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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamakaji (US 6082211 A) in view of Silver et al. (US 2998989 A) and Senkowski (GB 775173 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yamakaji discloses a tractor (“a tractor”, col. 2 line 50), comprising:
a body capable of self-propelled travel (col. 2 lines 55-62, transmission casing 1 for propelling wheels 5);
a link mechanism (top link 11 + lower links 13) including at least one link (13) including an end on a side of the body (distal ends of 13) to be coupled to a work device (Fig. 1, col. 1 lines 14-15, linkage couples to rear-mounted work machine); and
a link attachment mechanism (Fig. 2) to attach the link mechanism to an end of the body in a front-back direction (at rear portion of tractor);
a hitch (“drawbar” inserted into 12f) at the end of the body (Fig. 3, col. 3 lines 37-40)
the link attachment mechanism including:
a shaft (6) forming a pivot axis in a left-right direction and supporting the end of the at least one link such that the at least one link is rotationally movable about the axis (Fig. 2, col. 3 lines 49-51);
at least one support (12a-12f) provided on the body and supporting the shaft (Fig. 1-3); and
a fixing tool (pins 17, Figs. 2-4) to disable or enable movement of the shaft in the left-right direction relative to the at least one support and to allow the shaft to be pulled out of and inserted into the at least one support in the left-right direction (col. 3 lines 61-67, pins 17 prevent shafts 6 from sliding out of supports 12d);
the body is provided with left and right front wheels (front wheels implicit in tractor of this type), and left and right rear wheels (5, Fig. 5);
the left and right rear wheels include a hub (for attachment to axle covers 3 and wheel flange 4c); and
the shaft coincides with the hub portion in the side view (Figs. 1-2).
Yamakaji teaches wherein in a side view of the tractor, the pivot axis formed by the shaft is located slightly above the hitch (Fig. 3), rather than at the same position in an up-down direction of the tractor.
In the same field of endeavor, Silver discloses a similar hitch device 10 for connecting a work device 11 to a tractor 12, wherein the hitch 103 (inserted in hitch support 18) is located at a same position as pivot axis 21 of lower links 35 in an up-down direction of the tractor (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the hitch and the pivot axis of Yamakaji at a same position in an up-down direction of the tractor as taught by Silver, since there are a limited number of choices as to where to position the shaft with respect to the hitch (e.g. above, below, same height) and it would have been obvious design choice to consider and try, for the purpose of efficiency and design configuration of the hitch device, positioning the shaft and the hitch at a same height to yield predictable results (KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)). Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Yamakaji does not explicitly detail wherein the rear wheel hubs are formed with a laterally outward depressed portion.
In the same area of tractor wheels, Senkowski discloses a rear tractor wheel comprising a similar axle (1) and wheel hub flange (2) extending outward into a laterally depressed portion of wheel hub 5 (see Fig. 1, axle and flange 1,2 accommodated in laterally outward depressed wheel hub 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the rear wheel hubs of Yamakaji with a similar lateral depression, as taught by Senkowski, in order to receive and accommodate outwardly extending wheel components.
Regarding claim 2, Yamakaji in view of Silver and Senkowski discloses the tractor according to claim 1, wherein the at least one support supports the shaft such that a portion of the shaft is higher in position than a lower end of the hitch (thickness of shaft is less than that of drawbar, therefore the shaft is higher in position than the lowermost surface of the drawbar).
Regarding claim 3, Yamakaji in view of Silver and Senkowski discloses the tractor according to claim 2. Yamakaji further discloses:
a hitch attachment (12f) provided on the body and supporting the hitch (Fig. 3, col. 3 lines 37-40, housing component 12f support the swing drawbar therein);
wherein the at least one support comprises the hitch attachment (12 comprises 12f).
Regarding claim 4, Yamakaji in view of Silver and Senkowski discloses the tractor according to claim 3. Yamakaji further discloses wherein
the at least one support includes a plurality of supports (12a-12f) comprising:
two side brackets (12a) at respective lateral portions of a transmission case (1) of the tractor (Fig. 2-3 and col. 3 lines 30-34, left and right side brackets 12a are disposed at respective lateral ends of transmission casing 1); and
the hitch attachment, which protrudes backward from a lower portion of the transmission case (Fig. 1-2, hitch attachment 12f protrudes backward from lower end of transmission casing 1); and
the hitch is behind the hitch attachment (drawbar extends rearward from 12f) and detachably attached to the hitch attachment (detachably attached in hitch attachment 12f by a “drawbar pin”, Fig. 3, col. 3 lines 37-40).
Regarding claim 7, Yamakaji in view of Silver and Senkowski discloses the tractor according to claim 1. Yamakaji further discloses wherein:
an implement attachable to the body and including an implement body (col. 1 lines 14-15 and col. 2 lines 28-29, linkage couples to rear-mounted work machine such as a rotary cultivator, a tedder or a mower); and
a subframe (3) to couple the implement body to a predetermined portion of the body (Fig. 1 and col. 3 lines 11-19, subframe 3 couples attachable implement to rear portion of tractor); wherein
the shaft does not coincide in the side view with the subframe as attached to the body (shaft 6 passes through hole 3b, and therefore does not coincide with the physical subframe itself in a side view. As a result, each subframe 3 does not prevent the shaft 6 from being pulled out of supports 12).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamakaji in view of Silver and Senkowski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyata et al. (US 4268056 A).
Regarding claim 6, Yamakaji in view of Silver and Senkowski discloses the tractor according to claim 1. Yamakaji further discloses wherein:
the at least one link includes a left link and a right link (left and right links 13, Fig. 2);
the tractor further comprises a left stabilizer and a right stabilizer (left and right check chains 16); and
the shaft supports the left link, the right link, the left stabilizer, and the right stabilizer in such a manner that the left link, the right link, the left stabilizer, and the right stabilizer are each swingable in an up-down direction about the axis (Fig. 1-2, col. 4 lines 17-21, links 13 and check chains 16 swing vertically up and down about axis of shaft 6).
Yamakaji discloses wherein the check chains are disposed outward of the left and right link in the left-right direction instead of inward.
However, such an arrangement is old and well-known. In the same field of endeavor, Miyata Figs. 1-4 discloses a substantially similar detachable hitch linkage structure, wherein the left and right check chains (15) are disposed inward of the left and right lower links (3) in a left-right direction (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the left and right check chains of Yamakaji to be disposed inward of the left and right lower links, as taught by Miyata, in order to provide an alternative check chain arrangement for stabilizing the lower links. Note it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See also, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4,6-7 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671