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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application. All clams are eligible for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., direct connection to a front housing and an integrated housing component) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to claim 1:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the elements from the different references perform the functions that they do individually – that is, the rack from Dehl still carries a vehicle and the feeder house mount of Patterson still connects machinery to the feeder house.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument that modifying Dehl according to Patterson would make Dehl unworkable, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
With respect to claim 10, applicant notes that the claim’s features are commensurate in scope with those in claim 1. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 10 are thus commensurate in scope with those with respect to claim 1. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 10 are unpersuasive for the same reasons that they were unpersuasive for claim 1.
With respect to the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C 103, applicant notes that the claim’s features are commensurate in scope with those in claims 1 and 10. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 14 are thus commensurate in scope with those with respect to claims 1 and 10. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 14 are unpersuasive for the same reasons that they were unpersuasive for claims 1 and 10.
Applicant also argues that the combination of Dehl in view of Patterson as applied to claim 14 lacks a reasonable expectation of success. While applicant provides a description of Patterson’s mount as allowing limited twisting movement, applicant provides no evidence that Dehl requires a fixed, elevated position for secure transport.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a stability suitable for vehicle support) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to claim 5:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a guide supported by a frame) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant asserts that “the Office’s mapping to the tailgate/ramp extensions mischaracterizes them as part of the ‘frame’ (main platform).” It is unclear why applicant has made this assertion; the office had asserted that “the main platform is the frame” (the discussion of Brown under the rejection of claims 5 and 18 in the previous office action). This phrasing suggests that the tailgate/ramp extensions are not the frame since the main platform is the frame.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
With respect to claim 18, applicant notes that the claim’s features are commensurate in scope with those in claim 5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 18 are thus commensurate in scope with those with respect to claim 5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 18 are unpersuasive for the same reasons that they were unpersuasive for claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Dugan et al. (US 6884018).
With respect to claim 14, Dugan et al. discloses a platform for connecting to mounting structure of a machine for supporting a vehicle on the machine, the platform comprising:
a frame (in figure 1, the platform has edges around it, like 63 and 53, that collectively define a frame);
at least one guide supported by the frame, the at least one guide configured to receive at least one wheel of a vehicle to thereby position the vehicle on the frame (in figure 1, element 65 is a yoke for a sport vehicle wheel, as described in line 65 of column 3 through line 6 of column 4); and
a mount coupled to the frame and configured to connect the frame to a front housing of the machine (as shown in figure 1, the platform is connected to the front of a bus which necessitates mounting means – as shown by the figure, the mount is configured to connect the frame to the front of the bus/machine; figure 4 shows the mount in some detail).
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 1-4, 6-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehl (RE39646) in view of Patterson (US 5005343).
With respect to claim 1, Dehl discloses a platform for supporting a vehicle on a combine (in figure 17, Dehl discloses a platform for supporting an ATV where the platform is attached to another vehicle), the platform comprising:
a frame (in figures 15-18, Dehl discloses a platform used to support an ATV where the platform is attached to another vehicle – in figure 17, Dehl discloses the platform – the outer boundaries define a frame);
at least one guide supported by the frame, the at least one guide configured to receive at least one wheel of a vehicle to thereby position the vehicle on the frame (in figure 17, Dehl discloses vertical slats that are meant to be placement points for a vehicle’s wheels, as seen in figures 15 and 16; the location of the slats, which is specific for each of an ATV’s four wheels, reads on a guide that receives a wheel); and
a mount coupled to the frame (in figures 15 and 16, Dehl discloses a mount that is coupled to the frame – the mount in this case is used to connect the frame on the back end of a pick-up truck).
Dehl does not disclose that the mount is configured to connect the frame to a feeder house of the combine.
However, Patterson discloses a mount configured to connect an apparatus to a feeder house of a combine (in figure 7 and the accompanying paragraphs running from line 48 of column 8 through line 21 of column 9, Patterson discloses a system by which an apparatus can be attached to a feeder housing rendering obvious apparatuses “configured” to connect to a feeder house).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the ATV platform of Dehl with the feeder housing mount of Patterson because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The combination would yield the predictable result of an ATV platform that could be mounted on an harvester allowing the ATV to be transported to places that may not be accessible to a pick-up truck (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
With respect to claim 2, Dehl in view of Patterson discloses the limitations of claim 1. Dehl in view of Patterson further discloses the at least one guide includes a first guide and a second guide, and wherein the first guide is disposed on the fame generally parallel to the second guide (in figure 17, Dehl discloses four locations for tire that read on at least the first and second guides; the guides for the left wheels are substantially parallel to the guides for the right wheels).
With respect to claim 3, Dehl in view of Patterson discloses the limitations of claim 2. Dehl in view of Patterson further discloses the at least one wheel of the vehicle includes multiple wheels, and wherein the first and second guides each define a track configured to allow ones of the multiple wheels to roll along a surface of the track (in figures 15 and 16, Dehl discloses that the rack of figure 17 supports an ATV, which has multiple wheels; the guides each individually define a track and allow the wheels to roll because the guides are substantially flat, as shown in figure 18 – also note that figure 9 shows a continuous track for a rack for a motorcycle).
With respect to claim 4, Dehl in view of Patterson discloses the limitations of claim 3. Dehl in view of Patterson further discloses each of the first and second guides includes multiple rungs defining the corresponding track of the first and second guides (in figure 17, Dehl discloses rungs defining the guide locations at which the ATV’s wheels are secured).
With respect to claim 6, Dehl in view of Patterson discloses the limitations of claim 1. Dehl in view of Patterson further discloses the frame defines a generally rectangular shape (in figure 17, Dehl disclose a rack that has four corners, each of which is a right angle, where if connected the lines would define a rectangle; while the rack in figure 17 has indents in the top and bottom edges, the shape is still generally rectangular, as required by the claim).
With respect to claim 7, Dehl in view of Patterson discloses the limitations of claim 1. Dehl in view of Patterson further discloses the mount defines a first opening configured to receive a lug of the feeder house for use in coupling the platform to the feeder house (in figure 7, Patterson discloses that the feeder housing includes lug 1F – the mounting links 6 attaches to it and one is shown on the outside of the lug; in paragraph 27 of the instant specification, applicant describes receiving lugs to thereby position the platform on the combine – as there are multiple links arranged on either side of the feeder and they are shown in figure 7 as outside of lug 1F, the links define an opening – the gap between them – that receives the lug).
With respect to claim 8, Dehl in view of Patterson discloses the limitations of claim 7. Dehl in view of Patterson further discloses the mount further defines a second opening configured to receive a support pin of the combine (in figure 7, Patterson discloses link 7 that is attached to the feeder housing with an element that looks identical to pivot coupling 7A – a pivot coupling renders obvious a pin; in this example, the coupling attaching link 7 to the feeder housing supports the header 2 in its alignment to the ground and feeder housing – thus, the coupling renders obvious a support pin – the circular attachment point renders obvious an opening).
With respect to claim 9, Dehl in view of Patterson discloses the limitations of claim 8. Dehl in view of Patterson further discloses the second opening is located generally below the first opening (in figure 7, Dehl discloses links 6 and 7 that each have openings; link 7, which has the opening that uses the support pin and is thus the second opening, is pictured entirely below link 6, which has the first opening).
With respect to claim 10, Dehl discloses a platform for supporting a vehicle on a combine (in figure 17, Dehl discloses a platform for supporting an ATV where the platform is attached to another vehicle), the platform comprising:
a frame (in figures 15-18, Dehl discloses a platform used to support an ATV where the platform is attached to another vehicle – in figure 17, Dehl discloses the platform – the outer boundaries define a frame);
at least one guide supported by the frame, the at least one guide configured to receive at least one wheel of a vehicle to thereby position the vehicle on the frame (in figure 17, Dehl discloses vertical slats that are meant to be placement points for a vehicle’s wheels, as seen in figures 15 and 16; the location of the slats, which is specific for each of an ATV’s four wheels, reads on a guide that receives a wheel); and
a mount coupled to the frame (in figures 15 and 16, Dehl discloses a mount that is coupled to the frame – the mount in this case is used to connect the frame on the back end of a pick-up truck).
Dehl does not disclose a feeder house nor does it disclose that the mount is configured to connect the frame to a feeder house of the combine.
However, Patterson discloses a feeder house (in figure 7 of Patterson, element 1 is a feeder housing) and a mount configured to connect an apparatus to a feeder house of a combine (in figure 7 and the accompanying paragraphs running from line 48 of column 8 through line 21 of column 9, Patterson discloses a system by which an apparatus can be attached to a feeder housing rendering obvious apparatuses “configured” to connect to a feeder house).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the ATV platform of Dehl with the feeder housing mount of Patterson because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The combination would yield the predictable result of an ATV platform that could be mounted on an harvester allowing the ATV to be transported to places that may not be accessible to a pick-up truck (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
With respect to claim 11, Dehl in view of Patterson discloses the limitations of claim 10. Dehl in view of Patterson further discloses the mount defines a first opening configured to receive a lug of the feeder house for use in coupling the platform to the feeder house (in figure 7, Patterson discloses that the feeder housing includes lug 1F – the mounting link 6 attaches to it and is shown with a circle rendering obvious an opening).
With respect to claim 12, Dehl in view of Patterson discloses the limitations of claim 11. Dehl in view of Patterson further discloses the mount further defines a second opening configured to receive a support pin of the combine (in figure 7, Patterson discloses that the feeder housing includes lug 1F – the mounting links 6 attaches to it and one is shown on the outside of the lug; in paragraph 27 of the instant specification, applicant describes receiving lugs to thereby position the platform on the combine – as there are multiple links arranged on either side of the feeder and they are shown in figure 7 as outside of lug 1F, the links define an opening – the gap between them – that receives the lug).
With respect to claim 13, Dehl in view of Patterson discloses the limitations of claim 12. Dehl in view of Patterson further discloses the second opening is located generally below the first opening (in figure 7, Dehl discloses links 6 and 7 that each have openings; link 7, which has the opening that uses the support pin and is thus the second opening, is pictured entirely below link 6, which has the first opening).
With respect to claim 14, Dehl discloses a platform for connecting to mounting structure of a machine for supporting a vehicle on the machine (in figure 17, Dehl discloses a platform for supporting an ATV where the platform is attached to another vehicle – the ATV reads on a vehicle and the vehicle that receives the rack reads on a machine), the platform comprising:
a frame (in figures 15-18, Dehl discloses a platform used to support an ATV where the platform is attached to another vehicle – in figure 17, Dehl discloses the platform – the outer boundaries define a frame);
at least one guide supported by the frame, the at least one guide configured to receive at least one wheel of a vehicle to thereby position the vehicle on the frame (in figure 17, Dehl discloses vertical slats that are meant to be placement points for a vehicle’s wheels, as seen in figures 15 and 16; the location of the slats, which is specific for each of an ATV’s four wheels, reads on a guide that receives a wheel); and
a mount coupled to the frame (in figures 15 and 16, Dehl discloses a mount that is coupled to the frame – the mount in this case is used to connect the frame on the back end of a pick-up truck).
Dehl does not disclose the mount is configured to connect the frame to a front housing of the machine.
However, Patterson discloses a mount configured to connect an apparatus to a feeder house of a combine (in figure 7 and the accompanying paragraphs running from line 48 of column 8 through line 21 of column 9, Patterson discloses a system by which an apparatus can be attached to a feeder housing rendering obvious apparatuses “configured” to connect to a feeder house; the feeder housing is a front housing).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the ATV platform of Dehl with the feeder housing mount of Patterson because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The combination would yield the predictable result of an ATV platform that could be mounted on an harvester allowing the ATV to be transported to places that may not be accessible to a pick-up truck (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
With respect to claim 15, Dehl in view of Patterson discloses the limitations of claim 14. Dehl in view of Patterson further discloses the at least one guide includes a first guide and a second guide, and wherein the first guide is disposed on the fame generally parallel to the second guide (in figure 17, Dehl discloses four locations for tire that read on at least the first and second guides; the guides for the left wheels are substantially parallel to the guides for the right wheels).
With respect to claim 16, Dehl in view of Patterson discloses the limitations of claim 15. Dehl in view of Patterson further discloses the at least one wheel of the vehicle includes multiple wheels, and wherein the first and second guides each define a track configured to allow ones of the multiple wheels to roll along a surface of the track (in figures 15 and 16, Dehl discloses that the rack of figure 17 supports an ATV, which has multiple wheels; the guides each individually define a track and allow the wheels to roll because the guides are substantially flat, as shown in figure 18 – also note that figure 9 shows a continuous track for a rack for a motorcycle).
With respect to claim 17, Dehl in view of Patterson discloses the limitations of claim 16. Dehl in view of Patterson further discloses each of the first and second guides includes multiple rungs defining the corresponding track of the first and second guides (in figure 17, Dehl discloses rungs defining the guide locations at which the ATV’s wheels are secured).
With respect to claim 19, Dehl in view of Patterson discloses the limitations of claim 14. Dehl in view of Patterson further discloses the frame defines a generally rectangular shape (in figure 17, Dehl disclose a rack that has four corners, each of which is a right angle, where if connected the lines would define a rectangle; while the rack in figure 17 has indents in the top and bottom edges, the shape is still generally rectangular, as required by the claim).
With respect to claim 20, Dehl in view of Patterson discloses the limitations of claim 14. Dehl in view of Patterson further discloses the machine is selected from the group consisting of a combine, a loader, a tractor, a backhoe, and a skidder (in the title, Patterson discloses that the feeder housing is part of a combine harvester, reading on a combine).
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehl in view of Patterson as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Brown (US 2005/0281629).
With respect to claim 5, Dehl in view of Patterson discloses the limitations of claim 1. Dehl in view of Patterson does not disclose the at least one guide extends beyond the frame to thereby provide a ramp portion for positioning the vehicle on the frame.
However, Brown discloses at least one guide extending beyond a frame to thereby provide a ramp portion for positioning the vehicle on the frame (in the abstract, Brown discloses a rack for ATV’s; the rack includes a main platform 2, as described in paragraph 26; a tailgate extension 11 is attached to the main platform and a ramp extension 12 to the tailgate extension; as shown by figure 1, the tailgate extension includes two guides that provides a path for an ATV to be loaded onto the main platform, making the tailgate extension a ramp; the ramp extension also reads on a ramp; in this interpretation, the main platform is the frame).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to modify the rack of Dehl in view of Patterson by adding a ramp extension as taught by Brown with the motivation that “ATVs can be driven onto support platform” (Brown paragraph 15).
With respect to claim 18, Dehl in view of Patterson discloses the limitations of claim 14. Dehl in view of Patterson does not disclose the at least one guide extends beyond the frame to thereby provide a ramp portion for positioning the vehicle on the frame.
However, Brown discloses at least one guide extending beyond a frame to thereby provide a ramp portion for positioning the vehicle on the frame (in the abstract, Brown discloses a rack for ATV’s; the rack includes a main platform 2, as described in paragraph 26; a tailgate extension 11 is attached to the main platform and a ramp extension 12 to the tailgate extension; as shown by figure 1, the tailgate extension includes two guides that provides a path for an ATV to be loaded onto the main platform, making the tailgate extension a ramp; the ramp extension also reads on a ramp; in this interpretation, the main platform is the frame).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to modify the rack of Dehl in view of Patterson by adding a ramp extension as taught by Brown with the motivation that “ATVs can be driven onto support platform” (Brown paragraph 15).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DOUGLAS JAMES MEISLAHN whose telephone number is (703)756-1925. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 EST M-Th, M-F.
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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at (571) 272-8971. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit 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.
/DOUGLAS J MEISLAHN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671