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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 113 and 123.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 8.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), and/or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because it recites "the plow direction" in line 2 (instead of "the plowing direction"). Appropriate correction 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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 has been amended to recite the limitation "the first cutting element is slidably arranged along the axis running in the plow direction" in lines 1-2. In light of that described and shown in the specification, it is unclear how the first cutting element is slidably arranged "along the axis running in the plow direction" as the axes shown in Fig. 1 do not appear to be along one another. Thus, the metes and bounds of this limitation cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 3 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Claim 3 is being further examined as though "the first cutting element is slidably arranged along the axis running in the plow direction" reads "the first cutting element is slidably arranged in the plowing direction" in lines 1-2.
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, 7-11, 13-17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fleischer et al. (US 5,361,848)
Regarding claim 1, Fleischer discloses a plow module for interchangeable mounting on a base frame (such as 11) of a plow device for plowing a ground, wherein the plow module comprises:
a rotatable first cutting element (including that of 23 and/or 24) which is formed as a coulter disk (including 116) and has a revolving first cutting edge, wherein the first cutting element is configured to cut a lateral region of a soil ridge in the ground by moving the plow module on the ground along a plowing direction (when aligned with a soil ridge as such during use),
a second, flat cutting element (including 141 and/or 35) having a second cutting edge, wherein the second cutting element is configured to cut a bottom region of the soil ridge in the ground by moving the plow module on the ground along the plowing direction (when aligned with the soil ridge as such during use), wherein the plow module is configured to be a ready-mounted unit (via 13), wherein the second cutting element follows the first cutting element having the first cutting edge in the plowing direction (towards the left in Fig. 1) and
a first support structure (including 113 and/or 25) carries the first cutting element and
a second support structure (including 136 and/or 169) carries the second cutting element,
the second support structure is attached (via 32) to the first support structure,
in that the first support structure has means for detachable attachment (bolts shown attaching 113 to 11, including 13, 97, 119, 120, 122, 123, and/or those of the parallel linkage including 14 and 15) to a base frame of a plow device,
wherein the first cutting element is configured to be pivotable (via 28 and 29), in terms of its cutting angle, about an axis running in the direction of the ground to be plowed and pivotable (via 28 and 29, when pivoted about 25 to a non-working position), in terms of its pivot angle, about an axis running in the plowing direction.
Regarding claim 2, Fleischer discloses the second support structure (including 136) being pivotably connected to the first support structure (including 113) via a joint (including 28 and 29) and the angle between the two support structures is adjustable (at least via 28 and 29).
Regarding claim 7, Fleischer discloses the cutting angle of the first cutting element (including that of 23 and/or 24) being configured to be adjusted stepwise (via 28, 29) by a perforated plate (including 131) with defined hole spacing (see col. 8, lines 19-43, where "grooves" described meet the "defined hole spacing" when giving the term its broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding claim 8, Fleischer discloses the pivot angle of the first cutting element (including that of 23 and/or 24) being configured to be adjusted stepwise (via 28, 29, when pivoted about 25 to a non-working position) by a perforated plate (including 131) with defined hole spacing (see col. 8, lines 19-43, where "grooves" described meet the "defined hole spacing" when giving the term its broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding claim 9, Fleischer discloses the second cutting element (including 35) being configured to be pivoted in an adjustable manner (via means shown connecting 35 to 146) about an axis running transversely to the plowing direction.
Regarding claims 10 and 21, Fleischer discloses the first cutting element (including 116) comprising a first cutting region (as selected) that is formed within a first cutting plane (dependent upon the first cutting region selected) and the second cutting element (including 35) comprising a second cutting region (as selected) that is formed in a second cutting plane (dependent upon the second cutting region selected), the first cutting plane and the second cutting plane forming an angle of 30 degrees to 110 degrees to one another, as any points or surfaces (which form a region) of the first cutting element (including 116) and the second cutting element (including 35) can be arbitrary selected to be within planes which form an angle as claimed since the claim language does not define the first and second cutting planes beyond the first and second cutting regions being merely formed respectively therein, and the claim language does not set forth a point of reference for the claimed angle. Additionally, the first and second cutting elements described and shown in the specification are not necessarily planar. Thus, limitations of a cutting element formed within or in a plane are considered to be met by only a region of said cutting element being within or in said plane.
Regarding claim 11, Fleischer discloses the first cutting element (including 116) being cambered or having the shape of a cone or a truncated cone (being "concave," see col. 7, lines 61-65).
Regarding claim 13, Fleischer discloses the second cutting element (including 141) being a rotatable cutting element and the second cutting edge (of 141) being a revolving cutting edge (as 141 revolves around its axle which is received by 140; see col. 9, lines 5-7).
Regarding claim 14, Fleischer discloses the second cutting element (including 35) being a fixed cutting blade.
Regarding claim 15, Fleischer discloses the cutting blade (of 35) being L-shaped (see Fig. 1), with a first bar of the cutting blade being aligned horizontally in a working position of the plow module and a second beam being aligned substantially perpendicular thereto (the horizontally extending portions of 35 being "L-shaped" since they are substantially straight and "substantially perpendicular" in light of such features as shown by 8 and 9 in Fig. 2 of the instant application; alternatively, the horizontally extending nose of 35 and the vertically extending flange of 35 being "L-shaped" since they are substantially straight and "substantially perpendicular" in light of such features as shown by 8 and 9 in Fig. 2 of the instant application).
Regarding claims 16 and 22, Fleischer the cutting blade (of 35) being one piece (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Fleischer discloses a plow device having a base frame (including 11), wherein at least one plow module according to claim 1 (as set forth with respect to claim 1, above) is arranged on the base frame of the plow device.
Regarding claim 23, Fleischer discloses the first cutting element (including that of 23 and/or 24) including a vertical cutting plane (shown oriented vertically and in a vertical plane in Fig. 1), and the second cutting element (including 35) including a horizontal cutting plane (shown oriented horizontally and in a horizontal plane in Fig. 1). Additionally, as noted above, the first and second cutting elements described and shown in the specification are not necessarily planar. Thus, limitations of a cutting element formed within or in a plane are considered to be met by only a region of said cutting element being within or in said plane.
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 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischer in view of Gray et al. (US 2019/0159395)
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Fleischer discloses the plow module with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Fleischer does not explicitly disclose the cutting angle and the pivot angle being continuously adjustable as claimed. Gray teaches a plow module for mounting on a base frame (such as 90) of a plow device for plowing a ground, wherein the plow module comprises:
a rotatable first cutting element is a coulter disk (23) and has a revolving first cutting edge, wherein the first cutting element is configured to cut a lateral region of a soil ridge in the ground by moving the plow module on the ground along a plowing direction (when aligned with a soil ridge as such during use),
wherein the first cutting element is configured to be adjusted to be pivotable (about A, via 30), in terms of its cutting angle, about an axis running in the direction of the ground to be plowed (as A runs in the direction of the ground) and/or pivotable (about A, via 30), in terms of its pivot angle, about an axis running in the plowing direction (as A runs in the plowing direction),
wherein the cutting angle of the first cutting element is continuously adjustable (via 30, described in para. 0051 as being a hydraulic actuator, which the specification of the instant application sets forth as means for continuous adjustment in labeled paras. 0092, 0094, and 0095), and
wherein the pivot angle of the first cutting element is continuously adjustable (via 30, described in para. 0051 as being a hydraulic actuator, which the specification of the instant application sets forth as means for continuous adjustment in labeled paras. 0092, 0094, and 0095).
Gray is analogous because Gray discloses a plow module for mounting on a plow device, wherein the plow module comprises a coulter disk that is pivotable in terms of its cutting angle and its pivot angle. 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 module of Fleischer with the pivoting means as taught by Gray in order to remotely power the adjustability. (See Gray, para. 0017.)
Regarding claim 6, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 4, Gray teaches the cutting angle and the pivot angle being configured to be adjusted (via 30) by hydraulically or electrically drivable actuators (see para. 0051).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischer in view of Bessant (US 1,214,882).
Regarding claim 12, Fleischer discloses the plow module with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Fleischer does not explicitly disclose that the first cutting edge of the first cutting element and/or the second cutting edge of the second cutting element have/has circumference recesses. Bessant teaches a plow module for mounting on a base frame of a plow device for plowing a ground, wherein the plow module comprises a rotatable first cutting element which is designed as a coulter disk (2) and has a revolving first cutting edge, wherein the first cutting edge of the first cutting element has circumference recesses (including a, b) on a circumference of the first cutting element (see figures).
Bessant is analogous because Bessant discloses a plow module for mounting on a plow device, wherein the plow module comprises a coulter disk. 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 first cutting element of Fleischer with the recessed means as taught by Bessant in order to "grasp the trash and draw it inwardly at a relatively sharp angle while the receding or rearwardly extending portion will gradually cut or sever the trash or corn stalks in the rotation of the disk. This peculiar formation of scallop or recess also insures the disk taking and holding a better grip on the heavy soil so as to tend to prevent the disk from being lifted up or out of the soil in plowing." (See Bessant, p. 1, col. 1.)
Claims 1-5, 9-11, 13-15, 17-19, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heylman (US 625,764) in view of Keplinger et al. (US 3,244,237)
Regarding claim 1, Heylman discloses a plow module for interchangeable mounting on a base frame of a plow device for plowing a ground, wherein the plow module comprises:
a rotatable first cutting element (including 3) which is formed as a coulter disk and has a revolving first cutting edge, wherein the first cutting element is configured to cut a lateral region of a soil ridge in the ground by moving the plow module on the ground along a plowing direction,
a second, flat cutting element (including 41) having a second cutting edge, wherein the second cutting element is configured to cut a bottom region of the soil ridge in the ground by moving the plow module on the ground along the plowing direction, wherein the plow module (further including 1) is configured to be a ready-mounted unit, wherein the second cutting element follows the first cutting element having the first cutting edge in the plowing direction (see Fig. 1) and
a first support structure (including 1) carries the first cutting element and
a second support structure (including 40) carries the second cutting element,
the second support structure is attached to the first support structure (see Fig. 1),
in that the first support structure has means for detachable attachment (including 11 and 12) to a base frame (including 5 and/or 7) of a plow device.
Heylman does not explicitly disclose the first cutting element being pivotable, in terms of its cutting angle, about an axis running in the direction of the ground to be plowed and pivotable, in terms of its pivot angle, about an axis running in the plowing direction. However, Keplinger teaches a plow module for mounting on a base frame of a plow device for plowing a ground, wherein the plow module comprises:
a rotatable first cutting element (including 36) which is a coulter disk and has a revolving first cutting edge, wherein the first cutting element is configured to cut a lateral region of a soil ridge in the ground by moving the plow module on the ground along a plowing direction,
a first support structure (including 10) carries the first cutting element, and
in that the first support structure has means for detachable attachment to a base frame of a plow device (see col. 1, lines 51-62),
wherein the first cutting element is configured to be pivotable, in terms of its cutting angle, about an axis (through 10) running in the direction of the ground to be plowed (see col. 1, lines 51-62) and pivotable (about 12), in terms of its pivot angle, about an axis (through 12) running in the plowing direction (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Keplinger is analogous because Keplinger discloses a plow module for mounting on a plow device, wherein the plow module comprises a coulter disk that is pivotable in terms of its cutting angle and its pivot angle. 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 module of Heylman with the adjusting means as taught by Keplinger in order to rigidly hold the first cutting element in position against the large forces involved and/or to easily change the angle. (See Keplinger, col. 1, lines 29-36.)
Regarding claim 2, Heylman discloses the second support structure (including 40) being pivotably connected to the first support structure (including 1) via a joint (including structure shown therebetween in Fig. 1 and passing through the hole in 40 in Figs. 13 and 14) and the angle between the two support structures is adjustable (see p. 3, lines 3-43).
Regarding claim 3, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 1, Keplinger teaches the first cutting element (including 36) being slidably arranged along support structure (see col. 1, lines 51-62). In the above combination, providing Heylman with such slidable adjustability would result in the first cutting element (including 3) being slidably arranged on the first support structure (including 1) in the plowing direction such that the distance between the first cutting edge of the first cutting element (including 3) and the second cutting edge of the second cutting element (including 41) is adjustable.
Regarding claim 4, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 1, Keplinger teaches the cutting angle (about an axis through 10) of the first cutting element (including 36) being continuously adjustable (as it is rotatable about 10 as described).
Regarding claim 5, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 1, Keplinger teaches the pivot angle (about 12) of the first cutting element (including 36) being continuously adjustable (see col. 2, lines 59-65).
Regarding claim 9, Heylman discloses the second cutting element (including 41) being configured to be pivoted in an adjustable manner about an axis running transversely to the plowing direction (see Figs. 13 and 14 and p. 3, lines 3-43).
Regarding claims 10 and 21, Heylman discloses the first cutting element (including 3) comprising a first cutting region (as selected) that is formed within a first cutting plane (dependent upon the first cutting region selected) and the second cutting element (including 41) comprising a second cutting region (as selected) that is formed in a second cutting plane (dependent upon the second cutting region selected), the first cutting plane and the second cutting plane forming an angle of 30 degrees to 110 degrees to one another, as any points or surfaces (which form a region) of the first cutting element (including 3) and the second cutting element (including 41) can be arbitrary selected to be within planes which form an angle as claimed since the claim language does not define the first and second cutting planes beyond the first and second cutting regions being merely formed respectively therein, and the claim language does not set forth a point of reference for the claimed angle. Again, the first and second cutting elements described and shown in the specification are not necessarily planar. Thus, limitations of a cutting element formed within or in a plane are considered to be met by only a region of said cutting element being within or in said plane.
Regarding claim 11, Heylman discloses the first cutting element (including 3) being cambered or has the shape of a cone or a truncated cone (see Figs. 1, 2, and 7).
Regarding claim 13, Heylman discloses the second cutting element (including 41) being a rotatable cutting element (rotating with 47) and the second cutting edge is a revolving cutting edge (see p. 3, lines 3-43).
Regarding claim 14, Heylman discloses the second cutting element (including 41) being a fixed cutting blade (fixed relative to 47).
Regarding claim 15, Heylman discloses the cutting blade further including a beam (including 42), wherein the cutting blade is L-shaped (41 and 42 forming an L-shape in Figs. 13 and 14), with a first bar (of 41) of the cutting blade being aligned horizontally in a working position of the plow module (see Figs. 13 and 14) and the beam (including 42) being aligned substantially perpendicular thereto (see Figs. 13 and 14).
Regarding claim 17, Heylman discloses a plow device having a base frame (including 5 and/or 7), wherein at least one plow module (including 3) according to claim 1 is arranged on the base frame of the plow device (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Heylman discloses the at least one plow module including at least two plow modules (including 3 and 4) that are arranged on the base frame one behind the other in the plowing direction (see Fig. 1), wherein the first support structure (including 2) of at least one of the at least two plow modules is connected to a connecting element (including 15 and 16) which is configured to be adjusted with respect to the base frame (see p. 2, lines 7-28) in such a way that the at least two plow modules are configured to be adjusted in relation to one another in a width direction of the plow device (see Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 19, Heylman discloses the connecting element (including 15 and 16) being a push rod (as it is in the form of a rod and pushes elements).
Regarding claim 23, Heylman discloses the first cutting element (including 3) including a vertical cutting plane (extending vertically in Fig. 4), and the second cutting element (including 41) including a horizontal cutting plane (extending horizontally in Fig. 14). Again, the first and second cutting elements described and shown in the specification are not necessarily planar. Thus, limitations of a cutting element formed within or in a plane are considered to be met by only a region of said cutting element being within or in said plane.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heylman in view of Keplinger as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Gray.
Regarding claim 6, neither Heylman nor Keplinger explicitly discloses the cutting angle and the pivot angle being adjusted by hydraulically or electrically drivable actuators. However, Gray teaches a plow module for mounting on a base frame (such as 90) of a plow device for plowing a ground, wherein the plow module comprises:
a rotatable first cutting element is a coulter disk (23) and has a revolving first cutting edge, wherein the first cutting element is configured to cut a lateral region of a soil ridge in the ground by moving the plow module on the ground along a plowing direction (when aligned with a soil ridge as such during use),
wherein the first cutting element is configured to be adjusted to be pivotable (about A, via 30), in terms of its cutting angle, about an axis running in the direction of the ground to be plowed (as A runs in the direction of the ground) and/or pivotable (about A, via 30), in terms of its pivot angle, about an axis running in the plowing direction (as A runs in the plowing direction),
wherein the cutting angle of the first cutting element is continuously adjustable (via 30, described in para. 0051 as being a hydraulic actuator, which the specification of the instant application sets forth as means for continuous adjustment in labeled paras. 0092, 0094, and 0095),
wherein the pivot angle of the first cutting element is continuously adjustable (via 30, described in para. 0051 as being a hydraulic actuator, which the specification of the instant application sets forth as means for continuous adjustment in labeled paras. 0092, 0094, and 0095), and
wherein the cutting angle and the pivot angle are configured to be adjusted (via 30) by hydraulically or electrically drivable actuators (see para. 0051).
Gray is analogous because Gray discloses a plow module for mounting on a plow device, wherein the plow module comprises a coulter disk that is pivotable in terms of its cutting angle and its pivot angle. 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 pivoting means as taught by Gray in order to remotely power the adjustability. (See Gray, para. 0017.)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heylman in view of Keplinger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bessant.
Regarding claim 12, neither Heylman nor Keplinger explicitly discloses the first cutting edge of the first cutting element and/or the second cutting edge of the second cutting element comprising circumference recesses. However, Bessant teaches a plow module for mounting on a base frame of a plow device for plowing a ground, wherein the plow module comprises a rotatable first cutting element which is designed as a coulter disk (2) and has a revolving first cutting edge, wherein the first cutting edge of the first cutting element has circumference recesses (including a, b) on a circumference of the first cutting element (see figures).
Bessant is analogous because Bessant discloses a plow module for mounting on a plow device, wherein the plow module comprises a coulter disk. 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 recessed means as taught by Bessant in order to "grasp the trash and draw it inwardly at a relatively sharp angle while the receding or rearwardly extending portion will gradually cut or sever the trash or corn stalks in the rotation of the disk. This peculiar formation of scallop or recess also insures the disk taking and holding a better grip on the heavy soil so as to tend to prevent the disk from being lifted up or out of the soil in plowing." (See Bessant, p. 1, col. 1.)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heylman in view of Keplinger as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Connell et al. (US 2018/0325010)
Regarding claim 20, neither Heylman nor Keplinger explicitly discloses the push rod being adjusted in a hydraulically or electrically driven manner. However, Connell teaches a ground-engaging device having a base frame (including 77) and at least two plow modules (of different rows, as shown) arranged on the base frame,
wherein first support structure (including 605) of at least one of the at least two plow modules is connected to a connecting element (including 473) which is configured to be adjusted with respect to the base frame in such a way that the at least two plow modules are configured to be adjusted in relation to one another in a width direction of the ground-engaging device (see para. 0114-0118),
wherein the connecting element is a push rod (including 473), and
wherein the push rod is configured to be adjusted in an electrically driven manner (via 480).
Connell is analogous because Connell discloses a ground-engaging device having a base frame and at least two plow modules arranged on the base frame, which are configured to be adjusted by a push rod in a driven manner. 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 powered lateral adjustability as taught by Connell in order to remotely power such adjustability. Connell also teaches the powered lateral adjustability for dynamically adjusting lateral spacing. (See Connell, para. 0116.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see labeled p. 6, filed 6/25/2025, with respect to the objection of claim 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2, 7, and 8 are considered moot as a new grounds of rejection is being applied utilizing a different interpretation of the prior art of record.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 3 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, which use newly applied references as detailed above.
Applicant's other arguments filed 6/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues: "On page 4, the Office Action states that the disc hillers 23, 24 of Fleischer are 'pivotable (via 28, 29, when pivoted about 25 to a non-working position), in terms of pivot angle, about an axis running in the plowing direction.' First, Fleischer does not disclose that the disc hillers 23, 24 are pivotable about the bar 25 to a non-working position. Second, if the disc hillers 23, 24 were 'pivoted about 25' to a non-working position, the hillers 23, 24 would be pivoted about Axis 'B' in annotated FIG. 1 above [on labeled p. 7 of the Remarks of 6/25/2025]. Axis 'B' is a horizontal axis running the length of bar 25, which is unequivocally perpendicular to the Plow Direction. As such, the characterization set forth in the Office Action is flawed." (See Remarks of 6/25/2025, labeled p. 8.)
Applicant's first point is unpersuasive because one skilled in the art would recognize that the disc hillers 23, 24 are pivotable about the bar 25 to a non-working position, particularly in light of Fig. 7, wherein such structure is shown detached and can readily be rotated 90 degrees and attached. As such, the structure of Fleischer is configured to be positioned as set forth in the rejection and to perform the functionality as claimed.
Applicant's second point is unpersuasive because it misinterprets the rejection. As noted by Applicant, the Office Action states that the disc hillers 23, 24 of Fleischer are "pivotable (via 28, 29, when pivoted about 25 to a non-working position), in terms of pivot angle, about an axis running in the plowing direction." (See Final Rejection of 3/28/2025, labeled p. 4.) In other words, when pivoted about 25 to a non-working position, the disc hillers 23, 24 of Fleischer are pivotable via 28, 29 about an axis running in the plowing direction, as the axis about which 28 and 29 operate runs in the plowing direction in such a position. The phrase "when pivoted about 25 to a non-working position" describes a position of the device and not the claimed pivotable functionality itself.
Additionally, it is noted that claim 1 sets forth "the first cutting element is configured to be pivotable..." but does not require any specific structure, structural configuration, or positioning to do so. As such, the first cutting element of Fleischer "is configured to be pivotable" about axes as claimed, and the rejection of claim 1 for being anticipated by Fleischer is maintained.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 8 regarding the positioning of Fleischer are unpersuasive for the same reasons Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 were not persuasive, as set forth above.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant argues: "Claim 9 also stands rejected as allegedly anticipated by Fleischer. Specifically, the Office Action states that Fleischer discloses the second cutting element (35) as being configured to be pivoted (via means shown connecting 35 to 146) about an axis running transversely to the plowing direction. Element 35 of Fleischer is a sweep with a convention V-shape. Fleischer does not disclose or suggest that the sweep 35 is pivotably adjustable. Instead, Fleischer only discloses that the sweep 35 is height adjustable. See, e.g., col. 9, line 12 to col. 10, line 31. For the foregoing reasons, Fleischer does not anticipate claim 9." (See Remarks of 6/25/2025, labeled pp. 10-11.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because Fig. 1 (as well as in Figs. 2, 10, and 11) of Fleischer clearly shows 35 attached by two bolts (i.e., a top bolt and a bottom bolt), wherein the top bolt is disposed within an arcing slot. One skilled in the art would readily recognize this configuration being for pivotable adjustment.
Applicant's argument that Fleischer cannot anticipate any of the dependent claims for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1 is unpersuasive because Applicant's reasons set forth with respect to claim 1 were unpersuasive.
Conclusion
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/11/29/25
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671