DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
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 11 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.
Claim 11 recites “wherein slides are displaceably mounted in the guide elements, to which the clamping actuators” which is unclear as it appears to be unfinished. For purposes of examination, it has been examined as if written “wherein slides are displaceably mounted in the guide elements,
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, 6-7, 9, 12-13, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tavernier (EP0811724A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Tavernier discloses a soil processing apparatus, for creating a trench, which apparatus is connectable to a work-performing machine (as disclosed in para. [0002]), comprising
a frame (1) extending along a longitudinal axis, which has a rectangular cross-section transverse to the longitudinal axis (See Fig. 1),
a soil processing tool (2) arranged on a lower section (1a) of the frame (1),
a clamping device (11) with at least two clamping elements arranged on opposite sides of the frame (See Fig. 1, where four clamping elements are arranged on the lateral sides of the frame), which are actively adjustable relative to the frame (1) in order to press the clamping elements against inner walls of a trench (See para. [0029]-[0030] where it discloses the frame is provided “with a plurality of positioning pads 11 that make it possible to guide the apparatus as it descends into the trench…In particular if the apparatus begins to deviate from its vertical trajectory, its orientation is corrected by acting on certain skids 11 so as to the orient the chassis”), and
a feed device (10) for generating a feed force on the soil processing tool within a trench, by means of which the clamping elements (11) and the frame (1) can be actively adjusted relative to each other along the longitudinal axis (See para. [0026]-[0033] where it discloses the “thrust” created by feed device 10 in order to affect vertical movement of the frame and soil processing tool),
wherein the clamping elements (11) are arranged on the short sides of the frame (Se Fig. 1 where the claimed short sides of the frame correspond to the two lateral sides of the frame depicted).
Regarding claim 6, Tavernier discloses the soil processing apparatus of claim 1, and also discloses wherein the feed mechanism (10) comprises at least one feed actuator (as seen in Fig. 1) by means of which the frame can be displaced relative to the clamping elements (11) in a state in which it is jammed in the trench via the clamping elements (See para. [0026]-[0033] where it discloses “the pads 11 make it possible to position the immobilized frame appropriately in the trench”).
Regarding claim 7, Tavernier discloses the soil processing apparatus of claim 1, and also discloses wherein the frame has a modular structure and comprises a lower frame part (1a) supporting the soil processing tool (2), an upper frame part (1b) connectable to a work-performing machine and a centre frame part installed between them, wherein the frame parts can be detachably connected to each other via connecting elements.
Regarding claim 9, Tavernier discloses the soil processing apparatus of claim 1, and also discloses wherein the clamping device comprises at least two clamping elements on each of the short sides of the frame (as seen in Fig. 1), which are arranged one above the other (as seen in Fig. 1) and which can be actuated alternately via the feed device (10) in such a way that a feed force can be generated by means of first feed actuators (See Fig. 1 where the left actuator 10 corresponds to the first feed actuator) by jamming via a first opposite pair of clamping elements (i.e., when the clamping elements 11 anchor the frame in the trench as disclosed in para. [0031] the first feed actuator is provided with hydraulic control circuits which make it possible to control the thrust exerted on the tool as disclosed in para. [0033]), while a second opposite pair of clamping elements are moved freely relative to the frame by means of second feed actuators (i.e., when the apparatus is proceeding down the trench, and the lower clamping elements are anchored to the trench wall, but the upper clamping elements are not and therefore are “moved freely” relative to the second feed actuator which is the right actuator 10 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 12, 13, and 16, Tavernier discloses the soil processing apparatus of claim 1, and also discloses wherein the soil processing apparatus is configured as a diaphragm wall cutter and the soil processing tool comprises at least one cutter wheel (See cutting wheels in Fig. 2, note that the cutter wheels are features of a diaphragm wall cutter).
Regarding claim 18, Tavernier discloses the soil processing apparatus of claim 6, and also discloses wherein the at least one feed actuator (10) is configured as a hydraulic cylinder (as depicted in Fig. 2), by means of which the frame can be displaced relative to the clamping (See para. [0026]-[0033] where it discloses the “thrust” created by feed device 10 in order to affect vertical movement of the frame and soil processing tool), wherein each clamping element (11) is articulatedly connected (at least operably) to the frame via a separate feed actuator (10).
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 2-5, 10-11, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tavernier in view of Chagnot (EP0593355).
Regarding claim 2, Tavernier discloses the soil processing apparatus of claim 1. Although, Tavernier fails to disclose the instant claimed limitations, it incorporates details of the clamping elements disclosed by Chagnot (EP0593355) in para. [0029] which are compatible with the apparatus of Travernier.
Chagnot discloses, wherein no clamping elements are arranged on the long sides of the frame (See Fig. 1 where the only clamping elements are disposed on the short side of the frame, i.e., the two depicted lateral sides).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the embodiment of the clamping elements disclosed by Chagnot to the apparatus disclosed by Tavernier. Such a modification merely constitutes the substitution of a known clamping element for a specific embodiment of a clamping element to produce the predicated result of guiding the apparatus down the trench as is known in the art (see MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding claim 3, Tavernier discloses the soil processing apparatus of claim 1. Although, Tavernier fails to disclose the instant claimed limitations, it incorporates details of the clamping elements disclosed by Chagnot (EP0593355) in para. [0029] which are compatible with the apparatus of Travernier.
Chagnot discloses, wherein no clamping elements are arranged on the long sides of the frame (See Fig. 1 where the only clamping elements are disposed on the short side of the frame, i.e., the two depicted lateral sides).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the embodiment of the clamping elements disclosed by Chagnot to the apparatus disclosed by Tavernier. Such a modification merely constitutes the substitution of a known clamping element for a specific embodiment of a clamping element to produce the predicated result of guiding the apparatus down the trench as is known in the art (see MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding claim 4, Tavernier discloses the soil processing apparatus of claim 1. Although, Tavernier fails to disclose the instant claimed limitations, it incorporates details of the clamping elements disclosed by Chagnot (EP0593355) in para. [0029] which are compatible with the apparatus of Travernier.
Chagnot discloses, wherein the clamping device (7, 8) comprises at least one clamping actuator (11) by means of which the clamping elements can be actively adjusted relative to the frame (See para. [0046]-[0048] where it discloses each clamping element has a respective hydraulic cylinder “which allows the pads 7 and 8 to be tilted as in the case of figure 2”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the embodiment of the clamping elements disclosed by Chagnot to the apparatus disclosed by Tavernier. Such a modification merely constitutes the substitution of a known clamping element for a specific embodiment of a clamping element to produce the predicated result of guiding the apparatus down the trench as is known in the art (see MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding claim 5, Tavernier discloses the soil processing apparatus of claim 1. Although, Tavernier fails to disclose the instant claimed limitations, it incorporates details of the clamping elements disclosed by Chagnot (EP0593355) in para. [0029] which are compatible with the apparatus of Travernier.
Chagnot discloses, wherein the clamping elements (7, 8) can be actively adjusted (via their respective cylinders as discussed in claim 4 above) in their orientation relative to the longitudinal axis in order to influence the orientation of the soil processing apparatus relative to the trench (See para. [0046]-[0048] where it discloses each clamping element has a respective hydraulic cylinder “which allows the pads 7 and 8 to be tilted as in the case of figure 2”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the embodiment of the clamping elements disclosed by Chagnot to the apparatus disclosed by Tavernier. Such a modification merely constitutes the substitution of a known clamping element for a specific embodiment of a clamping element to produce the predicated result of guiding the apparatus down the trench as is known in the art (see MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding claim 10, Tavernier discloses the soil processing apparatus of claim 1. Although, Tavernier fails to disclose the instant claimed limitations, it incorporates details of the clamping elements disclosed by Chagnot (EP0593355) in para. [0029] which are compatible with the apparatus of Travernier.
Chagnot discloses, wherein the clamping elements (7, 8) are adjustable via separate clamping actuators (as disclosed in para. [0047]-[0048] and depicted in Fig. 3) and the clamping elements are mounted so that they can be moved in guide elements of the frame that run parallel to the longitudinal axis (i.e., they guide the frame down the trench if deviations occur).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the embodiment of the clamping elements disclosed by Chagnot to the apparatus disclosed by Tavernier. Such a modification merely constitutes the substitution of a known clamping element for a specific embodiment of a clamping element to produce the predicated result of guiding the apparatus down the trench as is known in the art (see MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding claim 11, Tavernier discloses the soil processing apparatus of claim 1. Although, Tavernier fails to disclose the instant claimed limitations, it incorporates details of the clamping elements disclosed by Chagnot (EP0593355) in para. [0029] which are compatible with the apparatus of Travernier.
Chagnot discloses, wherein slides are displaceably mounted in the guide elements (See Fig. 3 where the slides are horizontally and displaceably mounted in the guide elements which are the clamping elements 7,8 as they guide along the trench walls).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the embodiment of the clamping elements disclosed by Chagnot to the apparatus disclosed by Tavernier. Such a modification merely constitutes the substitution of a known clamping element for a specific embodiment of a clamping element to produce the predicated result of guiding the apparatus down the trench as is known in the art (see MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding claim 17, the combination discloses the soil processing apparatus of claim 3. Although, Tavernier fails to disclose the instant claimed limitations, it incorporates details of the clamping elements disclosed by Chagnot (EP0593355) in para. [0029] which are compatible with the apparatus of Travernier.
Chagnot discloses, wherein the at least one clamping actuator is configured as a hydraulic cylinder, by means of which the clamping elements can be actively adjusted relative to the frame, wherein each clamping element is adjustable via at least one separate clamping actuator, which is connected to the associated clamping element and to the frame (See para. [0046]-[0048] where it discloses each clamping element has a respective hydraulic cylinder “which allows the pads 7 and 8 to be tilted as in the case of figure 2”; See Fig. 3 for depiction of the hydraulic cylinders).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the embodiment of the clamping elements disclosed by Chagnot to the apparatus disclosed by Tavernier. Such a modification merely constitutes the substitution of a known clamping element for a specific embodiment of a clamping element to produce the predicated result of guiding the apparatus down the trench as is known in the art (see MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding claim 20, the combination discloses the soil processing apparatus of claim 10. Chagnot, of the combination, also discloses wherein the clamping actuators are supported on the guide elements (as seen in Fig. 3) in order to press the clamping elements (7,8) against the inner walls of a trench.
Claims 7-8, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tavernier in view of Rhomberg et al. (Pub. No.: 2020/0232183; hereinafter Rhomberg).
Regarding claim 7, Tavernier discloses the soil processing apparatus of claim 1, but fails to disclose the instantly claimed limitations. Rhomberg discloses a modular slurry wall cutter (title). Unlike Tavernier, Rhomberg discloses wherein the frame comprises a lower frame part supporting the soil processing tool, an upper frame part connectable to a work-performing machine and a centre frame part installed between them, wherein the frame parts can be detachably connected to each other via connecting elements (See abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the frame of Tavernier, to be the modular frame of Rhomberg, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to “provide a slurry wall cutter that enable a use under different working conditions with different demands with respect to the working height” so that “it is no longer necessary to make use of separate slurry wall cutters hang different overall heights or length for the respective work deployment , which produces a huge cost advantage” (See para. [0005]-[0009]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination discloses the soil processing apparatus of claim 7. Tavernier, of the combination, also discloses wherein the centre frame part comprises the clamping device and the feeding device (See Fig. 1 where the clamping device 11 and feed device 10 are disposed in the center portion of the frame).
Regarding claim 14, the combination discloses the soil processing apparatus of claim 7. Rhomberg, of the combination, also discloses at least one further centre frame part which can be installed between the upper and lower frame parts instead of the centre frame part comprising the clamping and/or feed device, wherein at least one further centre frame part has neither a clamping device nor a differently configured clamping device (See para. [0022] where it discloses “the use of more than one removable middle frame part”, and since the middle frame parts of Rhomberg are not provided with the clamping devices, the further centre frame has neither a clamping device not a differently configured clamping device as required by the claim).
Regarding claim 19, the combination discloses the soil processing apparatus of claim 7. Rhomberg, of the combination, also discloses wherein the upper and lower frame parts can each be detachably connected to each other both directly and via the centre frame part that can be arranged between them (See abstract).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tavernier in view of Casagrande (Pub. No.: 2007/0245599).
Regarding independent claim 15, Tavernier discloses a method for creating a trench by means of a soil processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the soil processing apparatus is configured as a diaphragm wall cutter (See cutting wheels in Fig. 2, note that the cutter wheels are features of a diaphragm wall cutter) but fails to specifically disclose the remaining limitations. Casagrande discloses a similar soil processing apparatus that is configured as a diaphragm wall cutter (See para. [0001]).
More specifically, Casagrande discloses producing two spaced-apart diaphragm wall panels (74) by filling two trenches crated by means of the soil processing apparatus with concrete (as disclosed in para. [0005]), wherein the distance between the primary panels (74) is smaller than the width of the primary panels along their long side (as seen in Fig. 5); and producing a trench (77) connecting the primary panels by milling or excavating the gap between the primary panels (74) using the soil processing apparatus (as disclosed in para. [0047]), wherein edge sections (79) of the diaphragm panels (74) are also milled off, wherein, when creating the trench (as disclosed in para. [0047] and depicted in Figs. 3-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the method of Travernier, to be the method of Casagrande, with a reasonable expectation of success, as excavating using primary panels and a closing panel is well known method of excavating a trench in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are directed towards soil processing apparatuses and are considered reasonably pertinent: Rodriguez (Pub. No.: 2021/0270000); Cascarino (Pub. No.: 2019/0085524); and Arzberger (Pub. No.: 2011/0253450). Additional references relevant but not cited here can be found in the attached 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Audrey L Lusk whose telephone number is (571)272-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. 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.
/A.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JAMIE L MCGOWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
