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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 3/25/2025 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because at least claim 6 contains underlined text that was previously presented (i.e., "a centerpiece" in lines 2-3). Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
The claims are being further examined as presented. However, such errors in further replies may lead to these replies being found non-responsive.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. As set forth in the Non-Final Rejection of 9/25/2024, the following claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "a mounting apparatus" in claims 1, 12, and 16; and "a rotation plate assembly" in claims 4 and 20. Further regarding the claim interpretation of claims 1, 12, and 16, limitations of a blade assembly "carrying a vertical hinge member" are interpreted to mean said blade assembly includes said vertical hinge member. Additionally regarding claim 19, "a forward centerpiece" is interpreted to be an element of the claimed device (i.e., the pusher blade) due to the manner in which the forward centerpiece is introduced (i.e., "each of said first and second blade assemblies is connected to a forward centerpiece") and in light of the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 12, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 1 recites "said hinge member" in lines 12-13 (rather than "said vertical hinge member" as "vertical hinge member" is referred to in claim 6);
claims 1, 12, and 16 have been amended to recite "the side of said pusher blade" in their last line(s) (rather than "a side of said pusher blade");
claim 3 contains a period following "frame" in line 3 (rather than a comma);
claim 3 recites "said opposing first and second blade assemblies" in lines 5-6 (rather than "said first and second blade assemblies" as recited elsewhere throughout the claims), and consistent terminology should be used (i.e., without adding additional language such as "opposing" so as not to be referring to claimed elements in alternative manners throughout the claims);
claim 6 recites "a centerpiece said centerpiece forming part of said frame," in lines 2-3 (appears to be missing a comma between "centerpiece" and "said");
claim 7 recites "a lateral directions" in line 2 (rather than "a lateral direction" or "lateral directions");
claim 7 recites "said first and second opposing blade assemblies" in lines 2-3 (rather than "said first and second blade assemblies" as recited elsewhere throughout the claims), and consistent terminology should be used (i.e., without adding additional language such as "opposing" so as not to be referring to claimed elements in alternative manners throughout the claims);
claim 7 recites "the a selected positioning" in line 3 (rather than "a selected positioning");
claim 7 recites "selected angle" in line 3 (rather than "a selected angle"); and
claim 7 recites "the opposing first and second blade assemblies" in lines 4-5 (rather than "the first and second blade assemblies" as recited elsewhere throughout the claims), and consistent terminology should be used (i.e., without adding additional language such as "opposing" so as not to be referring to claimed elements in alternative manners throughout the claims).
Appropriate correction (or explanation) is required.
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 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 claims are replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The following are examples of indefiniteness in the claims, but due to the numerous errors in the claims, the following is not considered to be exhaustive:
Claim 3 recites "said blade assembly includes first and second blade assemblies," in lines 1-2. As similarly set forth in labeled para. 26 in the Non-Final Rejection of 9/25/2024, it is unclear if the features (e.g., a main frame member and a wing member) of the blade assembly introduced in claim 1 (from which claim 3 depends) are required by each of, by either of, or separate from the first and second blade assemblies. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 3 cannot be determined, and claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 6-11 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 3. Additionally, claim 3 is being further examined as though "wherein said blade assembly includes first and second blade assemblies," reads "wherein said blade assembly is a first blade assembly, the pusher blade further comprising a second blade assembly, and wherein" in lines 1-2.
Regarding claim 6, the recitation of each of the first and second blade assemblies (first recited in claim 3) as including a main blade and a trailing wing member is vague and indefinite. As claim 1 recites a general blade assembly with a respective main blade and wing member, it is not clear if the claim intends to define the main blade in claim 1 as a separate element, or if the main blade elements of the first and second blade assemblies cumulatively define the main blade. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 6 cannot be determined, and claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 7-11 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 6.
Further, claim 6 recites "a centerpiece said centerpiece forming part of said frame," in lines 2-3. However, claim 3 (from which claim 6 depends) previously sets forth "a forward centerpiece, forming part of said frame." It is unclear whether these are the same centerpiece or another centerpiece is being introduced. Therefore, claim 6 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 6 is being further examined as though it reads:
"The pusher blade of Claim 3,
wherein said first and second blade assemblies are secured at forward ends thereof by respective hinges to said centerpiece,
said second blade assembly having a main blade member, a wing member, and a vertical hinge member,
wherein each main blade member of said first and second blade assemblies is connected to said centerpiece, and
wherein each wing member of said first and second blade assemblies is connected to a rearward end of a respective main blade member of the main blade members of the first and second blade assemblies by a respective vertical hinge member of the vertical hinge members of the first and second blade assemblies."
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said t" in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because "at least one transverse frame member" was introduced in claim 3.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said t" in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because "at least one transverse frame member" was introduced in claim 3.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a selected positioning of said transverse frame members" in lines 3-4. First, it is unclear how "a selected positioning" is required or of the claimed pusher blade since it is introduced in a clause without relation to the pusher blade. Second, it is unclear how "a selected positioning" of the at least one transverse frame member as claimed further limits the claim since "a selected positioning" is neither defined for the at least one transverse frame member itself nor definitively linked to any particular structure of the at least one transverse frame member. Therefore, the limitations required by claim 7 are indefinite, and claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 7 is being further examined as though "the a selected positioning of said transverse frame members defining selected angle..." reads "wherein a selected telescopic positioning of said at least one frame member defines a selected angle..." in lines 3-4.
Claim 8 is indefinite because it recites "a pivot bracket" in line 2. A singular pivot bracket can be connected to the various structures as required by the claim. However, claim 9 (which depends from claim 8) appears to require multiple pivot brackets, and the specification shows two pivot brackets 33. Further, Applicant argues that "a pivot bracket is defined as being connected to each respective wing member, which clearly defines multiple pivot brackets." (See Remarks of 3/25/2025, labeled p. 10.) It is unclear if claim 8 requires a single pivot bracket (as taken from the language of claim 8) or two pivot brackets (as implied by claim 9, as taken from the specification, and as argued by Applicant). Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 8 cannot be determined, and claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 8 is being further examined as though it reads:
"The pusher blade of Claim 7 further comprising:
first and second pivot brackets; and
first and second actuators,
wherein each pivot bracket is connected to a respective wing member of the wing members of said first and second blade assemblies and to a respective actuator of the first and second actuators to pivot the respective wing member about the vertical hinge member on which the respective wing member is mounted."
Claim 9 recites the limitation "each said pivot bracket" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 8 only recites a singular "a pivot bracket" in line 2, and claim 8 does not necessarily require multiple pivot brackets. Therefore, claim 9 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Further regarding claim 9, recitations of "the corresponding main blade member" in line 2, "the wing member" in line 2, "the trailing wing member" in line 3, and "the main blade member" in lines 3-4 are vague and indefinite. It is unclear to what "the corresponding main blade member" corresponds. It is unclear if "the wing member" and "the trailing wing member" are the same or different wing members, and it is unclear if these wing members are of the first or second blade assembly. Similarly, it is unclear if "the main blade member" is of the first or second blade assembly. Claim 9 is replete with indefinite recitations and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, as best understood from the specification and in accordance with the further reading of claim 8 as set forth above, claim 9 is being further examined as though it reads:
"The pusher blade of Claim 8,
wherein the first pivot bracket is formed with a first stop member that engages the main blade member of the first blade assembly when the wing member of the first blade assembly is pivoted to the home position to keep the wing member of the first blade assembly in alignment with the main blade member of the first blade assembly when in the home position, and
wherein the second pivot bracket is formed with a second stop member that engages the main blade member of the second blade assembly when the wing member of the second blade assembly is pivoted to a home position of the second blade assembly to keep the wing member of the second blade assembly in alignment with the main blade member of the second blade assembly when in the home position of the second blade assembly."
Claim 11 recites "the corresponding said main blade member" in lines 4-5. It is unclear to what "the corresponding said main blade member" corresponds and in what manner it corresponds. Further, it is unclear if "the corresponding said main blade member" is of the first or second blade assembly. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 11 is being further examined as though it reads:
"The pusher blade of Claim 6 wherein each of said first and second blade assemblies can be positioned at different angles of repose, and wherein a maximum angle of deflection for each respective wing member of said first and second blade assemblies is approximately 90 degrees to permit each respective wing member to be oriented perpendicular to a respective main blade member of the main blade members of said first and second blade assemblies."
Claim 19 recites "said blade assembly includes first and second blade assemblies," in lines 1-2. As similarly set forth in labeled para. 26 in the Non-Final Rejection of 9/25/2024, it is unclear if the features (e.g., a main frame member and a wing member) of the blade assembly introduced in claim 16 (from which claim 19 depends) are required by each of, by each of, or separate from the first and second blade assemblies. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 19 cannot be determined, and claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 19 is being further examined as though "wherein said blade assembly includes first and second blade assemblies," reads "wherein said blade assembly is a first blade assembly, the pusher blade further comprising a second blade assembly, and wherein" in lines 1-2.
Further, claim 19 recites "each of first and second blade assemblies is connected to a forward centerpiece..." in lines 2-3. As such, "a forward centerpiece" is not definitively set forth as an element of (i.e., part of) the claimed device (i.e., the pusher blade), and it is unclear whether "a forward centerpiece" is an element of (i.e., part of) the pusher blade or merely being set forth in an intended use of the pusher blade. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 19 cannot be determined, and claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any further errors which Applicant may become aware in the claims or which may arise in amendments. Applicant is respectfully requested to carefully review any amended claim language.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gamble II (US 2009/0307941; hereinafter referred to as "Gamble").
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Gamble discloses a pusher blade for moving and distributing material over a planar surface, comprising:
a frame including a mounting apparatus (including 100 and/or 130) adapted for connection of said frame to a prime mover (such as 60), said frame further including a transverse frame member (including 200);
a blade assembly (including 250) supported by said frame forwardly of said mounting apparatus when said mounting apparatus is connected to a forward end of said prime mover (see Fig. 29), said blade assembly being positionally adjustable (via 252) to orient said blade assembly (about 230) at an angle of repose relative to a forward direction of movement of the pusher blade, said angle of repose extending diagonally with respect to the forward direction of movement of the pusher blade (when angled via 252 as selected; see para. 0074);
the blade assembly including a main blade member (250), supported by said frame at said angle of repose, and carrying a vertical hinge member (including 308, 310, 312) at a rearward end thereof (the rearward most end when angled via 252, which is opposed to a forward end as defined by the specification and claim 6) to define a pivot axis (through 312); and
the blade assembly further including a wing member (one of 300) mounted to said vertical hinge member and being pivotable between a home position in alignment with the main blade member in said angle of repose and a maximum angle of deflection moving said wing member forwardly relative to said direction of travel (see Figs. 19, 25, 26, and 29), said blade assembly being configured to operate over a planar path to distribute material to a side of said pusher blade (configured to operate over a planar surface since the bottom edge of the blade assembly is shown to be straight, and configured to distribute material to a side when one 300 is aligned with 250 and/or when the blade assembly is angled as set forth in para. 0074).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Gamble discloses an actuator (including 328) supported on said main blade member (250) and connected to said wing member (one of 300) to power pivotal movement of said wing member relative to said main blade member.
Regarding claim 18, Gamble discloses a pivot bracket (including 322, 332, and 336) connected to said wing member and said actuator to pivot said wing member about said hinge member, said pivot bracket being formed with a stop member (along the surfaces of 322 and 332 facing 250) engageable with said main blade member when the wing member is pivoted to the home position (see Fig. 25) to keep the wing member in alignment with the main blade member.
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 12, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roessler et al. (US 3,526,047; hereinafter referred to as "Roessler")
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Roessler discloses a pusher blade for moving and distributing material over a planar surface, comprising:
a frame including a mounting apparatus (including 11) adapted for connection of said frame to a prime mover (via or including 12), said frame further including a transverse frame member (including 115);
a blade assembly (including first 110 and first 130) supported by said frame forwardly of said mounting apparatus (110 shown supported to the left of, i.e., forwardly of, 11 in Fig. 1) ***[when said mounting apparatus is connected to a forward end of said prime mover]*** What is a "prime mover"? Does the operator station, frame, and/or wheels of Roessler meet the limitation? Due to the conditional, this interpretation does not need to be made or necessarily addressed, but these questions might be relevant in the future.***, said blade assembly being positionally adjustable (via 115) to orient said blade assembly (about 86) at an angle of repose relative to a forward direction of movement of the pusher blade, said angle of repose extending diagonally with respect to the forward direction of movement of the pusher blade (see Fig. 1);
the blade assembly including a main blade member (including first 110), supported by said frame at said angle of repose, and carrying a vertical hinge member (including first 132) at a rearward end thereof to define a pivot axis; and
the blade assembly further including a wing member (including first 130) mounted to said vertical hinge member and being pivotable (via first 136) between a home position in alignment with the main blade member in said angle of repose (see Fig. 1) and a maximum angle of deflection moving said wing member forwardly relative to said direction of travel (when first 136 is extended), said blade assembly being configured to operate over a planar path to distribute material to a side of said pusher blade (configured for such operation when positioned as shown in Fig. 1; additionally, each ground surface shown in Fig. 2 is flat, and the blade assembly is configured to operate over a planar path, as it operates over each ground plane in Fig. 2, to distribute material to a side).
It is also noted that certain limitations of claims 1 and 16 (i.e., the blade assembly being "supported by said frame forwardly of said mounting apparatus") are only required by the claimed apparatus under certain conditions (i.e., "when said mounting apparatus is connected to a forward end of said prime mover,") that are not always required when considered under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard.
Regarding claim 3, Roessler discloses said blade assembly (including first 110 and first 130) being a first blade assembly, and the pusher blade further comprising a second blade assembly (including second 110), and wherein each of said first and second blade assemblies is connected to a forward centerpiece (including 62), forming part of said frame, to orient said first and second blade assemblies at opposing angles of repose relative to said direction of travel (see Fig. 1), said frame including at least one transverse frame member (including 115) interconnecting said first and second blade assemblies.
Regarding claim 6, Roessler discloses said first and second blade assemblies (including first and second 110) being secured at forward ends thereof by respective hinges (including first 85 and including second 85) to said centerpiece,
said second blade assembly having a main blade member (including second 110), a wing member (including second 130), and a vertical hinge member (including second 132),
wherein each main blade member (including first 110 and including second 110) of said first and second blade assemblies is connected to said centerpiece (via 85), and
wherein each wing member (including first 130 and including second 130) of said first and second blade assemblies is connected to a rearward end of a respective main blade member (including first 110 or including second 110) of the main blade members of the first and second blade assemblies by a respective vertical hinge member (including first 132 or including second 132) of the vertical hinge members of the first and second blade assemblies.
Regarding claim 7, Roessler discloses said at least one transverse frame member (including 115) being telescopic (via 118, 122) in a lateral direction (upwardly and/or downwardly in Fig. 1) to support said first and second blade assemblies (including first and second 110) at varying angles of repose, wherein a selected telescopic positioning of said at least one transverse frame member defines a selected angle of repose for each of the first and second blade assemblies (members including 115 being selectively actuated).
Regarding claim 8, Roessler discloses the pusher blade further comprising:
first and second pivot brackets (including first 142 and including second 142); and
first and second actuators (including first 136 and including second 136),
wherein each pivot bracket (including first 142 and including second 142) is connected to a respective wing member (including first 130 and including second 130) of the wing members of said first and second blade assemblies and to a respective actuator (including first 136 or including second 136) of the first and second actuators to pivot the respective wing member about the vertical hinge member (including first 132 or including second 132) on which the respective wing member is mounted.
Regarding claim 10, Roessler discloses said first and second actuators (including first 136 and including second 136) being hydraulic cylinders (see col. 5, lines 38-44).
Regarding claim 12, Roessler discloses a pusher blade for moving material along a surface, comprising:
a frame including a mounting apparatus (including 11) adapted for connection of said frame to a prime mover (via or including 12), a centerpiece (including 62), and a transverse frame member (including 115);
a first blade assembly (including first 110) and a second blade assembly (including second 110) secured at forward ends thereof to said centerpiece (including 62) and being supported by said transverse frame member (including 115) located forwardly of said mounting apparatus (110 shown supported by 115 to the left of, i.e., forwardly of, end 18 of 11 in Fig. 1), said blade assemblies being oriented at respective angles of repose relative to a forward direction of movement of the pusher blade (see Fig. 1), said transverse frame member (including 115) interconnecting said first and second blade assemblies to provide support thereto (see Figs. 1, 3);
each said blade assembly including a main blade member (respective 110), supported by said centerpiece and said frame in said angle of repose, and carrying a vertical hinge member (including 132) at a rearward end thereof to define a pivot axis; and
each said blade assembly further including a wing member (respective 130) mounted to the corresponding hinge member and being pivotable (via respective 136) between a home position in alignment with the corresponding main blade member in said angle of repose (see Fig. 1) and a maximum angle of deflection moving said wing member forwardly relative to said direction of travel (when respective 136 is extended), each said blade assembly being configured to operate over a planar path to distribute material to a side of said pusher blade (configured for such operation when positioned as shown in Fig. 1; additionally, each ground surface shown in Fig. 2 is flat, and each blade assembly is configured to operate over a planar path, as each operates over a respective ground plane in Fig. 2, to distribute material to a side).
Regarding claim 17, Roessler discloses the pusher blade with respect to claim 16, as set forth above, further comprising an actuator (including first 136) supported on said main blade member (including first 110) and connected to said wing member (including first 130) to power pivotal movement of said wing member relative to said main blade member.
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 4, 5, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gamble in view of Waterman (US 3,822,751; hereinafter referred to as "Waterman").
Regarding claims 4 and 20, Gamble discloses the pusher blade with respect to claims 2 and 17, as set forth above. Gamble does not explicitly disclose a rotation plate assembly as claimed. However, Waterman teaches a pusher blade comprising a frame (including 10 and/or 15) and a blade assembly (including 60), wherein said frame further includes a rotation plate assembly (including or of 25E and/or 40) that permits rotation of said blade assembly about a horizontal, longitudinally extending axis of rotation to move the blade assembly between a left delivery orientation and a right delivery orientation (see Fig. 6), as the roll of the blade assembly alters relative delivery of material laterally.
Waterman is analogous because Waterman discloses a front-end mounted pusher blade comprising a frame and a blade assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pusher blade of Gamble with the rotation (i.e., roll) means as taught by Waterman in order to adjust the angle of the blade assembly to the surface, as is desirable. (See Waterman, col. 1, lines 6-55, and col. 6, lines 11-36.)
Regarding claim 5, Waterman teaches said rotation plate assembly being supported by a mounting apparatus and including a longitudinally oriented rotation shaft (including or of 25E) and a vertical rotation plate (front plate of 40, shown in Fig. 1) supported on said rotation shaft for rotation about said shaft.
Claims 9, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roessler in view of Gamble.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Roessler discloses the pusher blade with respect to claims 8 and 17, as set forth above, and further regarding claim 18, Roessler discloses a pivot bracket (including first 142) connected to said wing member (including first 130) and said actuator (including first 136) to pivot said wing member about said vertical hinge member (including first 132). Roessler does not explicitly disclose each pivot bracket being formed with a stop member as claimed. Gamble teaches a pusher blade comprising respective pivot brackets (including 332) connected to respective wing members (including 300) and a respective actuator (including 328), wherein each pivot bracket is formed with a stop member (including 326) that engages a main blade member (via 324) when the respective wing member is pivoted to a home position (see Fig. 25) to keep the respective wing member in alignment with the main blade member when in the home position.
Gamble is analogous because Gamble discloses a pusher blade comprising a blade assembly having a main blade member and a wing member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pivot brackets of Roessler with the stop means as taught by Gamble for limiting the rearward pivotal movement of the wing members. Additionally, providing Roessler with the stop means of Gamble is:
a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the blade assemblies of Roessler and the pivot brackets of Gamble) according to known methods to yield predictable results; and
a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the pivot bracket of Gamble) for another (i.e., the pivot bracket of Roessler) to obtain predictable results. See MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claim 19, Roessler discloses said blade assembly (including first 110 and first 130) being a first blade assembly, and the pusher blade further comprising a second blade assembly (including second 110), and wherein each of said first and second blade assemblies is connected to a forward centerpiece (including 62) to orient said first and second blade assemblies at opposing angles of repose relative to said direction of travel (see Fig. 1).
Claims 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roessler in view of Curtis (US 4,723,609; hereinafter referred to as "Curtis").
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Roessler discloses the pusher blade with respect to claims 6 and 12, as set forth above. Roessler also discloses each said blade assembly cable of being positioned at different angles of repose (via actuation of 115 and/or 116). Roessler does not explicitly disclose the maximum angle of deflection for each said wing member being approximately 90 degrees, wherein each said wing member is oriented perpendicular to the corresponding said main blade member. Curtis teaches a pusher blade for moving material along a surface, comprising:
a blade assembly including a main blade member (10), carrying a vertical hinge member (including 25) at an end thereof to define a pivot axis (through 26); and
said blade assembly further including a wing member (one of 11) mounted to said hinge member and being pivotable between a home position in alignment with the main blade member (when respective 45 is contracted) and a maximum angle of deflection moving said wing member forwardly relative to said direction of travel (when respective 45 is extended, as shown in Fig. 1),
wherein the maximum angle of deflection for said wing member is approximately 90 degrees to permit said wing member to be oriented perpendicular to said main blade member (see Fig. 1).
Curtis is analogous because Curtis discloses a pusher blade comprising a blade assembly having a main blade member and a wing member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pusher blade of Roessler with the angle and positioning means as taught by Curtis in order to contain material when desired. (See Curtis, col. 1, lines 25-62, and col. 9, lines 10-24)
Regarding claim 14, Roessler discloses said first and second blade assemblies (including 110) being pivotally connected to said centerpiece (including 62) about respective vertical pivots (at respective 86) carried by said centerpiece; and said transverse frame member (including 115) further including opposing telescopic portions (including 118, 122) connected respectively to said first and second blade assemblies, wherein selected positioning of said telescopic portions defines said angle of repose for each of the opposing first and second blade assemblies (members including 115 being selectively actuated).
Regarding claim 15, Roessler discloses movement of said telescopic portions (including 118, 112) permitting selective adjustment of said angle of repose.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendments to the claims have clarified some aspects of the claims. Based on the amendments, claims 3, 6-11, and 19 have been clarified to the extent to be interpreted and rejected on the basis of prior art, as set forth above. However, claims 3, 6-11, and 19 remain indefinite for the reasons set forth above. Further regarding claim 9 in particular, Applicant argues: "(12) 'each said pivot bracket' in Claim 9 has antecedent basis in Claim 8 where a pivot bracket is defined as being connected to each respective wing member, which clearly defines multiple pivot brackets." (See Remarks of 3/25/2025, labeled p. 10.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because a straightforward reading of "a pivot bracket" is a singular pivot bracket and in context, a singular pivot bracket can be connected to each respective wing member as argued and claimed. Additionally, Applicant's argument raises further indefiniteness because it is unclear if the limitations of "a pivot bracket" can be met by a single pivot bracket, multiple pivot brackets, or either a single pivot bracket or multiple pivot brackets. Accordingly, claim 9 remains indefinite, and the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained. Further, claim 8 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because its recitation of "a pivot bracket" and limitations thereof are indefinite.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 16-18 as being anticipated by Gamble, Applicant argues: "Applicant has amended independent Claims 1 and 16 to define the angle of repose as extending diagonally with regard to the direction of travel. Applicant respectfully submits that the Gamble reference teaches a blade member that is positioned perpendicularly to the direction of travel of the apparatus and would not be operable to move material, such as feed for dairy animals into feed troughs, as Applicant's pusher blade is configured to do." (See Remarks of 3/25/2025, labeled p. 11.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because Gamble explicitly teaches a blade member (250) being angled about vertical pivot (230) as selected: "The swing cylinder 252 as selectively operated by a user of the snow plow 50 can rotate the central plow blade 250 about the pivot 230. The degree of rotation of the plow blade relative to the plow frame 170 is established by the extension capabilities of the swing cylinders 252 as selected by an operator." (See Gamble, para. 074.) These degrees of rotation define angles of repose extending diagonally with regard to the direction of travel. Further, Gamble teaches moving particulate material, such as snow, gravel, and soil, (see Gamble, para. 0089) and thus would be capable of moving material, such as feed for dairy animals into feed troughs.
Regarding the rejection of claim 12 as being anticipated by Roessler, Applicant argues: "While the Roessler reference teaches a machine that is somewhat similar to Applicant's invention in general construction, the Roessler machine is not configured to be operable over a planar surface to move material to the side of the machine, as the Roessler machine is designed to form a ditch in the soil, where the ditch has a bottom, sides and upper portion that are certainly not in a planar surface." (See Remarks of 3/25/2025, labeled p. 12.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because the pusher blade of Roessler is shown configured over a planar surface (see Fig. 1) and would be capable of operating as such to move material to the side of the machine. Additionally when considering the pusher blade of Roessler forming a ditch as shown in Fig. 2, the bottom, sides, and upper portions of the ditch are shown to be flat, and thus, each blade assembly is configured to operate over a planar path, as each operates over a respective ground plane in Fig. 2, to distribute material to a side. Although the ditch in Fig. 2 as a whole is not considered to be planar, the ditch shown comprises planar surfaces, over which the blade assembly (or blade assemblies) operates, and Roessler’s operation over at least one of these surfaces meets the claim limitations of operating over a planar path.
Regarding the rejection of claims 4, 5, and 20 over Gamble in view of Waterman, Applicant argues: "... the structure of Waterman does not create an option of having a left or right delivery. The movement of the blade assembly that would be attached to the Waterman mounting apparatus would only be vertical, as shown in Fig. 6 of Waterman, which would tilt the cutting surface of the blade to enable engagement along a non-horizontal surface. This movement of Waterman is not the same as disclosed in Applicant's invention. Gamble combined with Waterman would not be able to push material to the side of the blade assembly." (See Remarks of 3/25/2025, labeled pp. 12-13.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because Waterman shows rotation about a horizontal, longitudinally extending axis of rotation in Fig. 6, and one skilled in the art would recognize that during operation over a horizontal surface, the raised side of the blade assembly (as shown by the dot dash lines in Fig. 6) would permit material to pass under the blade assembly at that side to be delivered to that side. Additionally, Gamble teaches rotation of the blade assembly about a vertical pivot, as explained above, and this rotation allows material to be pushed to a side of the blade assembly and further lends to right or left delivery of material in the combination.
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually (particularly those against Curtis), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joel F. Mitchell whose telephone number is (571)272-7689. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00.
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.
/JFM/9/24/25
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671