation that the transmission is positioned between the arm and the actuator along a pivot axis of the arm.
Re claims 8 and 9, as all the limitations thereof are contained within claims 1 and 2 treated above, no additional analysis is deemed necessary.
Similarly, claims 10 and 14 are treated in the same manner an analogous claims 3 and 7 above.
Re claim 15, at least the portion of the implement with indicia thereon (Figs. 16, 23-25) is considered to be a “shaker plate”, as broadly recited. As such, when treated in the same manner described above with respect to claims 1 and 8, during operation with the container in the dump position, the shaker assembly would be configured to provide the shake function via the shaker plate in response to movement of the transmission.
Claims 16-17 are treated in the same manner as analogous claims 9-10 above.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hachenberg in view of Heneveld, Jr. et al (US 10,610,429, cited by applicant).
Hachenberg does not disclose that the transmission includes a cycloidal drive.
Heneveld shows an actuator 48 for moving a member 56 (analogous to the claimed arm) relative to a patient support 20 (analogous to the claimed base), wherein the actuator includes a motor 64 and a cycloidal drive 72 (col. 4:25-57 and col. 5:32-59). This results in a compact mechanism and improved packaging within the apparatus.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Hachenberg by providing a cycloidal drive as part of the actuator (e.g., the transmission thereof), as suggested by Heneveld, to provide a compact mechanism that would be easily packaged within the confines of the environment in which it operates.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hachenberg in view of Clergeau (EP 2457850, cited by applicant).
Re claims 5, 12 and 19, Hachenberg does not disclose that the transmission includes a planetary gear set.
Clergeau shows a generally similar tipper assembly for dumping containers wherein “planetary gear motors” 17 are utilized for performing the dumping operation. Although the term transmission is not used with respect to the planetary gears, it is believed, based on what is shown in Fig. 3, that one of ordinary skill would understand that the planetary gears are part of a transmission assembly attached to the motors rather than being part of the motors themselves.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Hachenberg by configuring the transmission to include a planetary gear set, as shown by Clergeau, as this would simply be one of a finite number of known types of transmissions from which to choose for the purpose of effectively and reliably transferring power from a motor to effect a tipping motion, the selection of which in the apparatus of Hachenberg would have neither required undue experimentation nor produced unexpected results.
Re claims 6, 13 and 20, insofar as a ring gear is an inherent component of a planetary gear set, the one or more linkages of the modified shaker assembly of Hachenberg would obviously be coupled to such a ring gear to provide the shake function.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Keenan whose telephone number is (571)272-6925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
/James Keenan/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
7/21/26
Prosecution Insights