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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 9, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a plurality of drive tower structures each including” in line 2 should read --a plurality of drive tower structures, each structure including.--
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure, as originally filed, does not disclose that the universal inline drive mount adapter is configured to be mounted to the right-angle wheel-drive gearbox mounts after removal of a corresponding legacy right-angle wheel- drive gearbox, using pre-existing gearbox mounting holes of the drive beam as amended in claim 20. Clarification is respectfully requested.
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 17-20 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 17 recites the limitation "the drive tower structures" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner is unsure if the “drive tower structures" in line 17 is or is not the “drive tower structures" from the "plurality of drive tower structures" recited in line 7 of claim 17. Furthermore, the Examiner is unsure if the “drive tower structures" in line 17 is all or part (some or subset) of the “drive tower structures" from the "plurality of drive tower structures" recited in line 7 of claim 17. Same and similar rejection applies to all pending claims including but not limited to the limitation "the holes" in line 24.
The term "pre-existing" refers to something that exists at an earlier time or has existed before a certain point. It is commonly used in contexts such as health insurance, where it describes conditions that were present before a specific policy was enacted. However, in the context of patent claims and patent limitations, it is unclear what is the meaning of “pre-existing” gearbox mounting holes of the drive beam as amended in claim 20. Alternatively, the limitation "pre-existing gearbox mounting holes of the drive beam" in 13 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Clarification is respectfully requested.
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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected, as best understood by the Examiner, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reinke (US5862997).
With respect to claim 20, Reinke discloses an irrigation system (Figs 1-7) comprising: a plurality of drive tower structures (10. Shown one in Fig. 1) each including a drive beam (26) including left right-angle wheel-drive gearbox mounts and right right-angle wheel-drive gearbox mounts (mounts connecting left and right housings 56), each of the mounts including a plurality of bolt holes (holes with unmarked bolts connecting 56. Fig. 2. First embodiment) for (capable of) attaching a corresponding legacy right-angle wheel-drive gearbox (56. Fig. 2) to the mount; and the plurality of bolt holes (two holes) being alternatively (one of the two holes) suitable for attaching (capable of) a universal inline drive mount adapter (elements holding shaft 154 and hub 150 including housing 156 shown in Fig. 7. Second embodiment) including bolt holes (for 27, 157 and holes at wheel hub) at a first (right) end of the adapter that correspond to (cooperate with) bolt holes in the right-angle wheel-drive gearbox mounts and the right right-angle wheel-drive gearbox mounts, each adapter further including bolt holes at a distal (left) end suitable for attaching an inline wheel-drive gearmotor assembly (100) with a transfer case (housing 156);
wherein the universal inline drive mount adapter is configured to (capable of) be mounted to the right- angle wheel-drive gearbox mounts after removal of a corresponding (old or used) legacy right-angle wheel-drive gearbox, using pre-existing (previously existed) gearbox mounting holes of the drive beam.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 allowed.
Claims 17-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues Reinke does not disclose or suggest removal of a prior gearbox or retrofit mounting of an adapter to vacated gearbox mounts.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Applicant's argument is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. No such limitations (removal of a prior gearbox or retrofit mounting of an adapter) can be found in the claimed invention. Second, as elaborated above, Reinke’s universal inline drive mount adapter is capable of being mounted to the right-angle wheel-drive gearbox mounts after removal of a corresponding (old or used) legacy right-angle wheel-drive gearbox, using pre-existing (previously existed) gearbox mounting holes of the drive beam. The law of anticipation does not require that the reference teach what the applicant is claiming but only that the claims on appeal “read on” something disclosed in the reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 218 USPQ 781 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Where functional limitations are recited for the structure set forth in the claim, the reference must also include structure which is capable of performing the recited function in order for the reference to be properly anticipatory. See In re Mott, 557 F.2d 266, 194 USPQ 305 (CCPA 1977). Third, the amended limitations violate the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) requirements as explained above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 March 26, 2025
Prosecution Insights