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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims filed on 1/29/2026 do not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because at least the amendments to claims 1, 14, and 15 delete text without indication. Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
The claims are being further examined as presented. However, further such errors will cause replies to be considered non-responsive.
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., ".... 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).
The disclosure is objected to because it recites:
"soil paths 220" in para. 00060 (rather than "soil paths 320"); and
"the soil paths 220," in para. 00060 (rather than "the soil paths 320,").
Appropriate correction is required. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is respectfully requested in correcting any further errors of which Applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
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. Regarding claim 1, the limitation of the at least one adjustment mounting bracket being "operative to adjust the mounting bar laterally relative to the tool frame" is interpreted to mean the at least one adjustment mounting bracket provides lateral translation of the mounting bar relative to the tool frame, and this limitation is not considered to be met by rotation of the mounting bar relative to the tool frame (without also having lateral translation) because there is not lateral adjustment at the point of rotation. Regarding claim 7, the limitation reciting that "nuts are used to adjust the connection arm relative to the frame connector" is interpreted to mean simultaneous use of multiple nuts are required, and this limitation is not interpreted to be met by different nuts being used at different times.
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 and 14 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 "wherein the adjustment mounting bracket is operative to adjust the mounting bar laterally." However, claim 1 (from which claim 2 depends) previously sets forth the at least one adjustment mounting bracket "is operative to adjust the mounting bar laterally relative to the tool frame." As such, it is unclear how claim 2 further limits claim 1. According, the metes and bounds of claim 2 (particularly relative to claim 1) cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 2 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the connect" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 4-13, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lehman (US 3,554,297).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Lehman discloses a cultivator (see embodiment of Fig. 4, which is provided to the frame of Figs. 1 and 3 via 44, where 44 is shown in both Figs. 3 and 4) comprising:
a hitch assembly connectable to a tow vehicle to tow the cultivator in a travel direction (as described in col. 3, lines 6-18);
a tilling section having a front end and a back end, and comprising:
a tool frame (including 33);
a mounting bar (including 54 supporting 27a) provided below and connected to the tool frame (see Fig. 4) and extending generally perpendicular to the travel direction when the cultivator is in a field position to till soil in a field (see Fig. 4, wherein 54 has a vertical length extending as such, and wherein 55 has a horizontal length extending as such);
a first plurality of ground engaging tools (including 27a) forming a first row of ground engaging tools connected to and extending below the mounting bar (see Fig. 4), the first row of ground engaging tools connected along a length of the mounting bar (see Fig 4, wherein 27a are connected along a vertical length of 54);
an additional mounting bar (including 54 supporting 27c) provided below and connected to the tool frame (see Fig. 4) and extending generally perpendicular to the travel direction when the cultivator is in a field position to till soil in a field (see Fig. 4, wherein 54 has a vertical length extending as such, and wherein a top wall of 54, i.e., 55, has a horizontal length extending as such);
a second plurality of ground engaging tools (including 27c) forming a second row of ground engaging tools connected to and extending below the additional mounting bar (see Fig. 4), the second row of ground engaging tools connected along a length of the additional mounting bar (see Fig 4, wherein 27c are connected along a vertical length of 54); and
a plurality of mounting brackets (including 47, 50, 52) and at least one adjustment mounting bracket (including bolts received by 52 through 59) connecting the mounting bar to the tool frame (see Fig. 4),
wherein the plurality of mounting brackets allows (via 59) the mounting bar to be moved laterally relative to the tool frame,
wherein the at least one adjustment mounting bracket (including bolts received by 52 through 59) is operative to adjust the mounting bar laterally relative to the tool frame, and
wherein the first row of ground engaging tools (of 27a) and the second row of ground engaging tools (of 27c) are arranged in a front-to-back arrangement such that the first row of ground engaging tools is positioned forward of the second row of ground engaging tools (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Lehman discloses each ground engaging tool comprising: a disc arm (respective 57 extending through respective 27a and 27c) having a top end and a bottom end; and a disc (respective 27a and 27c, shown as discs in Fig. 4) rotatably attached to the bottom end of the disc arm (as 27a and 27c are shown extending around, including below, 57 and attached thereto); and an attachment mechanism (hub securing respective 27a and 27c on respective 57, being rings shown around ends of 57 in Fig. 4) attached to the top end of the disc arm (as said attachment mechanism is shown extending around, including above, 57 and attached thereto).
Regarding claim 5, Lehman discloses the disc (of 27a and 27c) being angled by the disc arm to be at an angle to the travel direction (as shown in Fig. 2, wherein planar portions of 27a and 27c are visible in a front view indicating angling as claimed).
Regarding claim 19, Lehman discloses the first row of ground engaging tools (of 27a) connected to the mounting bar being positioned forward of the second row of ground engaging tools (of 27c) connected to the additional mounting bar (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 20, Lehman discloses the limitations of this claim when the mounting bar and the additional mounting bar are reversed and when the first plurality of ground engaging tools and the second plurality of ground engaging tools are reversed, such that the cultivator includes:
a mounting bar (including 54 supporting 27c);
a first plurality of ground engaging tools (including 27c);
an additional mounting bar (including 54 supporting 27a);
a second plurality of ground engaging tools (including 27a),
wherein the second row of ground engaging tools connected to the additional mounting bar is positioned forward of the first row of ground engaging tools connected to the mounting bar (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 1 in a first alternative, Lehman (in a first alternative consideration to that above) discloses a cultivator (see embodiment of Fig. 4, which is provided to the frame of Figs. 1 and 3 via 44, where 44 is shown in both Figs. 3 and 4) comprising:
a hitch assembly connectable to a tow vehicle to tow the cultivator in a travel direction (as described in col. 3, lines 6-18);
a tilling section having a front end and a back end, and comprising:
a tool frame (including 33);
a mounting bar (including 57 for 27a) provided below and connected to the tool frame (see Fig. 4) and extending generally perpendicular to the travel direction when the cultivator is in a field position to till soil in a field (see Fig. 4, wherein 57 extends laterally);
a first plurality of ground engaging tools (including 27a) forming a first row of ground engaging tools connected to and extending below the mounting bar (see Fig. 4), the first row of ground engaging tools connected along a length of the mounting bar (along the length of 57);
an additional mounting bar (including 57 or axle for 27c) provided below and connected to the tool frame (see Fig. 4) and extending generally perpendicular to the travel direction when the cultivator is in a field position to till soil in a field (see Fig. 4, wherein 57 or axle for 27c extends laterally);
a second plurality of ground engaging tools (including 27c) forming a second row of ground engaging tools connected to and extending below the additional mounting bar (see Fig. 4), the second row of ground engaging tools connected along a length of the additional mounting bar (along the length of 57 or axle for 27c); and
a plurality of mounting brackets (including 47, 50) and at least one adjustment mounting bracket (including 52, 54, and a first of the two bolts received by 52 through 59) connecting the mounting bar to the tool frame (see Fig. 4),
wherein the plurality of mounting brackets allows (permits via clearances held as shown) the mounting bar to be moved laterally relative to the tool frame,
wherein the at least one adjustment mounting bracket (including 52, 54, and a first of the two bolts received by 52 through 59) is operative to adjust the mounting bar laterally relative to the tool frame, and
wherein the first row of ground engaging tools (of 27a) and the second row of ground engaging tools (of 27c) are arranged in a front-to-back arrangement such that the first row of ground engaging tools is positioned forward of the second row of ground engaging tools (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6 in the first alternative, Lehman discloses the cultivator with respect to claim 1, as set forth above in the first alternative, wherein the at least one adjustment mounting bracket comprises: a connection arm (including 54) connected to the mounting bar (including 57); a frame connector (including front and rear vertically extending flanges of 52, and including horizontally extending plate of 52 having 59) connected (via 50, 51) to the tool frame (including 33); an adjustment member (including vertically extending flange of 52 with 51 therethrough); and an adjustment rod (first of two bolts received by 52 through 59) provided between the adjustment member and the connection arm (provided laterally between the vertically extending flange of 52 with 51 therethrough and 56, which is of 54, in Fig. 4) to adjust the connection arm relative to the frame connector.
Regarding claim 7 in the first alternative, Lehman discloses the cultivator with respect to claim 6 wherein the adjustment rod (first of two bolts received by 52 through 59) is threaded and nuts (on the two bolts received by 52 through 59) are used to adjust the connection arm relative to the frame connector.
Regarding claim 8 in the first alternative, Lehman discloses the cultivator with respect to claim 6 wherein the connection arm (including 54) comprises: a connection member (56) extending at a first end from the mounting bar (including 57); and, a connection flange (55) extending from a second end of the connection member, perpendicular to the connection member.
Regarding claim 9 in the first alternative, Lehman discloses the cultivator with respect to claim 6 wherein the frame connector (including front and rear vertically extending flanges of 52, and including horizontally extending plate of 52 having 59) comprises: connection members (including front and rear vertically extending flanges of 52) connected (via 50, 51) to the tool frame (including 33); and, a connector flange (including horizontally extending plate of 52 having 59) extending between the connection members.
Regarding claim 10 in the first alternative, Lehman discloses the cultivator with respect to claim 8 further comprising: a first aperture (for 57) provided in the connection member (56); and a second aperture (for 51) provided in the adjustment member (including vertically extending flange of 52 with 51 therethrough), the first aperture and the second aperture sized to accept the adjustment rod (shown as similarly sized in Figs. 4 and 5, wherein both apertures are "sized to accept" bolts received by 52 through 59).
Regarding claim 11 in the first alternative, Lehman discloses the cultivator with respect to claim 6 wherein the adjustment member (including vertically extending flange of 52 with 51 therethrough) extends from the frame connector (including front and rear vertically extending flanges of 52, and including horizontally extending plate of 52 having 59).
Regarding claim 12 in the first alternative, Lehman discloses the cultivator with respect to claim 9 further comprising an elongate slot (59) provided in the connector flange (including horizontally extending plate of 52 having 59).
Regarding claim 13 in the first alternative, Lehman discloses the cultivator with respect to claim 12 further comprising a connector (second of two bolts received by 52 through 59) passing through the elongate slot (59) to the connection arm (including 54), to allow the connection arm to move laterally relative to the connector flange when the connector is loosened.
Regarding claim 19 in the first alternative, Lehman discloses the first row of ground engaging tools (of 27a) connected to the mounting bar being positioned forward of the second row of ground engaging tools (of 27c) connected to the additional mounting bar (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 20 in the first alternative, Lehman discloses the limitations of this claim when the mounting bar and the additional mounting bar are reversed and when the first plurality of ground engaging tools and the second plurality of ground engaging tools are reversed, such that the cultivator includes:
a mounting bar (including 57 or axle for 27c);
a first plurality of ground engaging tools (including 27c);
an additional mounting bar (including 57 for 27a);
a second plurality of ground engaging tools (including 27a),
wherein the second row of ground engaging tools connected to the additional mounting bar is positioned forward of the first row of ground engaging tools connected to the mounting bar (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 1 in a second alternative, Lehman (in a second alternative consideration to those above) discloses a cultivator (see embodiment of Fig. 4, which is provided to the frame of Figs. 1 and 3 via 44, where 44 is shown in both Figs. 3 and 4) comprising:
a hitch assembly connectable to a tow vehicle to tow the cultivator in a travel direction (as described in col. 3, lines 6-18);
a tilling section having a front end and a back end, and comprising:
a tool frame (including 33);
a mounting bar (including 57 for 27a) provided below and connected to the tool frame (see Fig. 4) and extending generally perpendicular to the travel direction when the cultivator is in a field position to till soil in a field (see Fig. 4, wherein 57 extends laterally);
a first plurality of ground engaging tools (including 27a) forming a first row of ground engaging tools connected to and extending below the mounting bar (see Fig. 4), the first row of ground engaging tools connected along a length of the mounting bar (along the length of 57);
an additional mounting bar (including 57 or axle for 27c) provided below and connected to the tool frame (see Fig. 4) and extending generally perpendicular to the travel direction when the cultivator is in a field position to till soil in a field (see Fig. 4, wherein 57 or axle for 27c extends laterally);
a second plurality of ground engaging tools (including 27c) forming a second row of ground engaging tools connected to and extending below the additional mounting bar (see Fig. 4), the second row of ground engaging tools connected along a length of the additional mounting bar (along the length of 57 or axle for 27c); and
a plurality of mounting brackets (including 47, 50, 52, and a first of the two bolts received by 52 through 59) and at least one adjustment mounting bracket (including a second of the two bolts received by 52 through 59) connecting the mounting bar to the tool frame (see Fig. 4),
wherein the plurality of mounting brackets allows (via 59) the mounting bar to be moved laterally relative to the tool frame,
wherein the at least one adjustment mounting bracket (including a second of the two bolts received by 52 through 59) is operative to adjust the mounting bar laterally relative to the tool frame, and
wherein the first row of ground engaging tools (of 27a) and the second row of ground engaging tools (of 27c) are arranged in a front-to-back arrangement such that the first row of ground engaging tools is positioned forward of the second row of ground engaging tools (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15 in the second alternative, Lehman discloses the cultivator with respect to claim 1, as set forth above in the second alternative, wherein at least one mounting bracket of the plurality of mounting brackets comprises:
a connection arm (including 54) connected to the mounting bar (including 57);
a frame connector (including 52) connected to the tool frame;
an elongate slot (59); and
a connector (first of two bolts received by 52 through 59) connecting the connection arm and the frame connector through the elongate slot.
Regarding claim 16 in the second alternative, Lehman discloses the cultivator with respect to claim 15 wherein loosening the connector (first of two bolts received by 52 through 59) allows the connection arm to move relative to the frame connector (when the second of the two bolts received by 52 through 59 is also loosened), and wherein tightening the connector prevents the connection arm moving relative to the frame connector.
Regarding claim 17 in the second alternative, Lehman discloses the cultivator with respect to claim 15 wherein the connection arm (including 54) comprises: a member (56) extending from the mounting bar; and, a connection flange (55) extending from said member.
Regarding claim 19 in the second alternative, Lehman discloses the first row of ground engaging tools (of 27a) connected to the mounting bar being positioned forward of the second row of ground engaging tools (of 27c) connected to the additional mounting bar (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 20 in the second alternative, Lehman discloses the limitations of this claim when the mounting bar and the additional mounting bar are reversed and when the first plurality of ground engaging tools and the second plurality of ground engaging tools are reversed, such that the cultivator includes:
a mounting bar (including 57 or axle for 27c);
a first plurality of ground engaging tools (including 27c);
an additional mounting bar (including 57 for 27a);
a second plurality of ground engaging tools (including 27a),
wherein the second row of ground engaging tools connected to the additional mounting bar is positioned forward of the first row of ground engaging tools connected to the mounting bar (see Fig. 4).
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehman.
Regarding claim 18, Lehman discloses the cultivator with respect to claim 17, as set forth above in the second alternative, wherein the elongate slot (59) is provided in the frame connector (including 52) rather than the adjacent connection flange (55). However, providing the elongate slot in the connection flange would have been a simple rearrangement of parts, which has been held to be an obvious modification. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehman in view of Keasler (US 2,396,467).
Regarding claim 14, Lehman discloses the cultivator with respect to claim 9, as set forth above in the first alternative, further comprising at least one marking (provided by the structure, including sides or edges) on the connector (bolt received by 52 through 59) to visually indicate a lateral offset distance (as the position of the structure of the bolt indicates a lateral offset distance). Lehman does not explicitly disclose at least one corresponding marking on the connection arm to visually indicate a lateral offset distance. However, Keasler teaches a cultivator having a connection arm (including 24) with at least one marking (26) to visually indicate a lateral offset distance (see p. 2, lines 4-27).
Keasler is analogous because Keasler discloses a cultivator having a hitch assembly and a tilling section. 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 cultivator of Lehman with the indicating means as taught by Keasler in order to produce a scale and for selective positioning. (See Keasler, p. 2, lines 4-27.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's amendments have overcome objections to the drawings, specification, and claims. However, the specification remains objected to for the reasons set forth above. The amendments to the claims have overcome § 112 rejections. However, claim 2 remains rejected due to indefiniteness, and the amendment to claim 14 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Lehman, Applicant argues: "However, amended claim 1 makes it clear that the mounting bar and the additional mounting bar of amended claim 1 extend generally perpendicular to the travel direction (of the cultivator) when the cultivator is in a field position to till soil in a field. Even if the brackets 54 were said to be analogous to the mounting bar and the additional mounting bar of claim 1, they do not extend perpendicular to the travel direction of the cultivator when the cultivator of Lehman is in a field position." (See Remarks of 1/29/2026, labeled p. 14.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because mounting bars 54 in Lehman have a vertical length that extends perpendicular to the travel direction of the cultivator when the cultivator of Lehman is in a field position. Further, mounting bars 54 in Lehman are also described and shown having a top wall 55, which is shown (see Fig. 4 of Lehman) having a horizontal length extending perpendicular to the travel direction of the cultivator when the cultivator of Lehman is in a field position.
Further, Applicant argues: "In the Lehman reference, a plurality of ground engaging tools 27 do not extend along a length of the brackets 54, and, even if they did, they would not extend perpendicular along the length of the brackets 54." (See Remarks of 1/29/2026, labeled p. 15.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because ground engaging tools 27 in Lehman are shown extending along a vertical length of the mounting bars 54 (see Fig. 4 of Lehman). Further, the ground engaging tools "extend[ing] perpendicular along the length of the [mounting bar]" is not claimed. However, the ground engaging tools 27 in Lehman have a dimension that extends in this manner (i.e., the ground engaging tools 27 in Lehman extend fore-and-aft and side-to-side).
Also, Applicant argues: "None of the brackets 54, in the Lehman reference, are connected to a tool frame by a plurality of mounting brackets and at least one adjustment mounting bracket. Rather, each one is only connected by a single mounting plate 52. Therefore, none of the brackets 54 in Lehman can be said to be connected to a tool frame by 'a plurality of mounting brackets and at least one adjustment mounting bracket'." (See Remarks of 1/29/2026, labeled p. 15.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because the mounting bar 54 in Lehman is connected to the tool frame (including 33) by a plurality of mounting brackets (including 47, 50, and 52) and at least one adjustment mounting bracket (including the bolts received by 52 through 59). These mounting brackets were specifically indicated in the Non-Final Rejection of 10/1/2025. Applicant's argument fails to address these mounting brackets and argues against a rejection only considering 52 in Lehman as the plurality of mounting brackets. However, such a rejection was not made, and thus, Applicant's argument is unpersuasive since it is not germane to the Non-Final Rejection of 10/1/2025.
Additionally, Applicant's arguments are deficient because they only address one consideration of Lehman (i.e., that set forth in labeled paras. 32-35 in the Non-Final Rejection of 10/1/2025) and fail to address the rejection of the claims as being anticipated by Lehman in first and second alternative considerations (i.e., those set forth in labeled paras. 36-48 in the Non-Final Rejection of 10/1/2025).
Further, Applicant argues that dependent claims are allowable because Lehman does not disclose all of the elements specified by claim 1. (See Remarks of 1/29/2026, labeled pp. 15 and 16.) These arguments are unpersuasive because Lehman discloses all of the elements in claim 1, as explained above.
Applicant's arguments, see labeled p. 15, filed 1/29/2026, with respect to Spence (US 1,620,697) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 14 for being anticipated by Spence has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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/6/7/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights