DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szatko (US 6257342 B1) in view of Keigley (US 20150107861 A1) and Damazas (US 2869257 A).
Regarding claim 1, Szatko discloses a skid steer rake (10, Figs. 1-5) comprising:
a main body having a rake plate (54,56), an attachment plate (32), and at least two lateral plates (18,20);
a landscape rake with tines (72) in a comb-like structure coupled to the rake plate and configured to engage a ground surface (col. 3 lines 51-53);
a plurality of scarifier mounts (42,44) coupled to the attachment plate;
a plurality of scarifiers (46) (col. 3 lines 38-41) coupled between the plurality of scarifier mounts;
a clod-cleaver axle (axle of 58, as seen in Fig. 3-5) rotatably coupled to the at least two lateral plates, the clod-cleaver axle further comprising a clod-cleaving wheel (58) coupled thereto (col. 3 lines 49-50).
Szatko fails to disclose wherein the clod cleaving wheel comprises a plurality of clod-cleaving wheels. The Examiner takes official notice that it is common knowledge to use a plurality of clod-cleaving wheels extending laterally across the frame in place of a single elongated clod-cleaving roller. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have replaced the elongated clod-cleaving roller in Szatko with a plurality of clod-cleaving wheels for breaking up small dirt clods.
Note Applicant’s response filed 11-26-2025 did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice, therefore the common knowledge statement is taken to be admitted prior art. See Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420.
Szatko fails to disclose wherein the tines are rigid tines.
In the same field of endeavor, Keigley discloses a substantially similar skid steer rake comprising a plurality of scarifiers (150) and a landscape rake with rigid tines (140) in a comb-like structure (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the spring tines of Szatko with rigid tines, as taught by Keigley, since this is a mere simple substitution of one known raking comb for another to yield predictable results.
Szatko fails to disclose wherein the plurality of scarifiers are coupled to a scarifier axle rotationally coupled to and retained by the plurality of scarifier mounts; a scarifier latch comprising a bracket and a lever and coupled to the attachment plate, the lever of the scarifier latch comprising a plurality of ridges configured to engage and retain at least one scarifier of the plurality of scarifiers.
In the same field of earth working machines, Damazas discloses a plurality of scarifiers (32) coupled to a scarifier axle (31) rotationally coupled to and retained by a plurality of scarifier mounts (28,30); a scarifier latch comprising a bracket (38) and a lever (36) and coupled to an attachment plate (27), the lever of the scarifier latch comprising a plurality of ridges (44) configured to engage and retain the plurality of scarifiers (col. 2 lines 56-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar angular adjustment assembly to mount the plurality of scarifiers of Szatko, as taught by Damazas, to allow the operator to adjust the angle of the scarifiers as desired for different types of raking operations or movement to a transport position (Damazas col. 3 lines 33-35 and 46-58).
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Szatko discloses the skid steer rake of claim 1, and further teaches a pull configuration wherein the plurality of scarifiers engages the ground surface first, followed by the plurality of clod-cleaving wheels, followed by the landscape rake (Szatko at col. 3 lines 35-53, skid steer is backed over soil) and wherein the plurality of scarifiers has a latched state and an unlatched state (from combination w/ Damazas, scarifiers are in latched state when latch member 45 is engaged in a recess 44, and unlatched state when latch member 45 clears groove 43 and recess 44 during adjustment).
Szatko does not explicitly detail a push configuration wherein the landscape rake engages with a ground surface first, followed by the plurality of clod-cleaving wheels, followed by the plurality of scarifiers.
However, Keigley discloses a substantially similar skid steer rake configured for both reverse and forward operation (para. [0018], see arrow R in Fig. 2 and arrow F in Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a push configuration in addition to the pull configuration for the skid steer rake of Szatko, as taught by Keigley, such that the ground-engaging elements can engage the ground in reverse order thereby increasing versatility of the device for performing different types of operations on ground.
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Szatko discloses the skid steer rake of claim 2. Damazas further teaches wherein the plurality of scarifiers (32) is configured to couple the least one scarifier latch at various positions (44), allowing the plurality of scarifiers to be configured in various latched states and unlatched states during operation (latched when latch member 45 is engaged in a recess 44, unlatched when latch member 45 is removed from groove 43 and recess 44, col. 2 lines 56-67).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 and 18-24 are allowed.
Claims 6-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-2 and 5, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“While Damazas shows a latch and bracket, this adjustment requires manual operation using screw members (45). Additionally, adjustment is not engageable and disengageable solely by moving the attached implement with the power unit. Therefore, Damazas' invention does not address in-operation latch switching.” (see page 11 of Applicant’s remarks filed 11-26-2025).
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully points out the that claim 1 does not require in-operation latch switching, nor does it include any language specifying that adjustment be engageable and disengageable solely by moving the attached implement with the power unit. Damazas’ adjustable latch mechanism for the scarifiers therefore meets each limitation pertaining to the latching feature set forth in the claim.
Applicant further argues:
“The Examiner's rationale for combination does not…provide a teaching to modify Szatko's resilient tines with Damazas' manual screw-and-handle bracket into the claimed configuration.” (see page 12 of Applicant’s remarks filed 11-26-2025).
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully points out that the combination in this office action, as well as in the Non-final office action dated 5-28-2025, provides motivation for modifying Szatko’s scarifier teeth 46, not Szatko's rake tines 72, with Damazas' latch mechanism, as Damazas teaches advantages of providing adjustability for similar scarifier teeth, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 14-15 and 18-24, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 14 have been considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims has therefore been withdrawn and the claims accordingly indicated allowable in this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (571) 272-8971. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit httos://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671