DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01 JUN 26 have been fully considered but they are not completely persuasive.
Though Applicant’s point that US 5,189,243 to Hambric is devised as a different type of mine-clearing piece of equipment, i.e., one that plows mines out of the ground, as opposed to simply detonating mines by use of skids bearing pressure thereupon, it must be noted that Hambric fairly discloses the claimed invention. Hambric discloses a plurality of interconnected elongate skids as elements, e.g., shoes 22, Figs. 1-3, which are clearly elongate and interconnected via, inter alia, 21, 51, 8, and of which three are shown. Applicant notes that Hambric discusses such at col. 4, ll. 67, to col. 5, ll. 15, wherein Hambric discloses
It is contemplated that each skid shoe bearing arm 21 will be of identical configuration and interchangeable. Damage caused in the field by an exploding mine 10a can be efficiently repaired by replacement of arm 21 or attached shoe 22 which may be joined, to each other and to push beam assemblies 17, by removable pins 50 or other fastening devices. Id., at col. 5, ll. 1-8.
Thus, Hambric clearly contemplates the shoes detonating mines and, because Hambric further discloses the skids being in a spaced configuration in which apertures are present between adjacent skids sufficient to allow gas and ejecta to pass therethrough, Hambric further meets these limitations.
While the examiner agrees that amended claim 19 appears to overcome the prior art and previous rejection(s), claim 20 does not because all limitations are met above with respect to claim 1. Note that Hambric clearly shows spacings of at least 50mm being present between adjacent skids, which suffices as a basis of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
For these reasons, the rejections must stand as noted above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hambric.
Re: claim 1, Hambric discloses the claimed invention including a mine clearing apparatus 1, e.g., Fig. 1, for a vehicle 2, the mine clearing apparatus comprising: a plurality of interconnected elongate skids, inter alia, 22, for sliding along ground while applying pressure to the ground in order to trigger detonation of mines in the ground (col. 4, ll. 67, through col. 5, ll. 15), the skid arrangement having a plurality of apertures (inter alia, as between elements 21, 22, 51, and crossmembers attaching such to 8, e.g., Fig. 2) therein such that gas and/or ejecta, generated by a mine detonation triggered by the interconnected elongate skids is able to pass through the skids (blast clearly shown in Fig. 1); and an arm, inter alia, 17 for coupling the skids to the vehicle and for causing the skids to apply pressure to the ground in order to trigger detonation of mines in the ground (fairly shown/disclosed).
Re: claim 2, Hambric further discloses wherein at least some of the apertures increase in size in a length and/or width dimension as the aperture extends in a depth dimension away from the ground, e.g., between elements 21 and 51).
Re: claim 4, Hambric further discloses wherein each of the elongate skids is elongate in a length dimension that is aligned with a length dimension of the vehicle when the arm couples the skids to the vehicle (fairly demonstrated by longitudinal axis 5).
Re: claim 6, Hambric further discloses further comprising one or more connectors, e.g., 8, 17, 20 arranged to connect adjacent elongate skids, of the plurality of elongate skids, in a spaced configuration (shown) such that at least one aperture, of the plurality of apertures, is present between adjacent pairs of elongate skids (shown).
Re: claim 7, Hambric further discloses wherein the one or more connectors are arranged to space adjacent elongate skids from each other in a width dimension that is aligned with a width dimension of the vehicle when the arm couples the skids to the vehicle, e.g., Fig. 8.
Re: claim 8, Hambric further discloses wherein when the one or more connectors are arranged such that when the plurality of elongate skids contact the ground, the one or more connectors are spaced from the ground (fairly shown/disclosed).
Re: claim 9, Hambric further discloses wherein a thickness of each elongate skid is tapered (e.g., Fig. 3, where bottom of 22 meets top thereof at the frontmost end).
Re: claim 10, Hambric further discloses wherein the thickness of each elongate skid is tapered, such that the thickness reduces in a depth dimension in a direction away from the ground. This appears to be adequately shown in the cited figure.
Re: claim 11, Hambric further discloses wherein at least a portion of an underside of one or more of the plurality of elongate skids is curved. See frontmost end, noted above.
Re: claim 16, Hambric fairly discloses a vehicle 33.
Re: claim 17, Hambric further discloses wherein a proximal end (as attached to beam 30) of the arm is coupled to a front of a body of the vehicle, e.g., Fig. 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 13-15, 18, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hambric in view of Klebanov.
Re: claim 13, Hambric discloses the claimed invention as applied above except for wherein the arm is a fluid powered arm that is configured to apply ground-wards pressure to the skid arrangement.
Klebanov teaches a mine clearing apparatus including sufficiently similar elements to claim 1, e.g. Fig. 1 (see also, previous action) and further including an arm 29, e.g., Fig. 2, wherein the arm is a fluid powered arm (via, inter alia, 40, 41) that is configured to apply ground-wards pressure to the skid arrangement (cf. Figs. 2 and 4) in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of raising the apparatus out of operational position and returning such to the operational position, col. 3, ll. 37-54.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hambric as taught by Klebanov to position the apparatus as desired with a reasonable expectation of success because Klebanov further discloses such “permit[s] free travel of the supporting vehicle,” id., ll. 33-37.
Further rationale: All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was made.
Re: claim 14, Klebanov further discloses further comprising at least one fluid powered actuator 40, 41 configured to apply ground-wards pressure to the arm in order to cause the arm to apply pressure to apply ground-wards pressure to the skid arrangement. See above.
Re: claim 15, Klebanov further discloses wherein the at least one fluid powered actuator is a hydraulic or pneumatic actuator, id., ll. 37-38.
Re: claim 18, Klebanov further discloses the proximal end of the arm is pivotally coupled to the front of the body of the vehicle (via, inter alia, pivot 30) and a distal end of the arm is coupled to the skid arrangement (as at plate 28).
Re: claim 20, see explanation and relevant claim(s), above.
Re: claim 22, Hambric in view of Klebanov discloses the claimed invention except for generating a force of at least 20kN. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to generate such a force, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 21 have been allowed.
Claim 12 is 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. Note, however, that inclusion of such in claim 1 must differ from the exact language of claim 19 to avoid an objection of duplicate or substantially duplicate claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Bret Hayes at telephone number (571) 272 – 6902, fax number (571) 273-6902, or email address bret.hayes@uspto.gov, which is preferred, especially for requesting interviews, general questions, etc. Note, however, that return correspondence cannot be made in the event that information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 122 has been included. See MPEP §§ 502.03 and 713.01, I, regarding email communications. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays from 5:30 AM to 1:30 PM, Eastern.
The Central FAX Number is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to contact the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers, can be reached at (571) 272 – 6874.
/Bret Hayes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
20-Jul-26
Prosecution Insights