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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the nut plate on the inside of the mesh cage barrel (claim 2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 7 reads “loch” instead of –lock--. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landzie Compost & Peatmoss Spreader (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6ig5GI1m50) hereinafter “Landzie” in view of Watral (3,219,239).
Regarding claim 1, Landzie discloses a peat moss and top dressing spreader comprising:
A mesh cage barrel for holding peat moss and other top dressing materials
A mesh gate having a j-hook latch welded onto the mesh gate (Landzie – 2:36/6:54)
A plurality of latching clasps (Landzie – 2:36/6:54) mounted to the mesh cage with each latching clasp comprising:
A mounting base
A push tab
A latching clasp arm that provides downward force on the j-hook latch to lock the mesh gate in place through surface tension against the j-hook latch
A handle (2:04-2:07/6:54) attached to the mesh cage barrel, the handle configured to allow a user to push or pull the spreader across a surface
A u-joint connecting the handle to the mesh cage barrel through a pair of pins and a washer (Landzie - 2:07/6:54)
While Landzie discloses the invention as described above, it fails to disclose that the latching clasps are side latching clasps. Like Landzie, Watral also discloses a rolling spreader with a perforated drum for distributing top dressing materials to the ground and a gate member with latches for adding material to the drum. Unlike Landzie, Watral discloses that j-hooks can be welded to the gate (column 3 line 10) with the latching members mounted to the side panels. Watral discloses a desire to reduce large protrusions on the barrel to allow for smooth rolling operation of the drum(column 3 lines 10-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the latching members of Landzie on the sides as taught by Watral as the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claim 3, the combination disclose that the side latching clasps reduces the amount of contact to the ground when the peat moss and top dressing spreader is mobile dispersing sediment.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landzie Compost & Peatmoss Spreader (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6ig5GI1m50) hereinafter “Landzie” in view of Watral (3,219,239) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kost (2,258,555).
Regarding claim 2, the combination discloses that the latching clasps are mounted using two machine screws (Landzie 2:36/6:54). The combination fails to specifically disclose a nut plate. Like the combination, Kost discloses fastening sheet metal elements together with machine screws. Unlike the combination, Kost disclose the use of a nut plate to ensure threading engagement with thin metal parts. 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 nut plate in the combination of Landzie and Watral as taught by Kost to ensure a secure attachment of the clasp with the drum as it would be combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Jamie L McGowan whose telephone number is (571)272-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00-5:00 CST.
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, Chris 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