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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-12, 14, 17-20, and 23-35 in the reply filed on 11/3/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that "Species I-II are interrelated and should be prosecuted together." (See Remarks of 11/3/2025, labeled p. 2.) This is not found persuasive because it does not refute, or even address, that Species I and II are distinct (i.e., have a materially different design and effect, do not overlap in scope, and are not obvious variants), which creates a serious search and examination burden, as set forth in the Election Requirement of 9/25/2025.
Claims 1-12, 14, 17-20, and 23-25 are being further examined as elected, as indicated by Applicant in the reply of 11/3/2025, and claims 13, 15, 16, 21 and 22 are being treated as withdrawn.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in New Zealand on 5/19/2021. It is noted, however, that Applicant has not filed a certified copy of the NZ 776259 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains an implied phrase (i.e., "Disclosed is ..." in labeled line 3) and legal phraseology (i.e., "means" in labeled line 5, labeled line 8, and labeled line 9). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 17-20, 23, and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 2 recites "that they wish" in lines 20-21 (instead of "that the user wishes" since "a user" is not plural);
claim 3 recites "a storage configuration and a ground working configuration" in lines 27-28 (instead of "the storage configuration and the ground working configuration");
claim 3 recites "the removable ground working attachments" in line 32 (instead of "the ground working attachments" as recited earlier in the claim in line 27);
claim 3 recites "a ground working configuration" in line 33 (instead of "the ground working configuration");
claim 6 recites "the ground working attachment" in lines 10-11 (instead of "the at least one removable ground working attachment");
claim 7 recites "the ground working attachment" in lines 15-16 (instead of "the at least one removable ground working attachment");
claim 9 recites "the at least one ground working attachment" in lines 27-28 (instead of "the at least one removable ground working attachment");
claim 17 recites "the blades are" in line 29 (instead of "the plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades is");
claim 18 recites "the blades are" in line 3 (instead of "the plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades is");
claim 18 recites "the removable ground working attachment" in line 8 (instead of "the at least one removable ground working attachment");
claim 19 recites "the blades and teeth" in line 14 (instead of "the plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades and the plurality of ground engaging teeth");
claim 19 recites "the blades and teeth" in line 15 (instead of "the plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades and the plurality of ground engaging teeth");
claim 20 recites "the blades are" in line 26 (instead of "the plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades is");
claim 20 recites "the ground working attachment support" in lines 29-30 (instead of "the pivotable ground working attachment support");
claim 20 recites "the at least one ground working attachment" in lines 31-32 (instead of "the at least one removable ground working attachment");
claim 23 recites "a ground working apparatus having" in lines 15-16 (instead of "a ground working apparatus, the removable ground working attachment having" in order to properly indicate the structure "having" the elements that follow);
claim 23 recites "the blades are" in line 17 (instead of "the plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades is"); and
claim 25 recites "the rotatable ground engaging blades have" in lines 27-28 (instead of "the plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades has").
Consistent terminology should be used. Appropriate correction (or explanation) is required. Applicant’s cooperation is respectfully requested in correcting any further errors of which Applicant may become aware.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) are: "means which is adapted to move the at least one removable ground working attachment between a storage configuration and a ground working configuration" (in claims 1 and 23); "a blade support means" (in claims 12 and 14); and "a rotatable ground engaging blade support means" (in claims 17-20 and 23). However, the claim limitation of "a vehicle connection means" (in claim 1) is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because this limitation is not modified by functional language.
The specification sets forth a winch and winching means as structure corresponding to "means which is adapted to move the at least one removable ground working attachment between a storage configuration and a ground working configuration" in labeled paras. 0005 and 0014-0015. (Winches are further described in paras. 0083-0084.) The specification fails to clearly link structure corresponding to "a blade support means" and "a rotatable ground engaging blade support means" to the claimed functions of these limitations. Accordingly, claims 12, 14, 17-20, and 23 are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth below.
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 2, 3, 12, 14, 17-20, and 23-25 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 2 recites "at least two removable ground working attachments" in lines 18-19. However, claim 1 (from which claim 2 depends) previously sets forth "at least one removable ground working attachment" in line 5. It is unclear if the "at least two removable ground working attachments" in claim 2 are of or in addition to the "at least one removable ground working attachment" in claim 1. Thus, the metes and bounds of the attachments being claimed cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 2 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the removable ground working attachment" in lines 19-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 is being further examined as though it reads:
"2. A ground working apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one removable ground working attachment is a first removable ground working attachment, and
wherein the apparatus further comprises a second removable ground working attachment, such that in use, a user is able to change the first removable ground working attachment depending on the ground work that the user wishes the apparatus to perform."
This reading introduces "a second removable ground working attachment" separate from "the at least one removable ground working attachment" such that "a second removable ground working attachment" is not required to be "supported directly or indirectly by the frame" (as set forth in claim 1) such that it can be interchanged for the first removable ground working attachment, and "the removable ground working attachment" is changed to "the first removable ground working attachment" because "the first removable ground working attachment" is "supported directly or indirectly by the frame" (since "the first removable ground working attachment" is of "the at least one removable ground working attachment") so it is that which must be changed.
Claim 3 recites "two removable ground working attachments" in lines 23-24. However, claim 1 (from which claim 3 depends) previously sets forth "at least one removable ground working attachment" in line 5. It is unclear if the "two removable ground working attachments" in claim 3 are of or in addition to the "at least one removable ground working attachment" in claim 1. Thus, the metes and bounds of the attachments being claimed cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 3 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 3 is being further examined as though "having two removable ground working attachments" reads "wherein the at least one removable ground working attachment has two removable ground working attachments" in lines 23-24.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the frame" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, claims 24 and 25 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 23.
Claim 23 recites "an apparatus" in lines 18-19. However, claim 23 previously sets forth "a ground working apparatus" in line 15. It is unclear whether this is the same apparatus or another apparatus is being introduced. Thus, the metes and bounds of the apparatus cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 23 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Claim 23 is being further examined as though "an apparatus" reads "the ground working apparatus" in lines 18-19.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the means" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the at least one ground working attachment" in lines 20-21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitations "a blade support means" (in claims 12 and 14) and "a rotatable ground engaging blade support means" (in claims 17-20 and 23) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. In the detailed description, the specification describes support 15, support arms 19, various means and members (e.g., 108-110, 205-211, 305-310, 408, 410-413, 508-510, 607, 609-612, 707-709), and links 504-507 and 704-706, but fails to clearly link the structure to the claimed functions. Therefore, claims 12, 14, 17-20, and 23 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitations will no longer be interpreted as limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed functions, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the functions recited in the claims, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the functions so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed functions, Applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed functions, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed functions. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 3-6, 8-10, 12, 17, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Douyard (US 2,621,458).
Regarding claim 1, Douyard discloses a ground working apparatus comprising:
a frame (including 31 and 31') having a plurality of wheels (including 44) attached;
at least one removable ground working attachment (including 27) supported directly or indirectly by the frame;
a means (including 33) which is adapted to move the at least one removable ground working attachment between a storage configuration (see Fig. 1) and a ground working configuration (see Fig. 4); and
a vehicle connection means (including 22);
the apparatus configured such that when in use and when connected to a vehicle (such as 20) via the vehicle connection means movement of the attached vehicle causes the attached apparatus to move in the same direction as the attached vehicle and if the at least one removable ground working attachment is in or is moved to the ground working configuration this results in the at least one removable ground working attachment working the ground it engages with (see col. 3, line 68 - col. 4, line 10).
Regarding claim 3, Douyard discloses the at least one removable ground working attachment (including 27) having two removable ground working attachments (including or of multiple 27s shown in Figs. 1-4) supported directly or indirectly by the frame (including 31 and 31'), and wherein the means (including 33) which is adapted to move the at least one removable ground working attachment between a storage configuration and a ground working configuration is adapted to move one or both of the ground working attachments (including or of 27s) between the storage configuration (see Fig. 1) and the ground working configuration (see Fig. 4), and wherein the apparatus is configured such that when in use and when connected to a vehicle (such as 20) via the vehicle connection means (including 22) movement of the attached vehicle causes the attached apparatus to move in the same direction as the attached vehicle and this also results in one or both of the ground working attachments (including or of 27s) working the ground they engage if they are in the ground working configuration (see col. 3, line 68 - col. 4, line 10).
Regarding claim 4, Douyard discloses the at least one removable ground working attachment (including 27) being a road conditioning attachment or a rut filling attachment (27 capable of road conditioning, depending upon the type of road, and rut filling).
Regarding claim 5, Douyard discloses the vehicle connection means (including 22) being a towing attachment which is pivotally connected (via 30) to the frame (including 31 and 31').
Regarding claim 6, Douyard discloses the means (including 33) to move the at least one removable ground working attachment between a storage configuration and a ground working configuration being a winching means (as 33 are means to be winched) which is supported indirectly (via 32, which is considered to be separate from the winching means and the frame) or directly (as 32 can alternatively be considered part of the winching means or the frame) by the frame (including 31 and 31').
Regarding claim 8, Douyard discloses the at least one removable ground working attachment (including 27) being adapted to releasably engage directly or indirectly (via at least 30 and/or 39) with the frame (including 31 and 31').
Regarding claim 9, Douyard discloses the at least one removable ground working attachment (including 27) being adapted to releasably engage directly or indirectly (via 33') with the means (including 33) which is adapted to move the at least one removable ground working attachment between a storage configuration and a ground working configuration.
Regarding claim 10, Douyard discloses a ground working attachment support (including 32) which is pivotally connected to the frame (including 31 and 31') and is adapted to releasably engage (via 33) with the at least one removable ground working attachment (including 27).
Regarding claim 12, Douyard discloses the at least one removable ground working attachment having at least one blade (including 27) attached directly or indirectly to a blade support means (including 24, 25, and 26) which is adapted to releasably engage (via 30, which is required to be releasable for use with the "other implement" described in col. 3, lines 54-56) with the frame (including 31 and 31') of the apparatus either directly or indirectly and also adapted to releasably engage directly or indirectly (via 33' and/or 34) with the means (including 33) which is adapted to move the at least one removable ground working attachment between a storage configuration and a ground working configuration.
Regarding claim 17, Douyard discloses the at least one removable ground working attachment having a plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades (including 27) adapted to dislodge the ground and wherein the plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades (including 27) is supported by a rotatable ground engaging blade support means (including 24, 25, and 26) which is adapted to releasably engage (via 30, which is required to be releasable for use with the "other implement" described in col. 3, lines 54-56) with the frame (including 31 and 31') directly or indirectly and to releasably engage directly or indirectly (via 33' and/or 34) with the means (including 33) which is adapted to move the at least one removable ground working attachment between a storage configuration and a ground working configuration.
Regarding claim 23, Douyard discloses a removable ground working attachment for use with a ground working apparatus, the removable ground working attachment having a plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades (including 27) adapted to dislodge the ground and wherein the plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades is supported by a rotatable ground engaging blade support means (including 24, 25, and 26) which is adapted to releasably engage (via 30, which is required to be releasable for use with the "other implement" described in col. 3, lines 54-56) with a frame (including 31 and 31') of the ground working apparatus directly or indirectly and is also adapted to releasably engage directly or indirectly (via 33' and/or 34) with a means (including 33) which is adapted to move the plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades between a ground working configuration (see Fig. 4) and a storage configuration (see Fig. 1).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douyard.
Regarding claim 2, Douyard discloses the ground working apparatus with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Douyard also discloses:
the at least one removable ground working attachment (including 27) being a first removable ground working attachment (of 23), and
the apparatus further comprising a second removable attachment ("other implement" in col. 3, lines 55-56), such that in use, a user is able to change the first removable ground working attachment depending on the ground work that the user wishes the apparatus to perform (see col. 3, lines 54-56, and see col. 3, line 68 - col. 4, line 10, which describes use for ground work).
Douyard does not explicitly disclose the second removable attachment being ground working. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well-known for towed implements to be ground working. 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 second removable attachment of Douyard with ground working means in order to work the ground (e.g., to prepare ground for planting, to reduce compaction, and/or to level the ground). Additionally, providing the apparatus of Douyard with another ground working implement is a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the teachings of Douyard and a ground working implement) according to known methods to yield predictable results, and is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., a ground working implement, as is old and well-known) for another (i.e., the other implement in Douyard) to obtain predictable results. See MPEP § 2143.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douyard in view of Ose et al. (US 3,094,172) and further in view of Schmidt (US 2004/0079539).
Regarding claim 7, Douyard the ground working apparatus with respect to claim 1, above. Douyard also discloses the means (including 33) to move the at least one removable ground working attachment between a storage configuration and a ground working configuration being a winching means (as 33 are means to be winched) which is supported indirectly (via 32, which is considered to be separate from the winching means and the frame) or directly (as 32 can alternatively be considered part of the winching means or the frame) by the frame (including 31 and 31').
Douyard does not explicitly disclose the winching means comprising a front winch and a rear winch as claimed. However, Ose teaches a ground working apparatus comprising a frame (including 10) and a winching means (including 23, 24, and 25) to move at least one ground working attachment (including F and H) between a storage configuration and a ground working, wherein the winching means is supported directly or indirectly by the frame (see Figs. 1-3), and wherein the winching means comprises a front winch (23) and a rear winch (25) both of which are adapted to be controlled by a user (see col. 4, lines 19-49).
Ose is analogous because Ose discloses a ground working apparatus comprising a frame, at least one ground working attachment, and winches. 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 winching means of Douyard with a front winch and a rear winch as taught by Ose in order to relatively raise or lower the trailing end of the ground working attachment to any elevation desired. (See Ose, col. 4, lines 19-49.)
Neither Douyard nor Ose explicitly discloses winches adapted to be controlled remotely by a user as claimed. Schmidt teaches a ground working apparatus comprising a frame (including 30) and a winching means (including 15) to move at least one removable ground working attachment (including or of 40) between a storage configuration and a ground working (see Fig. 5), wherein the winching means is supported directly or indirectly by the frame (on 14), and wherein the winching means comprises a winch (15) which is adapted to be controlled remotely by a user.
Schmidt is analogous because Schmidt discloses a ground working apparatus comprising a frame, a removable ground working attachment, and a remotely controlled winch. 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 remote control means as taught by Schmidt in order to power the winching means (see Schmidt, para. 0033). Additionally, providing the above combination with the electric winch as taught by Schmidt is a simple substitution of one known element (e.g., the winch of Schmidt) for another (e.g., the winches of above combination) to obtain predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claims 11, 18, 20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douyard in view of Keigley et al. (US 12,150,395)
Regarding claim 11, Douyard discloses the ground working apparatus with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Douyard also discloses pivotable ground working attachment support arms (including 25) which are pivotally connected (via 30) to the frame (including 31 and 31') and are adapted to engage with the at least one removable ground working attachment (including 27).
Douyard does not explicitly disclose the pivotable ground working attachment support arms releasably engaging the at least one removable ground working attachment. However, Keigley teaches a ground working apparatus having a frame (including arms of 110 connected to 102, one of which is shown pivoting relative to 103 and a longitudinal axis of the apparatus in Figs. 3 and 4) and pivotable ground working attachment support arms (including 118) which are pivotally connected to the frame (pivoting connection shown in Figs. 3 and 4) and are adapted to releasably engage (via 119) with at least one removable ground working attachment (including 180).
Keigley is analogous because Keigley discloses a ground working apparatus comprising a frame and pivotable ground working attachment support arms which releasably engage at least one removable ground working attachment. 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 support arms of Douyard with releasable engagement means as taught by Keigley in order to permit removal of the ground working attachment(s) (see Keigley, col. 3, lines 26-42) for certain states of adjustment (as shown in Figs. 10 and 16 of Keigley).
Regarding claim 18, Douyard discloses the ground working apparatus with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Douyard also discloses the at least one removable ground working attachment having a plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades (including 27) adapted to dislodge the ground, and wherein the plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades is supported by a rotatable ground engaging blade support means (including 24, 25, and 26) which is adapted to releasably engage (via 30, which is required to be releasable for use with the "other implement" described in col. 3, lines 54-56) with the frame (including 31 and 31') directly or indirectly and to releasably engage directly or indirectly (via 33' and/or 34) with the means (including 33) which is adapted to move the at least one removable ground working attachment between a storage configuration and a ground working configuration.
Douyard does not explicitly disclose the at least one removable ground working attachment having at least one ground scraping member as claimed. However, Keigley teaches a ground working apparatus comprising at least one removable ground working attachment having a plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades (including 180) and at least one ground scraping member (including rear/trailing comb of 100, which is shown opposite 101) which is attached directly or indirectly to rotatable ground engaging blade support means (see Figs. 1-5).
Keigley is analogous because Keigley discloses a ground working apparatus comprising a plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades and at least one ground scraping 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 apparatus of Douyard with ground scraping means as taught by Keigley in order to level and/or finish the ground. Additionally, it is noted that ground scraping means of this kind are generally known to be utilized for leveling and finishing in ground working practice, as taught by Kiser et al. (US 8,944,176) in col. 5, lines 55-63. Further, providing the apparatus of Douyard with the ground scraping means of Keigley is a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the apparatus of Douyard and the ground scraping means of Keigley) according to known methods (as taught by Keigley with a similar apparatus) to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 20, Douyard discloses the ground working apparatus with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Douyard also discloses a pivotable ground working attachment support (including 24, 25, and 34) which is pivotally connected (via 30) to the frame (including 31 and 31'), and wherein the at least one removable ground working attachment has a plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades (including 27) adapted to dislodge the ground, and wherein the plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades (including 27) is supported by a rotatable ground engaging blade support means (including 26), and wherein the rotatable ground engaging blade support means has at least one attachment member (including or of 26) which is adapted to engage with the pivotable ground working attachment support, and wherein the pivotable ground working attachment support (including 24, 25, and 34) also has connection member (34) adapted to releasably engage with the means (including 33) which is adapted to move the at least one removable ground working attachment between a storage configuration and a ground working configuration.
Douyard does not explicitly disclose the rotatable ground engaging blade support means having at least one attachment member which is adapted to releasably engage with the pivotable ground working attachment support as claimed. However, Keigley teaches a ground working apparatus comprising: a frame (including arms of 110 connected to 102, one of which is shown pivoting relative to 103 and a longitudinal axis of the apparatus in Figs. 3 and 4); a plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades (including 180); a pivotable ground working attachment support (including 118) which is pivotally connected to the frame (pivoting connection shown in Figs. 3 and 4); and a rotatable ground engaging blade support means (including 119 and 182), wherein the rotatable ground engaging blade support means has at least one attachment member (including 119 and/or 182) which is adapted to releasably engage with the pivotable ground working attachment support (including 118).
Keigley is analogous because Keigley discloses a ground working apparatus comprising a frame, a plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades, a pivotable ground working attachment support, and a rotatable ground engaging support means. 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 support arms of Douyard with releasable engagement means as taught by Keigley in order to permit removal of the plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades (see Keigley, col. 3, lines 26-42) for certain states of adjustment (as shown in Figs. 10 and 16 of Keigley).
Regarding claim 24, Douyard discloses the removable ground working attachment with respect to claim 23, as set forth above. Douyard does not explicitly disclose at least one ground scraping member as claimed. However, Keigley teaches a removable ground working attachment having a plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades (including 180) and at least one ground scraping member (including rear/trailing comb of 100, which is shown opposite 101) which is attached directly or indirectly to rotatable ground engaging blade support means (see Figs. 1-5).
Keigley is analogous because Keigley discloses a removable ground working attachment comprising a plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades and at least one ground scraping 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 attachment of Douyard with ground scaping means as taught by Keigley in order to level and/or finish the ground. Again, it is noted that ground scraping means of this kind are generally known to be utilized for leveling and finishing in ground working, as taught by Kiser et al. (US 8,944,176). Further, providing the apparatus of Douyard with the ground scraping means of Keigley is a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the apparatus of Douyard and the ground scraping means of Keigley) according to known methods (as taught by Keigley with a similar apparatus) to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claims 14, 19, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douyard in view of Harfert (US 2,749,827).
Regarding claim 14, Douyard discloses the ground working apparatus with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Douyard also discloses the at least one removable ground working attachment having a left blade, a right blade and a middle blade (left 27, right 27, and middle 27 as seen in Fig. 2), wherein the blades are attached directly or indirectly to a blade support means (including 24, 25, and 26), and wherein the blade support means is adapted to releasably engage (via 30, which is required to be releasable for use with the "other implement" described in col. 3, lines 54-56) with the frame (including 31 and 31') of the apparatus either directly or indirectly and is also adapted to releasably engage directly or indirectly (via 33' and/or 34) with the means (including 33) which is adapted to move the at least one removable ground working attachment between a storage configuration and a ground working configuration.
Douyard does not explicitly disclose the blades having a plurality of ground engaging teeth. However, Harfert teaches a ground working apparatus comprising at least one removable ground working attachment (including 20, removable as described and shown), wherein the at least one removable ground working attachment has a left blade, a right blade and a middle blade (including left, right, and middle members 20 as shown in Fig. 1) and the blades have a plurality of ground engaging teeth (including or of 20).
Harfert is analogous because Harfert discloses a ground working apparatus comprising ground engaging blades having teeth. 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 blades of Douyard with teeth as taught by Harfert in order to pierce and agitate the soil. (See Harfert, col. 1.) Additionally, providing the apparatus of Douyard with teeth as taught by Harfert is a simple substitution of one known element (e.g., the blades of Harfert) for another (e.g., the blades of Douyard) to obtain predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 19, Douyard discloses the ground working apparatus with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Douyard also discloses the at least one removable ground working attachment having a plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades (including 27), and wherein the plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades is adapted to dislodge the ground and wherein the plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades are supported by a rotatable ground engaging blade support means (including 24, 25, and 26) which is adapted to releasably engage (via 30, which is required to be releasable for use with the "other implement" described in col. 3, lines 54-56) with the frame (including 31 and 31') directly or indirectly and to releasably engage directly or indirectly (via 33' and/or 34) with the means (including 33) which is adapted to move the at least one removable ground working attachment between a storage configuration and a ground working configuration.
Douyard does not explicitly disclose the plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades with a plurality of ground engaging teeth as claimed. However, Harfert teaches a ground working apparatus comprising at least one removable ground working attachment (including 20, removable as described and shown), wherein the at least one removable ground working attachment has a plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades (including 20) with a plurality of ground engaging teeth (including or of 20) and wherein the plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades and the plurality of ground engaging teeth are adapted to dislodge the ground (see col. 2, lines 41-45).
Harfert is analogous because Harfert discloses a ground working apparatus comprising ground engaging blades with teeth. 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 blades of Douyard with teeth as taught by Harfert in order to pierce and agitate the soil. (See Harfert, col. 1.) Additionally, providing the apparatus of Douyard with teeth as taught by Harfert is a simple substitution of one known element (e.g., the blades of Harfert) for another (e.g., the blades of Douyard) to obtain predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 25, Douyard discloses the removable ground working attachment with respect to claim 23, as set forth above. Douyard does not explicitly disclose the plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades having a plurality of ground engaging teeth. However, Harfert teaches a removable ground working attachment (removable as described and shown) having a plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades (including 20), wherein the plurality of rotatable ground engaging blades has a plurality of ground engaging teeth (including or of 20).
Harfert is analogous because Harfert discloses a ground working apparatus comprising ground engaging blades having teeth. 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 blades of Douyard with teeth as taught by Harfert in order to pierce and agitate the soil. (See Harfert, col. 1.) Additionally, providing the apparatus of Douyard with teeth as taught by Harfert is a simple substitution of one known element (e.g., the blades of Harfert) for another (e.g., the blades of Douyard) to obtain predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Showalter (US 2,454,675), Alphin (US 2,517,160), Swanson et al. (US 4,333,534), and Ankenman (US 2006/0021768) disclose ground working apparatuses and attachments as set forth in at least independent claims 1 and 23. Hanson (US 2011/0203817) teaches an apparatus with multiple winches.
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/12/5/25
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671