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 § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 4-6, 8, 12, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Couture (US 7,891,446).
In re claim 1, Couture discloses a vehicle assembly, comprising: a vehicle body (20) having a top deck (80); a basket (as shown in Figure 11) affixed to the top deck; and a crane (600) coupled to the vehicle body, the crane constructed and arranged to lift a hazardous object and place the hazardous object into the basket (column 4, lines 50-62).
In re claim 4, Couture further discloses comprising a wireless interface (Ethernet link communications; column 6, lines 33-42) constructed and arranged to receive control commands from a remote-control station (removable controller unit 350/operator control unit OCU); and control circuitry coupled to the wireless interface, the control circuitry (Ethernet, FET switches, etc.; column 6, lines 58-64) constructed and arranged to operate the crane based on the control commands.
In re claim 5, Couture further discloses comprising a video camera coupled to the crane (column 6, lines 4-10).
In re claim 6, Couture further discloses wherein the vehicle body is part of a tracked vehicle (as shown in Figure 1).
In re claim 8, Couture further discloses wherein the vehicle body is part of a trailer having a towing adapter (rear payload connector 290; as shown in Figure 5).
In re claim 12, Couture further discloses wherein the crane is coupled to the vehicle body via a rotatable platform (80).
In re claim 13, Couture further discloses wherein the crane includes a gripper (as shown in Figure 13) constructed and arranged to grasp the hazardous object.
In re claim 18, Couture discloses a method of operating a vehicle assembly, the method comprising: based on receiving a first set of control commands from a remote controller (removable controller unit 350/operator control unit OCU), driving the vehicle assembly a location of a hazardous object, the vehicle assembly including (i) a vehicle body (20) having a top deck (80) and (ii) a basket (as shown in Figure 11) being affixed to the top deck; based on receiving a second set of control commands from the remote controller, operating a crane (600) coupled to the vehicle body to lift the hazardous object and place the hazardous object into the basket; and based on receiving a third set of control commands from the remote controller, driving the vehicle assembly to transport the hazardous object (Ethernet link communications; column 6, lines 33-42).
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couture in view of Coulter (US 10,414,322).
In re claims 2-3, Couture discloses the vehicle assembly of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the basket includes a base spaced above the top deck, the base constructed and arranged to hold the hazardous object a distance away from the top deck; wherein the base includes multiple receivers on left and right sides of the base, the receivers oriented upwardly and outwardly relative to the base, and wherein the basket further includes multiple side members that slidably engage with the receivers on the left and right sides of the base. Coulter, however, does disclose wherein a basket includes a base (124) spaced above the top deck (68), the base constructed and arranged to hold objects a distance away from the top deck; wherein the base includes multiple receivers on left and right sides of the base, the receivers oriented upwardly and outwardly relative to the base (as shown in annotated Figure 10 below), and wherein the basket further includes multiple side members that slidably engage with the receivers on the left and right sides of the base (as shown in annotated Figure 10 below). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Couture such that it comprised the raised basket of Coulter to advantageously provide additional storage space, both below and above the basket.
PNG
media_image1.png
298
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner-annotated Figure 10
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couture in view of Piacentino (US 9,957,140).
In re claims 15-16, Couture discloses the vehicle assembly of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the vehicle body further includes a sloping back portion extending downwards from the top deck, the sloping back portion constructed and arranged to support the hazardous object as the crane pulls the hazardous object into the basket; or wherein the sloping back portion includes a set of rollers constructed and arranged to reduce friction as the crane pulls the hazardous object into the basket. Piacentino, however, does disclose wherein a vehicle body further includes a sloping back portion (116) extending downwards from the top deck (truck bed), the sloping back portion constructed and arranged to support the hazardous object as the crane pulls the hazardous object into the bed (as shown in Figure 1); and wherein the sloping back portion includes a set of rollers (124) constructed and arranged to reduce friction as the crane pulls the hazardous object into the bed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Couture such that it comprised the deployable sloped ramp and roller of Piacentino to advantageously aid in loading objects onto the deck/basket.
Claims 7, 11, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couture in view of Bunting (US 7,448,838).
In re claim 7, Couture discloses the vehicle assembly of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the tracked vehicle attaches to at least one of: (i) a straight-blade plow, (ii) a V-plow, or (iv) a plow-forklift attachment. Bunting, however, does disclose wherein the tracked vehicle attaches to a straight-blade plow (as shown in Figures 1 and 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Couture such that it comprised the plow of Bunting to advantageously be able to remove obstacles/create level ground for travel.
In re claim 11, Couture further discloses wherein the vehicle body has a first end and a second end opposite the first end, wherein the crane is coupled to the vehicle body at the first end (as shown in Figure 13), but does not disclose wherein the vehicle assembly further comprises first and second outriggers coupled to the vehicle body at the first end, the first and second outriggers constructed and arranged to resist lifting of the second end. Bunting, however, does disclose wherein the vehicle assembly further comprises first and second outriggers (70, 72) coupled to the vehicle body at the first end, the first and second outriggers constructed and arranged to resist lifting of the second end (as shown in Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Couture such that it comprised the outriggers of Bunting to advantageously prevent the vehicle from tipping over when picking up heavy loads.
In re claim 14, Couture further discloses wherein the gripper includes: a central member; and first and second end members constructed and arranged to grasp the hazardous object via respective jaws (as shown in Figure 13), but does not disclose wherein at least one of the first and second end members slidably engaged with the central member. Bunting, however, does disclose a gripper (132) wherein at least one of the first and second end members (174) slidably engaged with the central member (164) (rotationally slides on one another as shown in Figure 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gripper of Couture such that it comprised the slidingly supported jaws of Bunting to advantageously provide additional support to the jaw by being supported by the central component.
In re claim 17, Couture discloses a remote-controlled firefighting vehicle, comprising: a vehicle body (20) having a top deck (80); a basket (as shown in Figure 11) affixed to the top deck; a crane (600) coupled to the vehicle body at a first end of the vehicle body, the crane constructed and arranged to lift a hazardous object and place the hazardous object into the basket (column 4, lines 50-62); and control circuitry (Ethernet, FET switches, etc.; column 6, lines 58-64) constructed and arranged to drive the firefighting vehicle, and operate the crane based on control commands received from a remote controller, but does not disclose first and second outriggers coupled to the first end, the first and second outriggers constructed and arranged to resist lifting of a second end of the vehicle body. Bunting, however, does disclose wherein the vehicle assembly further comprises first and second outriggers (70, 72) coupled to the vehicle body at the first end, the first and second outriggers constructed and arranged to resist lifting of the second end (as shown in Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Couture such that it comprised the outriggers of Bunting to advantageously prevent the vehicle from tipping over when picking up heavy loads.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 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: The specific limitations of “further comprising: a tracked vehicle including a towing hitch receiver constructed and arranged to engage with the towing adapter of the trailer; and control circuitry constructed and arranged to operate both the crane and the tracked vehicle” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not teach the combination of the crane vehicle of claim 1 with the tracked vehicle of claim 9 and common control circuitry.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references cited on the attached PTO-892 teach vehicles of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on (571) 272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights