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 § 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.
(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, 4, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Dilts (US 20140327223).
Regarding claim 1, Dilts teaches an integrated hitch 126 and step assembly 106 for being coupled with a base member 104 of an agricultural machine 10 ([0035]-[0036], Figs. 1-2), the integrated hitch 126 and step assembly 106 comprising: a support member 132 configured for being coupled with the base member 104 in a fixed position relative to the base member 104 ([0035], Figs. 2-3);
a hitch assembly 126 configured for being coupled with the support member 132 and for moving relative to the support member between a hitch storage position 129 and a hitch operating position 125 ([0036], Figs. 2-3); and
at least one step 110, 112 coupled with the hitch assembly 126, the step being in a step storage position 122 when the hitch assembly is in the hitch operating position 125([0035], Fig. 2), and the step being in a step operating position 124 when the hitch assembly is in the hitch storage position 129 ([0035], Fig. 3),
wherein the hitch assembly 126 is coupled pivotally with the support member 132, wherein the hitch assembly 126 moves between the hitch storage position 129 and the hitch operating position 125 when the hitch assembly is rotated relative to the support member 132 ([0036], Figs. 2-3), and
wherein the hitch assembly 126 is further configured for pivoting about an axis between the hitch storage position 129 and the hitch operating position 125 ([0036]; Figs. 2-3 show the hitch assembly in two different positions which define a pivot axis at the mounting point for the hitch).
Regarding claim 2, Dilts teaches wherein the hitch assembly 126 comprises a hitch 128 coupled with a hitch swivel plate 133 in a fixed position relative to the hitch swivel plate 133 ([0036], Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Dilts teaches wherein the hitch 128 is coupled with the hitch swivel plate 133 on a face of the hitch swivel plate that faces outward when the hitch assembly is in the hitch operating position 125 (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Dilts teaches wherein the step 110, 112 is horizontal in the step operating position 124 ([0035], Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Dilts teaches An agricultural machine 10, comprising the base member and the hitch 126 and step assembly 106 ([0028], [0035]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 10, Dilts teaches wherein the agricultural machine is an agricultural combine harvester 10, a forage harvester, or a cotton harvester ([0028], Fig. 1).
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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dilts in view of Margadant (EP 1765612).
Regarding claim 6, Dilts teaches wherein the step is leveled for access in the step operating position. Dilts does not teach wherein the axis is angled.
However, Margadant teaches a vehicle hitch wherein the axis S (Fig. 15F of Margadant) is angled such that the hitch is raised vertically relative to the ground when the hitch assembly is moved from the hitch operating position to the hitch storage position ([0017] and [0078], Figs. 5B-5C and 15A-15K of Margadant).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hitch assembly of Dilts to have the pivot axis be at an angle in order to advantageously provide a simple universal hitch arrangement ([0018] of Margadant).
Regarding claim 7, Dilts as modified teaches wherein the axis is at an angle ([0078] of Margadant).
Dilts discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the axis is at an angle of about ten degrees from vertical relative to the ground. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the angle of the pivot axis to be 10 degrees from vertical, 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dilts.
Regarding claim 11, Dilts does not expressly teach the base member comprising the support member.
However, see In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."); but see Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to a vibratory testing machine (a hard-bearing wheel balancer) comprising a holding structure, a base structure, and a supporting means which form "a single integral and gaplessly continuous piece." Nortron argued that the invention is just making integral what had been made in four bolted pieces. The court found this argument unpersuasive and held that the claims were patentable because the prior art perceived a need for mechanisms to dampen resonance, whereas the inventor eliminated the need for dampening via the one-piece gapless support structure, showing insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture the base member and the support member from one continuous piece instead of fixing the separate parts to each other as is taught by Dilts ([0035, Fig. 2) and the results of that modification would be wherein the base member 104 comprises the support member 132 for the hitch assembly 126.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5 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:
US 20230311775 teaches a swivel joint and step assembly.
US 6682086 teaches an integrated hitch and step assembly on a pivot axis.
US 8979112 teaches a pivot axis with a step and hitch on opposite ends.
US 3762742 teaches an angled pivot axis for a step which pivotally raises the step from the ground.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL WILLIAM WATKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -6:00 pm EST; Friday 8:30 am - 2:00 pm 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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/N.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617