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 Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) 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. Claims 13 and 18 set forth limitations of "said attachment" for a vehicle. However, claims 11 and 15 (from which claims 13 and 18 respectively depend) recite "a holder mounted to, or integrally formed with, elements of an attachment for a vehicle," and as such, the attachment is not an element of (i.e., part of) the claimed device and is merely a part to which the holder is to be mounted or formed with. Thus, claims 13 and 18 are interpreted to be met by a device of the prior art if the device is configured to or capable of being mounted to or formed with a particular attachment as set forth in these claims.
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 1, 2, and 4-7 are 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 1 recites "wherein said generally triangular portion also includes a second side edge," in lines 1-2. However, claim 11 (from which claim 1 depends) sets forth "wherein said generally triangular portion includes ... a second side edge;" in lines 11-12. It is unclear if these are the same side edge or if another edge is being introduced and required. Thus, the metes and bounds of a second side edge (and subsequent limitations thereof) in claim 1 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Additionally, claims 2 and 4-7 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1.
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 15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafson (US 2,222,071) in view of non-patent literature "1205 Series GLADIATOR PULL-TYPE TOOLBAR OWNER'S MANUAL" (hereinafter referred to as "Kuhn Krause").
Regarding claim 15, Gustafson discloses a ground ripping implement comprising:
a generally flat plate (6) residing in a first plane (plane of Fig. 1 and a vertically extending plane in Fig. 3), and having a generally rectangular portion (upper portion of 6 as seen in Fig. 1), a curved portion (middle portion of 6 between upper and lower portions as seen in Fig. 1) and a generally triangular portion (lower portion of 6 as seen in Fig. 1) all integrally formed as one piece, with said curved portion residing between said generally rectangular portion and said generally triangular portion (see Fig. 1);
wherein said generally rectangular portion (upper portion of 6 as seen in Fig. 1) has a short edge (top edge of 6 as seen in Fig. 1) and opposed first and second long edges (side edges of 6 as seen in Fig. 1), a lower boundary of said generally rectangular portion opposite said short edge being integrally formed with said curved portion (see Fig. 1);
wherein said curved portion (middle portion of 6 between upper and lower portions as seen in Fig. 1) has an upper boundary integrally formed with said lower boundary of said generally rectangular portion (see Fig. 1 and upper boundary shown in Fig. 5), and a forward boundary (see Figs. 1, 5); and
wherein said generally triangular portion (lower portion of 6 as seen in Fig. 1) includes a rearward boundary integrally formed with said forward boundary of said curved portion, a first side edge and a second side edge (see Figs. 1, 5).
Gustafson does not explicitly disclose the generally flat plate being made of metal. However, the examiner has taken Official Notice that ground ripping implements and plates and shanks thereof being made of metal is old and well-known in the prior art. 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 implement of Gustafson with metal construction in order to stand up to hard use and/or to resist wear and/or fatigue.
Gustafson does not explicitly disclose an opening or channel formed within said generally rectangular portion, which functions as a handle. However, Kuhn Krause teaches a ground ripping implement (capable of ripping action) comprising a generally flat metal plate (shank) residing in a first plane comprising an opening or channel (directly below 5 in Figure 7 on labeled p. 15) formed within a generally rectangular portion adjacent to an upper short edge (see Figure 7 on labeled p. 15, and see Figure 26 on labeled p. 28), which functions as a handle to position feature of said generally rectangular portion relative to a holder to adjust a ripping depth of said ground ripping implement (see labeled pp. 27-28), said opening or channel being spaced from said short edge by a barrier section of said generally rectangular portion (see Figure 7 on labeled p. 15, and see Figure 26 on labeled p. 28).
Kuhn Krause is analogous because Kuhn Krause discloses a ground engaging implement comprising a flat plate (of a shank) and a holder therefor. Kuhn Krause is also analogous because Kuhn Krause addresses the problem of adjusting a mounted position of a ripper shank relative to its holder and the problem of operator safety during height adjustment. 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 implement of Gustafson with the opening or channel means as taught by Kuhn Krause in order to avoid fingers getting pinched or cut. (See Kuhn Krause, labeled p. 27, 'CAUTION!' section.)
Regarding claim 24, Gustafson discloses a dirt lifting slide (including 12) attached to said generally triangular portion (via 18), wherein said dirt lifting slide extends in a second plane (extending into and out of Fig. 1 or horizontally in Fig. 3), which is generally perpendicular to said first plane.
Claims 16, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafson in view of Kuhn Krause as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of non-patent literature "Sly Launches New Stripcat II Strip-Till Unit" (<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdQYF3sk9OU>; hereinafter referred to as "Stripcat").
Regarding claims 16, 21, and 22, neither Gustafson nor Kuhn Krause explicitly discloses the opening or channel including first and second finger recesses. However, Stripcat teaches a ground tilling implement comprising an opening or channel formed within a generally rectangular portion (of a shank) adjacent to a short edge, wherein said opening or channel includes first, second, and third finger recesses, each of which also being a channel (see screenshot of Stripcat provided with this Office action).
Stripcat is analogous because Stripcat discloses a ground engaging implement comprising tools including shanks having handles. 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 above combination with finger recesses as taught by Stripcat for even weight distribution across fingers in order to reduce stress on hands and wrists. Further, providing the above combination with the finger recesses of Stripcat is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the handle edge having finger recesses in Stripcat) for another (i.e., the flat handle edge in the above combination) to obtain predictable results (as taught by Stripcat). See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Additionally, it is noted that the examiner has taken Official Notice that it is old and well-known in handles to include finger recesses, which provide a tighter and more comfortable grip.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafson in view of Kuhn Krause as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of McGee (US 3,058,243).
Regarding claim 17, Gustafson discloses a plurality of alternating protrusions and notches (including 4) formed along one of said first long edge and said second long edge of said generally rectangular portion, wherein said protrusions are evenly spaced from each other (see Fig. 1). Neither Gustafson nor Kuhn Krause explicitly discloses a holder as claimed. However, McGee teaches a ground ripping implement comprising:
a generally flat plate (including 40) having generally rectangular portion (see Fig. 5);
a plurality of alternating protrusions and notches (including or of 72) formed along a long edge of said generally rectangular portion, wherein said protrusions are evenly spaced from each other (see Fig. 5); and
a holder (including 70) mounted to, or integrally formed with, elements of an attachment (see Fig. 1) for a vehicle, wherein said holder includes:
a pathway (extending within 15, 50, and 51) with a pathway width greater than a width of a short edge of said generally rectangular portion (see Fig. 5); and
slots and stays (including or of 70) formed on one side of said pathway, said stays being spaced apart so as to align with, and fit into, at least two of said plurality of notches formed on said generally rectangular portion (as shown in Fig. 4).
McGee is analogous because McGee discloses a ground ripping implement comprising a generally flat plate and a holder therefor. 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 above combination with the holding means as taught by McGee in order to remotely adjust penetration depth. (See McGee, col. 1.)
Regarding claim 18, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 17, McGee teaches said attachment for a vehicle being a box blade (see Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims allowed. Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 and 2/19/2026 have been fully considered. Allowable subject matter has been indicated as set forth above. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 15 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Ankenman (US 7,866,270) discloses a shank (24), which appears to be shown including a handle in Figs. 1 and 2.
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/4/2/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671