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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “260” has been used to designate both strap hole and catch. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 14-15 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.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited. Claim 14 is not one sentence form. Please correct.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation, “at least one strap; the second lateral wall further comprising at least one strap hole. one end of the at least one strap being attached to the at least one strap hole”, and the claim also recites “with another end attached to a rear end of a semi-trailer.” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Consider instead, --another end configured to be attached to a rear end of a semi-trailer--, as opposed to the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhou (CN 102078171 A).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou teaches a trailer dustpan (1st annotated image provided below) comprising:
a first lateral wall having a first end and a second end (the back wall of the dustpan represents the first lateral wall);
a second lateral wall having a first end and a second end (the bottom wall of the dustpan represents the second lateral wall);
an end plate (One of the sidewalls of the dustpan);
wherein the first lateral wall and the second lateral wall are joined at an angle to form a V-shaped channel (At the intersection of the walls and endplate a V-shaped channel is formed), and the end plate is attached between the first end of the first lateral wall and the first end of the second lateral wall (The first ends of the walls are denoted as the left sides of the walls that directly connect with the labelled endplate)(Fig. 1; see 1st annotated image).
PNG
media_image1.png
772
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1st Annotated image of Zhou’s foldable dustpan (Figure 1) with the lateral walls and endplate.
Regarding claim 3, Zhou teaches the trailer dustpan as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 1; See 1st annotated image above), wherein the first lateral wall comprises a first section and a second section along a length of the first lateral wall, while the second lateral wall comprises a first section and a second section along a length of the second lateral wall (See 2nd annotated image provided below, the line that divides the 1st lateral wall defines the 1st and 2nd sections of said wall which are labelled. The
PNG
media_image2.png
772
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
line of the 2nd lateral wall defines the 1st and 2nd sections, which are also labelled).
2nd Annotated Image of Zhou’s dustpan with the sections of the walls defined and labelled
Regarding claim 4, Zhou teaches the trailer dustpan as claimed in claim 3 (Fig. 1, see 2nd annotated image), wherein the first section of the first lateral wall has a same length as the first section of the second lateral wall, while the second section of the first lateral wall has a same length as the second section of the second lateral wall (In the 2nd annotated image, the first and second lateral walls share the same length where they connect and the sections are defined so that the first sections have the same length and the second sections also have the same length).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 102078171 A).
Regarding claim 2, Zhou teaches a trailer dustpan as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 1, see 1st and 2nd annotated images above).
Zhou lacks,
the first lateral wall and the second lateral wall are joined at a right angle.
However, there is a finite number of possible solutions that would be obvious to try for the instant invention which are the first lateral wall and the second lateral wall are joined at a right angle, an acute angle, or an obtuse angle.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the solution of the joining the first lateral wall and the second lateral wall at a right angle to Zhou’s dustpan (Fig. 1, see annotated images above) with a reasonable expectation of success of increasing the height of the dustpan’s container portion to allow less sweepings to escape when swept into the dustpan, and the results would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 102078171 A).
Regarding claim 5, Zhou teaches a trailer dustpan as claimed in claim 4 (Fig. 1, see 1st and 2nd annotated images above).
Zhou lacks,
the first section and second section of the first lateral wall are joined together via a first pivot mechanism, and the first section and second section of the second lateral wall are joined together via a second pivot mechanism.
However, Zhou also teaches the first lateral wall, the second lateral wall, and the endplate being joined together by a plurality of pivot mechanisms (Fig. 1, 1st and 2nd annotated images show hinges 3-4 connecting the lateral walls together as well as the endplate with the lateral walls).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to duplicate the existing pivot mechanisms of Zhou’s dustpan and arrange them to separate the first and second sections of the first and second lateral walls (Fig. 1, see 2nd annotated image to view 1st and 2nd sections) so that the first and second sections of both lateral walls are joined together via first and second pivot mechanisms to make the dustpan more foldable and easier to compact, and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 6, Zhou teaches a trailer dustpan as described above in the rejection of claim 5 (Fig. 1, see annotated images above).
Zhou teaches the second sections of the first and second lateral walls being joined together by a pivot mechanism (Fig. 1, 1st and 2nd annotated images show the second sections of the first and second lateral walls joined together by a pivot mechanism).It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to duplicate and arrange the existing pivot mechanisms of Zhou’s dustpan (Fig. 1, see 2nd annotated image) as outlined in the rejection of claim 5, and have the second sections of the lateral walls be joined together by a third pivot mechanism to make the dustpan more foldable and easier to compact as stated before, and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 7, Zhou teaches a trailer dustpan as described above in the rejection of claim 6 (Fig. 1, see 1st and 2nd annotated images).
PNG
media_image3.png
772
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Zhou teaches the endplate being attached to the first end of the first lateral wall via a pivot mechanism. (Fig. 1, 3rd annotated image provided below shows a labelled pivot mechanism joining the endplate and the first lateral wall’s first end).
3rd Annotated Image of Zhou’s Dustpan (Figure 1) where the pivot mechanism connecting the first lateral wall’s first end and the endplate is labelled
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to duplicate and arrange the existing pivot mechanisms of Zhou’s dustpan (see 2nd annotated image) as outlined in the rejection of claim 6, and have the endplate and the first wall’s first end be connected via a fourth pivot mechanism to make the dustpan more foldable and easier to compact as stated before, and the results would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 102078171 A) in view of Chin-Chuan et al. (TW 201737855 A).
Regarding claim 8, Zhou teaches a trailer dustpan as described above in the rejection of claim 7 (Fig. 1, see annotated images above).
Zhou lacks,
the end plate further comprising a latch, and the second lateral wall further comprises a catch.
However, Chin-Chuan et al. teaches a latch-and-catch mechanism that holds two parts of a dustpan together. (Figs. 5 and 8, latching structure 54 represents the “latch” against the “catch”, latching structure 35, because 54 is a movable structure that hooks onto 35, and 35 keeps 54 in place to lock the shank 2 and cymbal housing 3 of the dustpan in place)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Chin-Chuan et al.’s latch-and-catch mechanism (54 and 35) with Zhou’s dustpan as described in the claim 7 rejection (Fig. 1, see 1st and 2nd annotated images) in a way where the latch (54) is comprised by the endplate and the catch (35) is comprised by the second lateral wall for the purpose of preventing the dustpan from folding in one itself and allowing trash to escape when in use, and the results would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 102078171 A) in view of Power (AU 3027395 A).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou teaches a trailer dustpan as described above in the rejection of claim 7 (Fig. 1, see annotated images above).
Zhou lacks,
the first lateral wall further comprises a plurality of gusset plates.
However, Power teaches a gusset plate (Fig. 3, Col. 5 lines 2-4, gusset plate 4).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate Power’s gusset plate (4) and combine them with Zhou’s dustpan (Fig. 1, see 1st and 2nd annotated images) in a way where the plates are arranged on first lateral wall (see 1st and 2nd annotated images) for the purpose of keeping the dustpan stabilized in one position when touching a surface like the floor, preventing any trash from spilling out of the dustpan, and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 10, Zhou teaches a trailer dustpan as described above in the rejection of claim 9 (Fig. 1, see annotated images above).
Zhou lacks,
each of the plurality of gusset plates being attached to the first lateral wall via a fifth pivot mechanism.
However, Zhou does teach a plurality of pivot mechanisms (movable joint 1 and hinges 3-4, Fig. 1), and Power teaches a gusset plate (Fig. 3, Col. 5 lines 2-4, gusset plate 4).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate Power’s gusset plate (4) and Zhou’s pivot mechanisms and combine them with Zhou’s dustpan described in the rejection of claim 9 (Fig. 1, see 1st and 2nd annotated images) in a way where each gusset plate is attached to the 1st lateral wall via a fifth pivot mechanism for the purpose of keeping the dustpan stabilized in one position to prevent any trash from spilling out of the dustpan, and making the gusset plates foldable with the rest of the dustpan, and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 11, Zhou teaches a trailer dustpan as described above in the rejection of claim 10 (Fig. 1, see annotated images above).
Zhou teaches at least one of the first pivot mechanism, the second pivot mechanism, the third pivot mechanism, the fourth pivot mechanism, and the fifth pivot mechanism being hinges (Fig. 1, claim 1 recites the pivot mechanism joining the first lateral wall and the endplate (see annotated figures above), denoted as the 4th pivot mechanism, being a detachable hinge).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to duplicate and arrange the existing pivot mechanisms of Zhou’s dustpan (see 2nd annotated image) as outlined in the rejection of claim 10, and have one of the pivot mechanisms of the dustpan be hinges for the previously stated purpose of making the dustpan more compact and foldable, and the results would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 102078171 A) in view of Power and in further view of Jackson (US6460220B1).
Regarding claim 12, Zhou teaches a trailer dustpan as described above in the rejection of claim 11 (Fig. 1, see annotated images above).
Zhou lacks,
the hinges are spring-loaded.
However, Jackson teaches a spring-loaded hinge for opening and closing a door (torsion spring 60 is the spring-loaded mechanism of spring hinge 10, Col. 3 lines 25-40; Col. 4 lines 34-44) and that it is well known to incorporate spring loading mechanisms in hinges (Col. 1 lines 5-47).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to replace at least one of Zhou’s existing hinge mechanisms outlined in the rejection of claim 11 (Fig. 1, see annotated figure above) with Jackson’s spring-loaded hinge (10) in a way that made at least one of the hinges default to an open/unfolded position for the purpose of providing even more security to the dustpan so that it doesn’t collapse or fold when being used, and the results would have been predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 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 an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: With regards to claim 13, the present invention pertains to a trailer dustpan. It is the examiner's opinion that the art of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious of providing that;
The dustpan further comprises a bracket having a first end and a second end; each of the first end and the second end of the bracket comprising a claw and a positioning nub; and the first lateral wall and the second lateral wall each comprising, adjacent to their respective second end, a positioning hole to receive the positioning nub and a cutout portion to receive the claw, together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the independent claims.
Claims 14-15 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.
Conclusion
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BUKATUN NOOR CHOWDHRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0152. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/BUKATUN NOOR CHOWDHRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/SHAY KARLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights