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 .
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinlage et al. (USPGPub 2015/0271980) in view of Bruce (USPGPub 2011/0147018).
Regarding claim 1: Steinlage discloses a ground engaging agricultural tillage blade (as seen in figures 1-17) comprising:
a disc (as seen in figure 2, at 139) having a central opening (as seen in figure 2, at 147) adapted to be attached to an implement for rotation about an axis of rotation (as seen in figures 1 and 2); and,
the disc having an outer periphery.
Further, Steinlage discloses having a plurality of notches in the disc from a location substantially at the outer periphery to the central opening (as seen in figure 2) but fails to show those notches being step plane. However, Bruce teaches that it is well known in the tillage blade art to provide a disc having a plurality of steps or “planes” (as seen in figure 3, at 10t, 21, 20t and 23). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provides the device of Steinlage with the teachings of Bruce since it would be a simple matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable results of a tillage disc better equipped to manage cut soil and hold a better cutting edge for a longer period of time.
Regarding claim 2: Steinlage as modified by Bruce discloses a ground engaging agricultural tillage blade of claim 1. Further, Steinlage discloses wherein the notches are of uniform depth (as seen in figure 2).
Regarding claim 3: Steinlage as modified by Bruce discloses a ground engaging agricultural tillage blade of claim 1. Further, Steinlage discloses wherein the disc is convex on one side and concave on the other (as seen in figure 4, at 138 and 139).
Regarding claim 5: Steinlage as modified by Bruce discloses a ground engaging agricultural tillage blade of claim 1. Further, Steinlage discloses wherein a hub is attached to the disc around the central opening (as seen in figure 17, at 147).
Regarding claim 6: Steinlage as modified by Bruce discloses a ground engaging agricultural tillage blade of claim 1. Further, Steinlage discloses wherein substantially aligned holes are disposed through the blade and through the hub and threaded fasteners extend through the aligned holes for holding the hub fixed to the blade (as seen in annotated figure 10 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
276
345
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8: Steinlage discloses a ground engaging agricultural tillage blade (as seen in figures 1-17) apparatus comprising:
a disc (as seen in figure 2, at 139) having a central opening (as seen in figure 2, at 147) adapted to be attached to an implement for rotation about an axis of rotation;
the disc having an outer periphery; and,
a hub being attached to the disc around the central opening (as seen in annotated figure 10 above). Further, Steinlage discloses a plurality of notches in the disc from a location substantially at the outer periphery to the central opening (as seen in figure 2) but fails to show those notches being step plane. However, Bruce teaches that it is well known in the tillage blade art to provide a disc having a plurality of steps or “planes” (as seen in figure 3, at 10t, 21, 20t and 23). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provides the device of Steinlage with the teachings of Bruce since it would be a simple matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable results of a tillage disc better equipped to manage cut soil and hold a better cutting edge for a longer period of time.
Regarding claim 9: Steinlage as modified by Bruce discloses a ground engaging agricultural tillage blade of claim 8. Further, Steinlage discloses wherein substantially aligned holes are disposed through the blade and through the hub and threaded fasteners extend through the aligned holes for holding the hub fixed to the blade (as seen in annotated figure 10 above).
Regarding claim 10: Steinlage as modified by Bruce discloses a ground engaging agricultural tillage blade of claim 8. Further, Steinlage discloses the apparatus further comprising at least two discs (as seen in figure 4, at 138 and 139).
Regarding claim 12: Steinlage as modified by Bruce discloses a ground engaging agricultural tillage blade of claim 8. Further, Steinlage discloses wherein the notches are of uniform depth (as seen in figure 2).
Regarding claim 13: Steinlage as modified by Bruce discloses a ground engaging agricultural tillage blade of claim 8. Further, Steinlage discloses wherein the disc is convex on one side and concave on the other (as seen in figure 4, at 138 and 139).
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemm et al. (USP 2,749,694) in view of Bruce (USPGPub 2011/0147018).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 15: Klemm discloses a ground engaging agricultural tillage blade apparatus (as seen in figures 1-7) comprising:
at least two discs (as seen in figure 1, at 18, 19, 20), each having a central opening (as seen in figure 1, at 22) adapted to be attached to an implement for rotation about a substantially horizontal axis of rotation (as seen in figure 3, define thru 22);
each disc having an outer periphery; and
a plurality of notches (as seen in figures 1-5) in each disc from a location substantially at the outer periphery to the central opening.
Further, Klemm discloses wherein a spacer spool (as seen in figure 5, at 21) is disposed on a shaft (as seen in figure 3, connected via nut at 22; also, column 2, lines 55-60) between the at least two discs, the spacer spool extending radially outwardly from the center opening but fails to show those notches being step plane. However, Bruce teaches that it is well known in the tillage blade art to provide a disc having a plurality of steps or “planes” (as seen in figure 3, at 10t, 21, 20t and 23). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provides the device of Steinlage with the teachings of Bruce since it would be a simple matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable results of a tillage disc better equipped to manage cut soil and hold a better cutting edge for a longer period of time.
.
Regarding claim 16: Klemm as modified by Bruce discloses a ground engaging agricultural tillage blade of claim 15. Further, Klemm discloses wherein the notches are of uniform depth (as best seen in figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 17: Klemm as modified by Bruce discloses a ground engaging agricultural tillage blade of claim 15. Further, Klemm discloses wherein the disc is convex on one side and concave on the other (as best seen in figure 5).
Regarding claim 19: Klemm as modified by Bruce discloses a ground engaging agricultural tillage blade of claim 15. Further, Klemm discloses wherein a hub is attached to the disc around the central opening (as seen in figure 2, at 24).
Claims 4, 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemm et al. (USP 2,749,694) in view of Bruce (USPGPub 2011/0147018) as applied to claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 15 above, and further in view of Stark (USPGPub 2012/0103642).
Regarding claims 4, 14 and 18: Klemm as modified by Bruce discloses the claimed device substantially as discussed above but fails to show the disc being substantially flat. However, Stark teaches that it is well known to employ a disc (as seen in figure 2, at 8) being substantially flat (as best seen in figures 3 and 4; also, page 3, paragraph [0028]) in concert with a ground engaging agricultural tillage blade apparatus. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Klemm as modified by Bruce with the teachings of Stark since it would be a matter of a simple substitution of one known element, a concaved disc, for another, a planar/flat disc, to obtain the predictable results of less soil/ground disturbance while operating, absent any showing to the contrary.
Regarding claim 20: Klemm as modified by Bruce discloses the claimed device substantially as discussed above but fails to show the hub/fasteners as claimed by the applicant. However, Stark teaches that it is well known to employ such a hub and aligned holes with fasteners (as seen in figure 4, at 23 and 45) in concert with a ground engaging agricultural tillage blade apparatus. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Klemm as modified by Bruce with the teachings of Stark since it would be a matter of a simple substitution of one known element, a single mount hub, for another, a hub assembly having a plurality of fasteners to obtain the predictable results of a more positively connected disc assembly.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,944,025. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the current application and the issued patent lend themselves to a ground engaging agricultural tillage blade comprising a disc with step plane notches.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT ERIC PEZZUTO whose telephone number is (703)756-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/ROBERT E PEZZUTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3671