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 § 112
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 13-20 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 13 has been amended so that "a back plate ..." in lines 15-16 is indented under "each of the upper rail and lower rail including:" in lines 9-10. It is unclear if each of the upper rail and lower rail include a back plate as indicated by this formatting, or if "a back plate" is separate and distinct from the upper rail and lower rail, as previously claimed and described in the specification. As such, the metes and bounds of the rails and back plate cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 13 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Additionally, claims 14-20 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 13. Claim 13 is being further examined as though there is only a single indentation before "a back plate" in line 15, and "a back plate" is separate and distinct from the upper rail and lower rail.
Claim 18 recites "a first rail segment of the plurality of rail segments" in lines 7-8. However, claim 13 (from which claim 18 depends) has been amended to recite "a first portion of the plurality of rail segments" in line 19 and "a second portion of the plurality of rail segments" in line 21. The relative relationship and/or distinction(s) of "a first rail segment" to "a first portion" and/or "a second portion" is unclear. Thus, the metes and bounds of the limitations in claim 18 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 18 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Additionally, claim 19 is rejected because of its dependency on claim 18 and because it sets forth further limitations of "the first rail segment." Claim 18 is being further examined as though "a first rail segment of the plurality of rail segments" reads "a first rail segment of the first portion of the plurality of rail segments" in lines 7-8.
Claim 20 recites "a first rail segment of the plurality of rail segments" in line 2 and "a second rail segment of the plurality of rail segments" in line 3. However, claim 13 (from which claim 20 depends) has been amended to recite "a first portion of the plurality of rail segments" in line 19 and "a second portion of the plurality of rail segments" in line 21. The relative relationship and/or distinction(s) of "a first rail segment" and "a second rail segment" to "a first portion" and "a second portion" is unclear. Thus, the metes and bounds of the limitations in claim 20 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 20 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Claim 20 is being further examined as though it reads: "The moldboard assembly of claim 13, wherein the first portion of the plurality of rail segments includes a first rail segment, wherein the second portion of the plurality of rail segments includes a second rail segment, and wherein the back plate is disposed between the first rail segment and the upper rail, and between the second rail segment and the lower rail."
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fisher et al. (US 3,465,829)
Regarding claim 1, Fisher discloses a moldboard assembly comprising:
a moldboard (17) including a front and a back;
an upper rail (including 23) and a lower rail (including 24) spaced apart from the upper rail, the upper rail and the lower rail each mounted (via 26) to and extending lengthwise across the back of the moldboard (see Fig. 1), the upper rail oriented to slope upward at a first angle from a vertical plane (see Fig. 2), the lower rail oriented to slope downward at a second angle from the vertical plane (see Fig. 2), each of the upper rail and the lower rail including:
a top surface (see annotated Fig. A, below);
a bottom surface (see annotated Fig. A);
an inner side surface (see annotated Fig. A); and
an outer side surface (see annotated Fig. A) disposed opposite to the inner side surface; and
a back plate (including one of 26) mounted to the inner side surface of the upper rail and to the inner side surface of the lower rail (see Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the top surface, of each of the upper rail and the lower rail, extends beyond an entirety of the back plate (see Fig. 1, wherein the top surface, of each of 23 and 24, extends beyond an entirety of the back plate horizontally, i.e., in respective longitudinal directions of 23 and 24).
PNG
media_image1.png
580
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. Fisher et al. (US 3,465,829) annotated Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 5, Fisher discloses a plurality of spaced-apart gussets (including others of 26, which are not part of the back plate of Fisher) disposed along the outer side surface of the upper rail (including 23; see Fig. 1).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Gunnison (US 1,741,933).
Regarding claim 2, Fisher discloses the moldboard assembly with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Fisher does not explicitly disclose the upper rail and the lower rail being made of a material that is free of heat treatment. However, Gunnison teaches a moldboard assembly comprising a rail (including 12) made of a material that is free of heat treatment (see p. 3, lines 21-50).
Gunnison is analogous because Gunnison discloses a moldboard assembly comprising a moldboard and a rail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the assembly of Fisher with the material means as taught by Gunnison so as not to impair the tensile strength or condition of these parts. (See Gunnison, p. 3, lines 21-50.)
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Horstman (US 7,650,949).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Fisher discloses the moldboard assembly with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Fisher also discloses each of the upper rail (including 23) and the lower rail (including 24) being mounted to the back of the moldboard (17) by at least one support (including another of 26). Fisher does not explicitly disclose the upper and lower rails being mounted to the back of the moldboard by a welded joint. However, Horstman discloses a moldboard assembly having an upper rail (including upper 70) and a lower rail (including lower 70) mounted to the back of a moldboard (including 38) by at least one support (including 66 and/or 68) welded to the moldboard (see col. 6, lines 8-15), such that each of the upper rail and the lower rail is mounted to the back of the moldboard by a welded joint (on 66 and/or 68).
Horstman is analogous because Horstman discloses a moldboard assembly comprising a moldboard, rails, and a plurality of rail segments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the assembly of Fisher with the mounting means as taught by Horstman in order to fix the structure to the back of the moldboard and/or to reinforce the moldboard. (See Horstman, col. 6, lines 8-15.)
Regarding claim 6, Fisher discloses the moldboard assembly with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Fisher does not explicitly disclose first and second rail segments as claimed. However, Horstman teaches a moldboard assembly comprising a first rail segment (of 74, as seen in Fig. 5) mounted to an inner side surface (70d) of an upper rail (including upper 70), and a second rail segment (of 74, as seen in Fig. 6) mounted to an inner side surface (70d) of a lower rail (including lower 70), wherein the first rail segment is configured to reinforce the upper rail and the second rail segment is configured to reinforce the lower rail (as the segments add structural integrity along the rail to which they are mounted).
Horstman is analogous because Horstman discloses a moldboard assembly comprising a moldboard, rails, and a plurality of rail segments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the assembly of Fisher with rail segments as taught by Horstman in order to minimize wear on the rails. (See Horstman, col. 6, lines 16-26.)
Regarding claim 7, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 6, Horstman teaches the first rail segment (of 74, as seen in Fig. 5) or the second rail segment (of 74, as seen in Fig. 6) being made of steel (see col. 8, lines 4-28).
Regarding claim 13, Fisher discloses a moldboard assembly comprising:
a moldboard (17) including a front and a back (see Figs. 1 and 2);
an upper rail (including 23) and a lower rail (including 24) spaced apart from the upper rail, the upper rail and lower rail each mounted (via 26) to and extending lengthwise across the back of the moldboard (see Fig. 1), a height of the upper rail extending away from the back of the moldboard (see Fig. 2), a height of the lower rail extending away from the back of the moldboard (see Fig. 2), the upper rail oriented to slope upward at a first angle from a vertical plane (see Fig. 2), the lower rail oriented to slope downward at a second angle from the vertical plane (see Fig. 2), each of the upper rail and lower rail including:
a top surface (see annotated Fig. A, above);
a bottom surface (see annotated Fig. A);
an inner side surface (see annotated Fig. A); and
an outer side surface (see annotated Fig. A) disposed opposite to the inner side surface; and
a back plate (including one of 26) mounted to and extending from the inner side surface of the upper rail and to the inner side surface of the lower rail (see Figs. 1 and 2); and
a plurality of spaced-apart gussets (including others of 26, which are not part of the back plate of Fisher) disposed along the outer side surface of the upper rail (including 23; see Fig. 1).
Although Fisher appears to show the first angle and the second angle being in the claimed ranges (see Fig. 2), Fisher does not explicitly disclose the first angle being in a first range of 30-60 degrees from the vertical plane and the second angle being in a second range of 30-60 degrees from the vertical plane. However, Fisher discloses the assembly being pivotally adjustable about 14 (see col. 2, lines 20-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the assembly of Fisher is adjustable such that the first angle is in a first range of 30-60 degrees from the vertical plane and the second angle is in a second range of 30-60 degrees from the vertical plane (via movement, as taught by Fisher, relative to the vertical plane, wherein each angle is at least capable of being met independently), where the assembly of Fisher includes means "for establishing and adjusting the pivotal position of the brackets and thus the pitch of a moldboard or blade 17." (See Fisher, col. 2, lines 20-30.)
Fisher does not explicitly disclose a plurality of rail segments as claimed. However, Horstman teaches a moldboard assembly comprising a plurality of rail segments (including 80 of 74), a first portion (of 74, as seen in Fig. 5) of the plurality of rail segments directly mounted to an inner side surface (70d) of an upper rail (including upper 70) and configured to reinforce the upper rail (as the segments add structural integrity along the upper rail), and a second portion (of 74, as seen in Fig. 6) of the plurality of rail segments mounted directly to an inner side surface (70d) of a lower rail (including lower 70) and configured to reinforce the lower rail (as the segments add structural integrity along the lower rail).
Horstman is analogous because Horstman discloses a moldboard assembly comprising a moldboard, rails, and a plurality of rail segments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the assembly of Fisher with rail segments as taught by Horstman in order to minimize wear on the rails. (See Horstman, col. 6, lines 16-26.)
Regarding claim 14, Fisher discloses the back plate (including one of 26) being mounted to a first mid-section of the inner side surface of the upper rail and to a second mid-section of the inner side surface of the lower rail (as each 26 surrounds each rail), wherein the back plate is transverse to a horizontal plane (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 16, Fisher discloses each of the upper rail (including 23) and the lower rail (including 24) being mounted (via respective elements 26) to the back of the moldboard (17). Fisher does not explicitly disclose the upper and lower rails being mounted to the back of the moldboard by a welded joint. However, Horstman discloses a moldboard assembly having an upper rail (including upper 70) and a lower rail (including lower 70) mounted (via 66 and/or 68) to the back of a moldboard (including 38) by a welded joint (on 66 and/or 68; see col. 6, lines 8-15).
Horstman is analogous because Horstman discloses a moldboard assembly comprising a moldboard, rails, and a plurality of rail segments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the assembly of Fisher with the mounting means as taught by Horstman in order to fix the structure to the back of the moldboard and/or to reinforce the moldboard. (See Horstman, col. 6, lines 8-15.)
Regarding claim 17, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 13, Horstman teaches at least one of the plurality of rail segments (of 74) being made of steel (see col. 8, lines 4-28).
Regarding claim 18, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 13, Horstman teaches each of the plurality of rail segments (of 74) including:
a top-face (including that contacting 59a in Fig. 5, or including that opposite that contacting 58a in Fig. 6);
a bottom-face (including that opposite that contacting 59a in Fig. 5, or including that contacting 58a in Fig. 6);
an outer-side-face (including that contacting 70 and 72); and
an inner-side-face (74a),
wherein a first part of the outer-side-face (including that contacting 70) of a first rail segment (of 74, as seen in Fig. 5) of the first portion of the plurality of rail segments is overlappingly mounted on an upper portion of the inner side surface (70d) of the upper rail (including upper 70; see Fig. 5), and a second part of the outer-side-face (including that contacting 72) of the first rail segment extends outward and away from the upper rail (see Fig. 5).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Horstman as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Gunnison.
Regarding claim 15, Horstman also discloses the upper rail (including upper 70) and the lower rail (including lower 70) each being made of steel (see col. 6, lines 16-26). Neither Fisher nor Horstman explicitly the discloses the upper rail and the lower rail being free of heat treatment. However, Gunnison teaches a moldboard assembly comprising a rail (including 12) being made free of heat treatment (see p. 3, lines 21-50).
Gunnison is analogous because Gunnison discloses a moldboard assembly comprising a moldboard and a rail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with the material means as taught by Gunnison so as not to impair the tensile strength or condition of these parts. (See Gunnison, p. 3, lines 21-50.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 are allowed.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claims 19 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do 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 Joel F. Mitchell whose telephone number is (571)272-7689. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00.
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.
/JFM/3/24/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671