DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim (see claims 20-21). It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Appropriate correction is required in the numbering of the claims as they contain dependent claims separated by claims which do not also depend from said dependent claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations use the word “means,” and are therefore being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitations are:
“actuating means” in claim 14 line 9 (hydraulic rams 302,312 from the specification)
“means for actuating the translational movement…in the direction of travel of the hitch” in claim 15 (connecting rods 40,41 from the specification)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 14-26 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 14 recites the limitation "the direction of travel" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the hitch" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note “A hitching device” is positively set forth in line 1 and should be referred to consistently throughout the claims.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the vertical axis" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is noted that “the vertical axis” referenced throughout the claims is interpreted as referring to any axis extending in a vertical direction (i.e. any z-axis), rather than the same vertical axis (i.e. colinear axes).
Claim 14 in lines 10-12 recite “each of the arms comprising…a first pivot connection…as well as a second pivot connection”. However, claim 14 sets forth “at least two hitching arms” as well as “a retaining arm” in lines 6 and 7, respectively. It is therefore unclear from the claim language alone whether “each of the arms” is meant to include both the hitching arms and the retaining arm, or just the hitching arms. From lines 14-15 of the claim which recite “the four pivot connections together thus defining a quadrilateral”, it is known that the four pivot connections refer to first pivot connections 300, 310 and second pivot connection 303, 313 of the hitch arms 30, 31 set forth in the specification. Thus, for purposes of examination, the Examiner has interpreted this portion of the claim as reading --each of the hitching arms comprising…a first pivot connection…as well as a second pivot connection--.
By virtue of their dependence on claim 14, this basis of rejection also applies to dependent claims 15-26.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the translational movement" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
By virtue of their dependence on claim 15, this basis of rejection also applies to dependent claims 16-17 and 20.
In claim 18, the scope of “consist mainly” is indefinite, since it is unclear what the scope of the term “consist mainly” requires.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the means for actuating the pivoting of the second frame" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites “a pin” in line 3 but depends from claim 18, which sets forth “a vertical pin” in line 3. From the claim language alone it is unclear whether these are meant to refer to the same pin or different pins. Per the Examiner’s understanding of the invention, claim 19 “a pin” has been interpreted as –the vertical pin— to clarify it is the same pin introduced in claim 18 for purposes of examination.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the retaining arms" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as only a singular “retaining arm” is set forth in claim 14 line 7.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the upper part" of the first frame in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites “the first frame to pivot relative to the transverse direction through an angle a…the direction defined by the connection of the distal second ends to the tool to pivot through an angle a” in lines 4-7. However, the specification defines these pivoting angles as “a” and “-a” respectively (see bottom of page 14 - top of page 15). It is therefore unclear whether these angles should refer to the same angle value a, or a positive and negative angle value a, respectively.
By virtue of their dependence on claim 23, this basis of rejection also applies to dependent claims 24-26.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the rams that control the pivoting means" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 lines 4-5 recite “the ram being in fluidic communication with the ram and the ram being in fluidic communication with the ram”. It is unclear which rams are being referred as the broad recitation of “the ram” gives no indication as to exactly which rams are in fluidic communication with each other.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the rams which control the pivoting means" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 lines 4-5 recite “the ram being in fluidic communication with the ramsin a loop.” It is once again unclear specifically which rams are being referred as the claim sets forth multiple rams. Further, “ramsin” appears to be a typo meant to read –rams in--.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the rams" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landbouwwerktuigen-en Machinefabriek H. Vissers N.V. (GB 1223913 A), hereinafter “Vissers”, in view of Moore et al. (US 6089328 A).
Regarding independent claim 14, Vissers discloses a hitching device for hitching a tool (11), able to be mounted on an agricultural vehicle (“tractor”), comprising:
- a first frame (40) extending in a transverse direction substantially perpendicular to the direction of travel of the hitching device (see Fig. 4), said directions defining a horizontal plane,
- a fixing device for fixing the first frame to the agricultural vehicle, the fixing device comprising at least two hitching arms (two lower arms 29) extending in a direction close to the direction of travel of the hitch, as well as advantageously a retaining arm (upper arm 30), these arms being intended to connect the first frame to the agricultural vehicle (page 2 lines 22-25),
each of the arms (29) comprising, at its end that is proximal relative to the first frame, a first pivot connection (33) with the first frame allowing said arm to pivot relative to the first frame about the vertical axis (Figs. 4-5, page 2 lines 88-91 see ball joints 33), as well as a second pivot connection with the agricultural vehicle at its end that is distal relative to the first frame (page 2 lines 25-32 arms are universally pivoted to the tractor at their foremost ends) allowing said arm to pivot relative to the agricultural vehicle about the vertical axis, the four pivot connections together thus defining a quadrilateral that can be deformed (see arrows N & P in Fig. 2 and page 2 lines 78-87);
wherein the hitching device further comprises a system for coupling the agricultural tool to the first frame, said coupling system comprising two catching hooks (3, Fig. 2) extending substantially in the direction of travel of the hitch, each of said catching hooks being provided with a first end (ends adjacent transverse bar 2) referred to as proximal relative to the first frame, designed to pivot freely relative to said frame (via pivot 41) about the vertical axis, and with a second end (8), said to be distal relative to the first frame, free and intended to be connected to the tool, said free second ends, once connected to the tool, defining a direction (1), said coupling system further comprising means (2, 41,42,43) interposed between said proximal first ends of the catching hooks and the first frame (Fig. 4) so as to cause the direction defined by the distal second ends to pivot about the vertical axis (page 2 lines 88-102 and 108-114).
Visser does not explicitly disclose actuating means for the deformable quadrilateral.
Moore discloses a similar three point hitch mechanism (20) comprising lower hitching arms (40, 70) forming a deformable quadrilateral in a horizontal plane defined by four pivot connections (62, 90, and spherical joints 46, 76) deformed under the action of actuating means in the form of hydraulic cylinders (140,142).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide similar actuating means in the deformable quadrilateral of Visser, as taught by Moore, for the purpose of selectively controlling pivoting of the hitching arms to exert force on the implement as desired (Moore col. 5 lines 5-14).
Regarding claim 18, Visser in view of Moore discloses the hitching device as claimed in claim 14. Visser further discloses wherein the pivoting means (2,41,42,43) interposed between said proximal first ends of the catching hooks (3) and the first frame (40) consist mainly of a second frame (2) mounted with the ability to pivot relative to the first frame on a vertical pin (41), the first ends of the catching hooks then being fixed to the second frame (Fig. 2, 4).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visser and Cowley as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Fleischer et al. (US 4930581 A).
Regarding claim 19, Visser in view of Cowley discloses the hitching device as claimed in claim 18, wherein the actuating means of the fixing device are hydraulic rams (from combination) and the means (2,41,42,43) for actuating the pivoting of the second frame (2) are a pin (41) made to rotate in opposite directions by a first and a second spring (43) instead of first and second hydraulic ram.
In the same area of hitch mechanisms, Fleischer discloses a first and second hydraulic cylinder (36,37) for pivoting a second frame (22) relative to a first frame (45) about a central vertical pivot axis (35) (Fig. 1-2, 7a-7c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the first and second springs of Visser as first and second hydraulic rams, as taught by Fleischer, as a mere simple substitution of one known spring assembly for accommodating pivoting a tool frame for another to yield predictable results (Fleischer col. 5 lines 21-26).
Claims 14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pellenc et al. (US 20020084085 A1) in view of Wilson (US 2729469 A).
Regarding independent claim 14, Pellenc discloses a hitching device for hitching a tool (M), able to be mounted on an agricultural vehicle (tractor P), comprising:
- a first frame (2A or 2B) extending in a transverse direction substantially perpendicular to the direction of travel of the hitching device (see Fig. 2), said directions defining a horizontal plane,
-a fixing device (either of arm 7, note elements are with respect to those corresponding to one of chassis 2A or 2B) for fixing the first frame to the agricultural vehicle, the fixing device comprising at least two hitching arms (8 and 14) extending in a direction close to the direction of travel of the hitch, as well as advantageously a retaining arm (11), these arms being intended to connect the first frame to the agricultural vehicle, said fixing device being further provided with actuating means (20),
each of the arms (8 and 14) comprising, at its end that is proximal relative to the first frame, a first pivot connection (9 and 15 respectively to arms 8 and 14) with the first frame, allowing said arm to pivot relative to the first frame about a vertical axis, as well as a second pivot connection (10 and 16 respectively to arms 8 and 14) with the agricultural vehicle at its end that is distal relative to the first frame, allowing said arm to pivot relative to the agricultural vehicle about the vertical axis (via “ball-and-socket joints” associated with each pivot connection), the four pivot connections together thus defining a quadrilateral that can be deformed under the action of the actuating means (see Figs. 2-3, para. [0044] deformable parallelogram arranged in a horizontal plane and delimited by the joints 10, 16 and 9, 15, respectively);
wherein the hitching device further comprises a system for coupling the agricultural tool to the first frame, said coupling system comprising two catching hooks (6a and 6b) extending substantially in the direction of travel of the hitch, each of said catching hooks being provided with a first end proximal relative to the first frame and with a second end distal relative to the first frame, the second end free and intended to be connected to the tool, said free second ends, once connected to the tool, defining a direction (direction of an axis defined by a horizontal line connecting points 6a and 6b).
Pellenc fails to disclose wherein the proximal end of the catching hooks are designed to pivot freely relative to said frame about the vertical axis by means interposed between said proximal first ends of the catching hooks and the first frame so as to cause the direction defined by the distal second ends to pivot about the vertical axis.
In the same field of endeavor, Wilson discloses a hitching device comprising lower hitching arms (13,13’) connected to a first frame (23), and a system for coupling an implement (20) to the first frame comprising two couplers (21), wherein the proximal end of the couplers are designed to pivot freely relative to the first frame about the vertical axis (E, E’) and means (22,22’) interposed between said proximal first ends of the catching hooks and the first frame so as to cause the direction defined by the distal second ends of the couplers (i.e. direction parallel to 20) to pivot about the vertical axis (Figs. 2-3).
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 catching hooks of Pellenc to be pivotable relative to the first frame, in the manner as taught by Wilson, in order to permit variance in the effective point of application of the lateral forces and thus minimize undesirable side draft forces exerted by the implement on the tractor (Wilson at col. 5 lines 46-75).
Regarding claim 22, Pellenc in view of Wilson discloses the hitching device as claimed in claim 14. Pellenc further teaches wherein the retaining arm (11) connects the upper part of the first frame (2A or 2B) to the agricultural vehicle (Fig. 1), but does not explicitly detail wherein the hitching device further comprises lifting means comprising link rods connected at one of their ends respectively to the hitching arms.
Wilson discloses a hitching device detailed above and comprising lifting means comprising link rods (15,15b) connected at one of their ends respectively to hitching arms (13,13’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include similar lifting means in the hitching device of Pellenc, as taught by Wilson, in order to permit the hitching arms to be raised or lowered by a power lifting mechanism incorporated in the tractor (Wilson at col. 2 lines 41-46).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17, 20-21, 23-26 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Richardson et al. (US 3065977 A) discloses a three point hitch. Schafer (US 4216975 A) discloses a tractor hitch. Schmidt (US 4640365 A) discloses a tractor drawn row implement. Satzler (US 5971082 A) discloses a hitch assembly with a variable pivot point. Cowley (US 5997024 A) discloses a hitch mechanism. Bernhardt (US 20090084566 A1) discloses a hitch device. Mollick (US 20220400600 A1) discloses a three point hitch.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (571) 272-8971. 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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671