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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 3-4 recite “an inner end of the immediate frame section” which should be “[[an]] the inner end of the immediate frame section” for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 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 recites the limitation “whereby the wheel axis of the steerable wheel assembly is oriented transversely to the longitudinal axis of the wing assembly in the field configuration” in lines 4-5 which is unclear as it conflicts with the definition implied by claim 1 from which it depends. Claim 1 recites the following: “the actuating arrangement being arranged to controllably pivot the steerable wheel about an upright steering axis between a transport configuration oriented for rolling movement about a wheel axis lying perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the wing assembly and a field configuration oriented transversely to the transport configuration”. This portion of claim 1 requires that the transport configuration is defined by the steerable wheel axis lying perpendicularly, i.e., transversely, to the longitudinal axis of the wing assembly. This is opposite as to what claim 3 recites, which requires the field configuration have the wheel axis lying perpendicularly, i.e., transversely, to the longitudinal axis of the wing assembly. Claim 1 also recites that “a field configuration oriented transversely to the transport configuration”, which as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 below, is interpreted as the wheel axis lying parallel to the longitudinal axis of the wing corresponds to the field configuration. Accordingly, lines 4-5 of claim 3 will be examined as if reciting “whereby the wheel axis of the steerable wheel assembly is oriented transversely to the longitudinal axis of the wing assembly in the transport configuration” in order to be consistent with the claim limitations discussed above in claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Redekop (Pat. No.: 9,839,171).
Regarding independent claim 1, Redekop discloses a land roller implement arranged to be towed in a forward working direction by a towing vehicle for flattening and levelling land, the implement comprising:
a main frame section (12) arranged for connection to the towing vehicle, the main frame section (12) supporting a main roller thereon for rolling movement in the forward working direction (See col. 6, lns. 17-18 where it disclose a main roller is supported on the main frame section);
two wing assemblies (14 and 16 generally, See Fig. 1) extending along respective longitudinal axes from inner ends of the wing assemblies (inner end of the wing assembly corresponds to end near 18, See Fig. 1) to outer ends of the wing assemblies (around 24, See Fig. 1) respectively, the inner ends of the wing assemblies being pivotally coupled at opposing sides of the main frame section (12) respectively (as seen in Fig. 1) whereby the wing assemblies (14 and 16 generally) are movable relative to the main frame section (12) between a working position (position in Fig. 2) in which the longitudinal axes of the wing assemblies extend laterally outward in opposing directions from the main frame section (12) and a transport position (position in Fig. 1) in which the longitudinal axes of the wing assemblies extend rearwardly from the main frame section (12); each wing assembly comprising:
(i) an outer frame section (16) at the outer end of the wing assembly, the outer frame section (16) including an outer roller (84) supported thereon for rolling movement in the forward working direction in the working position of the wing assembly;
(ii) an intermediate frame section (14) supported between the outer frame section (16) and the inner end (18) of the wing assembly the intermediate frame section (14) including an intermediate roller (48) supported thereon for rolling movement in the forward working direction in the working position of the wing assembly; and
(iii) an inner end (22) of the outer frame section (16) being coupled to an outer end (20) of the intermediate frame section (14);
a set of transport wheels (88, 92, 94) supporting the frame sections (12, 14, 16) for rolling movement in the forward working direction in the transport position, the set of transport wheels (88, 92, 94) including:
(i) two leading wheel assemblies (94) supported on the main frame section (12, as seen in Fig. 1);
(ii) two trailing wheel assemblies (92, See Fig. 13 for assembly depiction) supported at the outer ends (24) of the outer frame sections (16) respectively, each trailing wheel assembly including at least one trailing wheel (i.e., wheel of 92); and
(iii) two steerable wheel assemblies (88, See Fig. 10 for assembly depiction) supported on the wing assemblies respectively at a location nearer to the inner ends (18) of the wing assemblies than the trailing wheel assemblies (i.e., the steerable wheel assemblies are closer to the inner ends of the wing when compared to the trailing wheel assembly), each steerable wheel assembly (88) including an actuating arrangement associated with the steerable wheel assembly (actuating arranged depicted in Fig. 10), the actuating arrangement being arranged to controllably pivot the steerable wheel (88) about an upright steering axis (the pivoting of the steerable wheel about an upright steering axis is accomplished via a rotatable post 104 which is best depicted in Fig. 12; See col. 10, lns. 37-43 for a disclosure of this pivoting via 104 about a vertical axis) between a transport configuration oriented for rolling movement about a wheel axis lying perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the wing assembly (i.e., when pivoted to the transport configuration which is depicted in Fig. 1, the wheel axis of 88 is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the wing assembly as seen in Fig. 1) and a field configuration oriented transversely to the transport configuration (i.e., a wheel axis lying parallel to the longitudinal axis of the wing corresponds to the field configuration in line with the transport configuration interpreted above; See col. 10, lns. 37-59, where it discloses the steerable wheel assemblies are configured for “360 degree rotation”, this disclosed rotation allows for the field configuration as interpreted above);
each steerable wheel assembly (88) being supported on the respective wing assembly adjacent to a connection (connection of the inner end of the outer frame and the outer end of the intermediate frame section depicted in Fig. 2) of the inner end (22) of the outer frame section (16) and the outer end (20) of the intermediate frame section (14); and
said at least one trailing wheel of each trailing wheel assembly (92, See Fig. 13 for assembly and wheel depiction) is supported for free pivotal movement about an upright caster axis of the trailing wheel assembly (See Fig. 13 and col. 11, lns. 9-25 where it discloses the trailing wheel can be raised or lowered relative to the frame section by pivoting of the upright tube relative to the frame section, the claimed upright caster axis therefore generally corresponds to the upright axis of this rotation created by the tube) and said at least one trailing wheel being laterally centered (See 138 in Fig. 13, this support arm will laterally center the trailing wheel relative to the upright caster axis) relative to the caster axis of the trailing wheel assembly in a trailing relationship with the caster axis (See 138 in Fig. 13 where the wheel assembly is therefore located behind, i.e., trailing behind, the upright caster axis).
Regarding claim 2, Redekop discloses the implement according to claim 1, and also discloses wherein each actuating arrangement is further arranged to lock the associated steerable wheel assembly in the transport configuration (See cols. 10-11, lns. 60-8 where it discloses a locking pin 115 for “restrict[ing] relative rotation between the support arm carrying the wheels and the vertical tube to selectively fix the orientation of the wheels relative to the frame section”).
Regarding claim 6, Redekop discloses the implement according to claim 1, and also discloses wherein each steerable wheel assembly (88) is supported on a first one of the inner end of the outer frame section or the outer end of the intermediate frame section of the wing assembly (See Fig. 1 where 88 is supported on the inner end 22 of the outer frame 16), the set of transport wheels (88, 92, 94) further comprising an intermediate wheel assembly (90) supported on each wing assembly (See Fig. 1), the intermediate wheel assembly (90) being supported on a second one of the inner end of the outer frame section or the outer end of the intermediate frame section of the wing assembly (See Fig. 1 where 90 is supported on the outer end 20 of the intermediate frame 14), the intermediate wheel assembly (90) being supported for free pivotal movement about an upright caster axis of the intermediate wheel assembly (See Fig. 10 and col. 10, lns. 8-20 where it discloses the intermediate wheel can be raised or lowered relative to the frame section by pivoting of the upright tube relative to the frame section, the claimed upright caster axis therefore generally corresponds to the upright axis of rotation created by the tube), and the intermediate wheel assembly (90) comprising at least one intermediate wheel in which said at least one intermediate wheel is laterally centered (See 108 in Fog 10, this support arm will laterally center the intermediate wheel relative to the upright caster axis) relative to the caster axis of the intermediate wheel assembly in a trailing relationship with the caster axis (See 108 in Fig. 10 where the wheel assembly is therefore located behind, i.e., trailing behind, the upright caster axis).
Regarding claim 7, Redekop discloses the implement according to claim 1, and also discloses wherein each steerable wheel assembly (88) is supported on the inner end (22) of the outer frame section (16) of the respective wing assembly (as seen in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Redekop discloses the implement according to claim 7, and further discloses two intermediate wheel assemblies (90) supported on the wing assemblies respectively (i.e., an intermediate wheel assembly per each wing), each intermediate wheel assembly (90) being supported on the outer end (20) of the intermediate frame section (14) of the respective wing assembly (as seen in Fig. 1), each intermediate wheel assembly (90) being supported for free pivotal movement about an upright caster axis of the intermediate wheel assembly (See Fig. 10 and col. 10, lns. 8-20 where it discloses the intermediate wheel can be raised or lowered relative to the frame section by pivoting of the upright tube relative to the frame section, the claimed upright caster axis therefore generally corresponds to the upright axis of rotation created by the tube), and the intermediate wheel assembly (90) comprising at least one intermediate wheel in which said at least one intermediate wheel is laterally centered (See 108 in Fog 10, this support arm will laterally center the intermediate wheel relative to the upright caster axis) relative to the caster axis of the intermediate wheel assembly in a trailing relationship with the caster axis (See 108 in Fig. 10 where the wheel assembly is therefore located behind, i.e., trailing behind, the upright caster axis).
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 3-5 and 12-14 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redekop.
Regarding claim 3, Redekop discloses the implement according to claim 1, and also discloses wherein each actuating arrangement is arranged to pivot the associated steerable wheel assembly (88) between the transport configuration and the field configuration through a range (See col. 10, lns. 37-59, where it discloses the steerable wheel assemblies are configured for “360-degree rotation”, this disclosed rotation allows for the pivoting between the claimed transport and field configurations) whereby the wheel axis of the steerable wheel assembly is oriented transversely to the longitudinal axis of the wing assembly in the transport configuration (See 112 rejection above). However, Redekop fails to specifically discloses that range is less than 90 degrees. Nonetheless, Redekop discloses that “the orientations of the steerable wheels (note that the disclosed steerable wheels corresponds to the trailing wheels as claimed, See claim 1) at the outer ends of the outer sections can be rotated through 90 degrees” (See col. 12, lns. 11-27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the range limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, there do not appear to be any details of criticality provided for in the instant application regarding the specific range of less than 90 degrees.
Regarding claim 4, Redekop discloses the implement according to claim 1, and also discloses wherein each actuating arrangement is arranged to pivot the associated steerable wheel assembly (88) between the transport configuration and the field configuration through a range (See col. 10, lns. 37-59, where it discloses the steerable wheel assemblies are configured for “360-degree rotation”, this disclosed rotation allows for the pivoting between the claimed transport and field configurations). However, Redekop fails to specifically discloses that range is less than 60 degrees. Nonetheless, Redekop discloses that “the orientations of the steerable wheels (note that the disclosed steerable wheels corresponds to the trailing wheels as claimed, See claim 1) at the outer ends of the outer sections can be rotated through 90 degrees” (See col. 12, lns. 11-27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the range limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, there do not appear to be any details of criticality provided for in the instant application regarding the specific range of less than 60 degrees.
Regarding claim 5, Redekop discloses the implement according to claim 1, and also discloses wherein each actuating arrangement is arranged to pivot the associated steerable wheel assembly (88) between the transport configuration and the field configuration through a range (See col. 10, lns. 37-59, where it discloses the steerable wheel assemblies are configured for “360-degree rotation”, this disclosed rotation allows for the pivoting between the claimed transport and field configurations). However, Redekop fails to specifically discloses that range is approximately 45 degrees. Nonetheless, Redekop discloses that “the orientations of the steerable wheels (note that the disclosed steerable wheels corresponds to the trailing wheels as claimed, See claim 1) at the outer ends of the outer sections can be rotated through 90 degrees” (See col. 12, lns. 11-27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the range limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, there do not appear to be any details of criticality provided for in the instant application regarding the specific range of approximately 45 degrees.
Regarding claim 12, Redekop discloses the implement according to claim 1, and also discloses wherein each steerable wheel assembly (88) is supported on the inner end (22) of the outer frame section (16) of the respective wing assembly (as seen in Fig. 1). Note that the limitation is the limitation of claim 7. Redekop therefore discloses the claimed invention except for the steerable wheel assembly supported on the outer end of the intermediate frame section of the respective wing assembly. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steerable wheel assembly to be supported on the outer end of the intermediate frame section as presently claimed, as it is generally within the same location as the inner end of the outer frame section (as claimed in claim 7), and ultimately it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 13, Redekop discloses the implement according to claim 12, and further discloses two intermediate wheel assemblies (90) supported on the wing assemblies respectively (i.e., an intermediate wheel assembly per each wing), each intermediate wheel assembly (90) being supported on the outer end (20) of the intermediate frame section (14) of the respective wing assembly (as seen in Fig. 1), each intermediate wheel assembly (90) being supported for free pivotal movement about an upright caster axis of the intermediate wheel assembly (See Fig. 10 and col. 10, lns. 8-20 where it discloses the intermediate wheel can be raised or lowered relative to the frame section by pivoting of the upright tube relative to the frame section, the claimed upright caster axis therefore generally corresponds to the upright axis of rotation created by the tube), and the intermediate wheel assembly (90) comprising at least one intermediate wheel in which said at least one intermediate wheel is laterally centered (See 108 in Fog 10, this support arm will laterally center the intermediate wheel relative to the upright caster axis) relative to the caster axis of the intermediate wheel assembly in a trailing relationship with the caster axis (See 108 in Fig. 10 where the wheel assembly is therefore located behind, i.e., trailing behind, the upright caster axis). Note that the limitation is the limitation of claim 8. Redekop therefore discloses the claimed invention except for the intermediate wheel assembly is supported on the inner end of the outer frame. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intermediate wheel assembly to be supported on the inner end of the outer frame section as presently claimed, as it is generally within the same location as the outer end of the intermediate frame section (as claimed in claim 8), and ultimately it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 14, the combination discloses the implement according to claim 12. Redekop, of the combination, also discloses wherein the inner ends (18) of the intermediate frame sections (14) are directly connected (as seen in Fig. 1 or disclosed in col. 5, lns. 27-32) to the main frame section (12)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redekop in view of Huliesko (Pat. No.: 8,291,994).
Regarding claim 9, Redekop discloses the implement according to claim 7, but fails to disclose wherein each wing assembly further comprises an inner frame section supported between the intermediate frame section and the inner end of the wing assembly such that an inner end of the intermediate frame section is supported on an outer end of the inner frame section, the inner frame section including an inner roller supported thereon for rolling movement in the forward working direction in the working position of the wing assembly. Like Redekop, Huliesko discloses a folding land rolling implement (title). More specifically, Huliesko teaches the implement comprising: a main frame (3) supporting a main roller (7), two wing assemblies (as seen in Fig. 1), each wing assembly comprising: an outer frame section (25) including an outer roller (27), an intermediate frame section (17) including an intermediate roller (19), and an inner frame section (13) supported between the intermediate frame section (17) and the inner end of the wing assembly (end of inner wing assembly is end of wing assembly closest to the main frame section 3) such that the inner end of the intermediate frame (17) section is supported on an outer end of the inner frame section (13, outer end of the inner frame section corresponds to the end of inner frame section 13 closest to the intermediate frame section 17), the inner frame section (13) including an inner roller (15) supported thereon for rolling movement in the forward working direction in the working position of the wing assembly (See Fig. 1 which is a working position of the wing assembly and further See col. 5, lns. 21-37 for a general disclosure of the wing rollers). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the inner frame section and associated roller of Huliesko to the wing assembly of Redekop, in order to provide an implement that can work more ground across the longitudinal wing axis when in a working/field position thereby reducing the amount of operational time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references generally relate to land rollers with foldable wings: McCrea et al. (Pat. No.: 8,820,428), Baden (Pat. No.: 4,127,283), Evans (Pub. No.: 2018/0000003), and Fehr (Pat. No.: 9,392,738). Additional references relevant but not cited to can be found in the attached 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Audrey L Lusk whose telephone number is (571)272-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8am-5pm.
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.
/JAMIE L MCGOWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/A.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3671