DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
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 3, 8, and 10-19 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.
With respect to claim 3, it is unclear if the spindle recited in the claim is the same spindle as the one recited in claim 1 from which claim 3 depends. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as being the same structure.
With respect to claim 8, it is unclear what is being referred to regarding the first attachment plate and the second attachment plate. For the purpose of examination, the limitations will be interpreted as the first and second attachment points.
With respect to claims 10, 11, and 15 it is unclear if 112(f) has been invoked. Claim limitation “a motive force means” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the term “means” or generic placeholder is modified by a word, which is ambiguous regarding whether it conveys structure or function. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claims 11-19 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 10-13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auer (US 2020/0199940) in view of Stephens (US 2022/0325582).
With respect to claim 1: Auer discloses a work machine (Fig. 1), comprising:
a transport (100), comprising:
a loader frame (102);
a prime mover (104; ¶ [0035]) disposed within the loader frame (¶ [0035]; Fig. 1);
at least one motive ground engaging member (106a, 106b) attached to the loader frame and configured to translate the loader frame (¶ [0035]; Fig. 1); and
a connector (¶ [0036]; structure that attached the load frame, 102, to the drill frame, 202) attached to the loader frame (¶ [0036]; Fig. 1);
a drill (200), comprising:
a drill frame (202) attachable to the connector (¶ [0036]);
a carriage (204), movable along the drill frame and powered by the prime mover (¶ [0035, 0037, 0039]);
a spindle (214), carried by the carriage and configured to rotate a drill string (201, 203; ¶ [0038-39]), wherein the spindle is powered by the prime mover (¶ [0035, 0037-39]); and
a wrench (216), configured to make up and break out pipe segments from the drill string (¶ [0039]), wherein the wrench is powered by the prime mover (¶ [0035, 0037-39]).
Auer does not disclose the transport is a compact utility loader or that the connector is a lift arm pivotally attached to the load frame.
Stephens teaches a compact utility loader (12; ¶ [0026]) with at least one motive ground engaging member (106a, 106b) attached to the loader frame and configured to translate the loader frame (wheels in Fig. 1), a load frame (main body of 12 in Fig. 1), and a lift arm (arm connecting body/load frame of 12 to 14; ¶ [0026]) pivotally attached to the load frame (Figs. 1 and 4 show the arm pivoting between two positions). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to replace the transport of Auer with the compact utility loader with a lift arm of Stephens, while still keeping the load frame and prime mover in the same claimed configuration (i.e., prime mover disposed with the loader frame), with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would perform the same predictable result of transporting the drill and have the added advantage of making the drill replaceable (Stephens ¶ [0026] teaches the auger is an attachment assembly which means it can be removed, i.e., replaced)
With respect to claim 3: The combination of Auer and Stephens teaches a system comprising: the work machine of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Auer from the combination of Auer and Stephens further teaches a pipe box (220) containing a plurality of pipe segments (¶ [0039, 0066]), each of the plurality of pipe segments being configured for attachment to a spindle (¶ [0039, 0066]).
With respect to claim 4: Auer from the combination of Auer and Stephens further teaches a pair of feet (310, 304a, 304b, 360; ¶ [0041, 0043-46]) disposed on the drill frame and configured for attachment to the drill frame in a plurality of configurations (¶ [0041, 043-46]), in which each of the plurality of configurations adjusts a tilt of the drill frame relative to a ground surface (¶ [0036, 0052]).
With respect to claim 5: Auer from the combination of Auer and Stephens further teaches the prime mover comprises a combustion engine (¶ [0035]).
With respect to claim 6: Auer from the combination of Auer and Stephens further teaches the prime mover comprises a battery (¶ [0035]; either as part of the electric motor or as part of the combustion engine in order to start said engine).
With respect to claim 10: Auer discloses a drilling system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a prime mover (104; ¶ [0035]);
a transport (100) comprising a motive force means (106a, 106b), and a connector (¶ [0036]; structure that attached the load frame, 102, to the drill frame, 202);
a drill (200; not including 220) comprising:
a drill frame (202), attached to the lift arm (¶ [0036]);
a spindle (214) powered by the prime mover (¶ [0035, 0037, 0038-39]); and
a wrench (216) powered by the prime mover (¶ [0035, 0037, 0038-39]);
wherein the prime mover is not supported on the drill frame (¶ [0035]; Fig. 1).
Auer does not disclose the transport is a compact utility loader or that the connector is a lift arm, wherein the lift arm is configured for connection to a plurality of attachments
Stephens teaches a compact utility loader (12; ¶ [0026]) with at least one motive ground engaging member (106a, 106b) attached to the loader frame and configured to translate the loader frame (wheels in Fig. 1), a load frame (main body of 12 in Fig. 1), and a lift arm (arm connecting body/load frame of 12 to 14; ¶ [0026]), wherein the lift arm is configured for connection to a plurality of attachments (¶ [0026]; teaches the auger is an attachment assembly which means it can be removed, i.e., replaced with different structures). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to replace the transport of Auer with the compact utility loader with a lift arm of Stephens, while still keeping the load frame and prime mover in the same claimed configuration (i.e., prime mover disposed with the loader frame), with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would perform the same predictable result of transporting the drill and have the added advantage of making the drill replaceable (Stephens ¶ [0026] teaches the auger is an attachment assembly which means it can be removed, i.e., replaced)
With respect to claim 11: Auer from the combination of Auer and Stephens further teaches the prime mover is situated on the compact utility loader (¶ [0035]; Fig. 1), and wherein the prime mover further powers the motive force means and the lift arm (¶ [0035, 0037-39]).
With respect to claim 12: Auer from the combination of Auer and Stephens further teaches a pipe box (220), the pipe box containing a plurality of pipe segments (¶ [0038-39, 0066]), wherein the plurality of pipe segments are configured for end-to-end connection (¶ [0038-39, 0066]).
With respect to claim 13: Auer from the combination of Auer and Stephens further teaches the pipe box is separate from the drill (¶ [0038-39, 0066]).
With respect to claim 17: Auer from the combination of Auer and Stephens further teaches the drill frame comprises at least two adjustable feet (310, 304a, 304b, 360; ¶ [0041, 0043-46]) disposed on a first end of the drill frame (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 18: Auer from the combination of Auer and Stephens further teaches the drill further comprises an anchor (300).
With respect to claim 19: Auer from the combination of Auer and Stephens further teaches the anchor is powered by the prime mover (¶ [0035, 0040-41]).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Auer and Stephens as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Herrick (US 2022/0412166).
With respect to claim 14: The combination of Auer and Stephens teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except for the drill comprises an operator station disposed on the drill frame, in which the operator station comprises a control configured to operate the spindle and the wrench.
Herrick teaches a drill comprises an operator station (82) disposed on the drill frame, in which the operator station comprises a control (54, 72, 74, 80; ¶ [0006, 0027, 0036, 0045]) configured to operate the spindle and the wrench (¶ [0006, 0027, 0036, 0045]).
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the operator station of Herrick with the invention of Auer and Stephens with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would decrease the footprint of the equipment by allowing the operator to sit on the drill instead of standing beside the drill (Herrick ¶ [0008, 0032]).
With respect to claim 15: Stephens from the combination of Auer, Stephens, and Herrick further teaches the compact utility loader comprises a loader operator station (seat inside of 12 in Fig. 1), in which the loader operator station comprises a control configured to operate the motive force means and the lift arm (controls in 12 that allow the wheels and arms to move as in Figs. 1, 4, and 13 and provide transport ¶ [0030-31]).
With respect to claim 16: Herrick from the combination of Auer, Stephens, and Herrick further teaches the operator station comprises a seat (82; Fig. 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7, and 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.
Claim 8 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 art of records does not teach or make obvious the configuration where the carriage moves in a direction traverse to the direction of movement of the ground engaging member/loader frame in combination with the other claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTYN A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-8384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, 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.
/KRISTYN A HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672