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 7 is 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 phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 6, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selvam (US 11,584,456) in view of Leake (aka Gosnell) (Us 3,058,600).
Selvam discloses-
a first and a second tracked undercarriage, parallel to each other, each one comprising a relative first and second track 116a, 116b, mounted on a first and a second roller track frame 202, 204 which are fixed laterally to a central body,
a central body configured to support a frame 112 on which there are installed lifting means 128 for movement of an arm 124 configured to move/lift/lay a load, and
wherein a frame 112 is rotatably connected to a central body by means of an adjustment mechanism 260 adapted to tilt a frame with respect to tracked undercarriages, according to a transverse axis X orthogonal to a direction of advancement of tracked undercarriages, characterized in that an adjustment mechanism comprises a pin 260 rotatable integrally to a frame with respect to a central body,
wherein a pin 260 extends according to a transverse axis X and comprises at a first and second end portions that respectively extend through first and second roller track frames 202, 204 towards an outside of a machine and wherein first and second end portions are mechanically connected to an arm arranged laterally to a machine,
wherein pin 260 is placed at an intermediate height between a lower ground support surface of the first and second track and an opposed upper return surface.
Selvam does not disclose first or a second end portion are mechanically connected to an arm arranged laterally to a machine.
Leake discloses-
a first and a second tracked undercarriage (shown but unlabeled in FIGS. 1-3), parallel to each other, each one comprising a relative first and second track (shown but unlabeled in FIGS. 1-3), mounted on a first and a second roller track frames 12, 12,
a central body 10 configured to support a frame on which there are installed lifting means 36 for movement of an arm 18 configured to move/lift/lay pipe 32, and
wherein a frame is rotatably connected to a central body by means of an adjustment mechanism 70 adapted to tilt a frame with respect to tracked undercarriages, according to a transverse axis X orthogonal to a direction of advancement of tracked undercarriages, characterized in that an adjustment mechanism comprises a pin 72 rotatable integrally to a frame with respect to a central body,
wherein a first end portion of a pin is mechanically connected to an arm 14, 16 arranged laterally to a machine,
wherein arm 14, 16, 18 is connected to a first end portion of a pin in a position external to a first roller track frame and at a lower end of an arm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Selvam to include an adjustment pin having a first end portion that extends toward an outside of a roller track frame and is mechanically connected to an arm arranged laterally to a machine, as taught by Leake, such that when a tractor-type vehicle can operate in an inclined position, e.g. sloping terrain, without reducing lifting height.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selvam in view of Leake and further in view of Pletz (US 10,850,952).
Selvam does not disclose a counterweight group. Pletz discloses a frame 20 wherein there is installed a counterweight group 150 opposed to arm 40, preferably comprising an articulated mechanism which is movable with respect to a frame via actuator 145 so as to adjust to a position of an arm and/or of the lifted load. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Selvan to include a counterweight group opposed to an arm, as taught by Pletz, where it is known in the art of pipe laying tractors that a "counterweight assembly is typically provided on an opposite side of the pipelayer machine from the side that the boom is attached to in order to counterbalance the pipelayer machine against the weight of the pipe section and prevent the pipelayer machine from tipping over when the boom is used to raise and lower a pipe section into a trench" Pletz address the problem of delays due to installing or removing counterweights with an articulated counterweight group.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 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 7 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 inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY W ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8101. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8am-5pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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.
/GREGORY W ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights