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 1-18 and 22-24 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 1 recites the limitation "the axis of rotation of said wheel" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the axis of rotation of " in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
By virtue of their dependence on claim 1, this basis of rejection also applies to dependent claims 2-18 and 22-24.
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 1-9, 11-18 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scarnato (US 3678671 A) in view of Lundstrom et al. (US 20030177747 A1) and Mitchell et al. (US 2351830 A).
Regarding claim 1, Scarnato discloses a flail mower apparatus (11) for towing behind a vehicle (tractor 10), said flail mower apparatus comprising:
a body portion (12);
a wheel (15);
a mounting member (16) connecting said wheel to said body portion; and
a flail (71) within the flail mower apparatus, wherein the flail is rotatable about an axis of rotation (Y) (Fig. 3); and
wherein said wheel is in a first position substantially behind said body portion (see Figs. 1-4, 7).
Scarnato fails to teach wherein the wheel is movable to a second position substantially adjacent to the body portion such that an axis of rotation of the wheel and the axis of rotation of the flail are coaxial.
In a similar area, Lundstrom discloses an apparatus (10) for towing being a tractor, wherein the apparatus comprises a wheel movable from a first “wheels-trailing” position behind a body of the apparatus (Figs. 1-3) to a second “wheels-in-line” position adjacent the body portion of the apparatus (Figs. 4-6) in which the wheels are arranged effectively "in-line" with the rotor of the threshing machine (para. [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the wheels of Scarnato to be movable toward a second position in which the wheels are substantially co-axial with the rotor of the flail mower, as taught by Lundstrom, in order to permit precise control over the positioning of the rotor with respect to a crop or stubble as the wheels are effectively "in-line" with the rotor and thus travel over the same ground as the wheels (Lundstrom at para. [0028]).
Scarnato fails to teach wherein movement of the wheel between the first position and the second position is carried out via actuation of a hinge portion.
However, such a hinge mechanism is extremely old and well-known.
Mitchell teaches a towed implement comprising a mounting member (45, 51) including a hinge mechanism (54) for swinging a wheel (21) between a first position behind an implement body (11) (solid line position in Fig. 2 and 4) to a second position adjacent the implement body (solid line position in Fig. 3 and 5).
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 similar hinge mechanism for swinging the wheel of Lundstrom between each position, as taught by Mitchell, as this is a mere simple substitution of one means for moving a wheel between a wheels trailing position and a wheels in-line position for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Scarnato in view of Lundstrom and Mitchell discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Mitchell further teaches wherein said mounting member (45,51) further comprises a securing structure (75,76,77,78) for securing said wheel (21) in said first position and said second position (Fig. 6, col. 6 lines 45-56 connector 45 has an aperture 76 through which bolt 75 extends to align with either aperture 77,78 to secure the wheel in a respective position).
Regarding claim 3, Scarnato in view of Lundstrom and Mitchell discloses the apparatus of claim 2. Mitchell further teaches wherein said securing structure (75,76,77,78) comprises a first securing portion (78) and a second securing portion (75,76), wherein said hinge portion (54) is intermediate said first securing portion and said second securing portion (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Scarnato in view of Lundstrom and Mitchell discloses the apparatus of claim 3. Mitchell further teaches wherein said first securing portion (78) comprises an aperture (aperture 78), and said second securing portion (75,76) comprises a projection (bolt 75) dimensioned to engage with or pass through said aperture when said wheel is in said second position (col. 6 lines 27-29,48-52 bolt 75 aligns with aperture 78 in stub arm 71 in the second position, i.e. in dotted line position of Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Scarnato in view of Lundstrom and Mitchell discloses the apparatus of claim 3. Mitchell further teaches wherein said first securing portion (78) comprises a first securing portion aperture (aperture 78) and said second securing portion (75,76) comprises a second securing portion aperture (aperture 76).
Regarding claim 6, Scarnato in view of Lundstrom and Mitchell discloses the apparatus of claim 5. Mitchell further teaches wherein the cross section of said first securing portion aperture (78) and said second securing portion aperture (76) are substantially identical (as seen in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Scarnato in view of Lundstrom and Mitchell discloses the apparatus of claim 5. Mitchell further teaches wherein said first securing portion aperture (78) and said second securing portion aperture (76) are positioned such that they define a second position common aperture when said wheel is in said second position (Figs. 6-7, when wheel is in dotted line position of Fig. 1, apertures 76,78 are aligned forming a common aperture to receive bolt 75, col. 6 lines 45-56).
Regarding claim 8, Scarnato in view of Lundstrom and Mitchell discloses the apparatus of claim 7. Mitchell further teaches wherein said second position common aperture has a cross section identical to said first securing portion aperture (78) and/or said second securing portion aperture (76) (see Fig. 7, apertures 76,78 have identical cross-sections and therefore form a common aperture having the same cross-section).
Regarding claim 9, Scarnato in view of Lundstrom and Mitchell discloses the apparatus of claim 7. Mitchell further teaches wherein said securing structure (75,76,77,78) comprises a fixing member (75) sized to extend at least partially through said second position common aperture (in the second position, bolt 75 extends through common aperture formed by aligned apertures 76,78).
Regarding claim 11, Scarnato in view of Lundstrom and Mitchell discloses the apparatus of claim 3. Mitchell further teaches wherein said securing structure (75,76,77,78) comprises a third securing portion (77).
Regarding claim 12, Scarnato in view of Lundstrom and Mitchell discloses the apparatus of claim 11. Mitchell further teaches wherein said hinge portion (54) is intermediate said first securing portion (78) and said third securing portion (77) (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 13, Scarnato in view of Lundstrom and Mitchell discloses the apparatus of claim 11. Mitchell further teaches wherein said hinge portion (54) is intermediate said second securing portion (75,76) and said third securing portion (77) (in the wheel second position, bolt and aperture 75,76 are aligned with aperture 78 such that hinge portion 54 is disposed between apertures 76 and 77).
Regarding claim 14, Scarnato in view of Lundstrom and Mitchell discloses the apparatus of claim 11. Mitchell further teaches wherein said third securing portion (77) comprises an aperture (aperture 77), and said second securing portion (75,76) comprises a projection (bolt 75) dimensioned to engage with or pass through said aperture when said wheel is in said first position (as seen in Figs. 6-7, bolt 75 extends through aperture 77 in wheel first position).
Regarding claim 15, Scarnato in view of Lundstrom and Mitchell discloses the apparatus of claim 14. Mitchell further teaches wherein said second securing portion (75,76) comprises a second securing portion aperture (aperture 76) and said third securing portion (77) comprises a third securing portion aperture (aperture 77).
Regarding claim 16, Scarnato in view of Lundstrom and Mitchell discloses the apparatus of claim 15. Mitchell further teaches wherein said second securing portion aperture (76) and said third securing portion aperture (77) are positioned such that they define a first position common aperture when said wheel is in said first position (as seen in Fig. 7, apertures 76 and 77 are aligned in the wheel first position forming a common aperture for receiving bolt 75).
Regarding claim 17, Scarnato in view of Lundstrom and Mitchell discloses the apparatus of claim 16. Mitchell further teaches wherein said projection (75) comprises a fixing member sized to extend at least partially through said first position common aperture (as seen in Fig. 7, bolt 75 extends through aligned apertures 76,77).
Regarding claim 18, Scarnato in view of Lundstrom and Mitchell discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Mitchell further teaches wherein said apparatus comprises an adjustment mechanism (85) for adjusting the height of said body (11) relative to said wheel (21) (col. 6 lines 57-60) (Note Lundstrom also teaches height adjustment mechanism 34).
Regarding claim 22, Scarnato in view of Lundstrom and Mitchell discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Mitchell further teaches wherein said apparatus further comprises a second wheel and a second mounting member connecting said second wheel to said body portion, wherein said second mounting member comprises a hinge portion (as seen in Fig. 1, apparatus comprises identical wheels 21 and mounting arrangements 45,51 at each end), wherein said second wheel is movable from a first position (solid line position of Fig. 1) substantially behind said body portion to a second position (dotted line position of Fig. 1) substantially adjacent to said body portion via actuation of said hinge portion
Regarding claim 23, Scarnato in view of Lundstrom and Mitchell discloses the apparatus of claim 22. Mitchell further teaches wherein said wheel and said second wheel (21,21) are connected to said body portion (11) such that the movement of said wheel between its first and second positions is independent of the movement of said second wheel between its first and second positions (col. 7 line 66 – col. 8 line 17 bolts 75 at each end of the apparatus must be removed individually to swing each wheel between the first and second position).
Regarding claim 24, Scarnato in view of Lundstrom and Mitchell discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Scarnato further teaches wherein the apparatus further comprises a tow bar (18a).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scarnato in view of Lundstrom and Mitchell as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 10, Mitchell discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein said fixing member (bolt 75) comprises a fixing thread (Mitchell teaches threaded bolts) received in at least one of said first securing portion aperture (78) and said second securing portion aperture (76), but does not explicitly detail wherein said aperture(s) comprise an aperture thread complementary to said fixing thread.
However, the Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known to use complementary threads between a bolt and aperture. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have form the apertures of Mitchell with complementary threads in to form a secure and strong connection between the components. Note the well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art as applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice in Applicant’s response filed 1/9/2026.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Regarding the rejection of Claims1-18 and 22-24, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, these arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment and afforded by the present RCE.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Allen et al. (US 3153310 A) discloses a hinged adjustable support wheel for a mower. Bonnewitz (US 6336313 B1) discloses a swivel device for support wheels for changing a width of an implement. Gordon (US 2688832 A) discloses a flail cutter having a wheel which can extend either rearwardly or forwardly of an attachment beam.
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
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights