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 Objections
Claims 1, 4, 5 and 7-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(claim 1, line 6) “the blade-like second cutting elements” should be changed to “the blade-like cutting elements”.
(claim 1, line 7) “a second cutting element” should be changed to “a blade-like cutting element of the blade-like cutting elements”.
(claim 1, line 10) “the second cutting element” should be changed to “the blade-like cutting element”.
(claim 4, line 3) “it” should be changed to “the first cutting element”.
(claim 4, line 4) “the second cutting element” should be changed to “the blade-like cutting element”.
(claim 4, line 5) “its movement” should be change to “movement of the blade-like cutting element”.
(claim 4, line 6) “the first cutting elements which are” should be changed to “the first cutting element which is”.
(claim 4, line 7) “the second side having equal” should be changed to “the second side has equal”.
(claim 5, line 2) “the swivel arms” should be changed to “the swivel arm”.
(claim 7, line 2) “the blade-like second cutting elements” should be changed to “the blade-like cutting elements”.
(claim 7, line 3) “their cutting angle” should be changed to “a cutting angle of the blade-like cutting elements”.
(claim 8, line 2) “the blade-like second cutting elements” should be changed to “the blade-like cutting elements”.
(claim 8, lines 3-4) “their cutting angle” should be changed to “a cutting angle of the blade-like cutting elements”.
(claim 9, line 2) “the first cutting elements are” should be changed to “the first cutting element is”.
(claim 10, line 2) “the hollow disc-like first cutting elements are” should be changed to “the first cutting element is”.
(claim 11, line 2) “the first cutting elements are” should be changed to “the first cutting element is”.
(claim 12, line 2) “a second cutting element” should be changed to “a blade-like cutting element of the blade-like cutting elements”.
(claim 12, line 3) “only every other first cutting element” should be changed to “the first cutting element”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a plow tower turning unit” in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 7 and 8 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.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The phrase should be deleted.
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 1, 3, 4, 6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Topham (EP 0820687) alone.
As concerns claim 1, Topham shows a turning plowing device (1) with blade-like cutting elements (5A, 5B) situated on both sides of a plow beam (3), comprising at least one first cutting element (8) on one side, having a hollow disc-like design, is swiveled from a first position on a first side of the plow beam, in which the first cutting element is situated with respect to the blade-like cutting elements, in such a way that in each case a blade-like cutting element of the blade-like cutting elements and the first cutting element together form a complete module for plowing in a plowing direction (Fig. 4), into a second position, on a second side opposite from the first side of the plow beam, by means of a swivel arm (9), in which the blade-like cutting element as a semi-module in each case forms a complete module after the first cutting element is swiveled around, the complete module on the second side being turnable toward the ground in such a way that for a reverse plowing direction opposite the plowing direction, the ground is plowable with the same camber and cutting angle of the first cutting element (Fig. 5). Topham discloses the claimed invention except for the first cutting element having an adjustable cutting angle, and the blade-like cutting elements having an adjustable setting angle. It has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided adjustability for a cutting angle of the first cutting element and a setting angle of the blade-like cutting elements for the expected benefit of allowing the plowing device to be adjusted based on the conditions of the ground. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that providing adjustability for a cutting angle of the first cutting element and a setting angle of the blade-like cutting elements would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Topham to obtain the invention specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 3, Topham shows multiple hollow disc-like first cutting elements (8) individually swivelable by equal angles from the first position into the second position by means of respective hydraulic cylinders (col 6, ln 14-16).
As concerns claim 4, Topham shows wherein the first cutting element is designed in such a way that when the first cutting element is moved in the plowing direction, a side area of a soil ridge is cuttable from the ground, and the blade-like cutting element is designed in such a way that due to movement of the blade-like cutting element in the plowing direction a base area of the soil ridge is cuttable (Fig. 1), the first cutting element which is swivelable from the first side of the plow beam to the second side has equal cutting and camber angles in both the first position and the second position, and for turning by 180° the plow beam being rotatable about a plow tower turning unit (Fig. 4 & 5).
As concerns claim 6, Topham shows wherein the swivel arm is lockable in a desired position (col 6, ln 24-28).
As concerns claim 9, Topham shows wherein the first cutting element is swivelable in a first swivel direction by 270° to 300° about a swivel axis (15), or in a second swivel direction opposite the first swivel direction are swivelable by 80° to 100° (Fig. 1, 4 & 5), the swivel axis being situated at 25° to 70° with respect to the pull line of the plowing device (Fig. 2). Topham discloses the claimed invention except for the swivel axis being situated at 90° with respect to the pull line of the plowing device. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have situated the swivel axis at 90° with respect to the pull line of the plowing device, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose other than being an alternative to situating the swivel axis at 25° to 70° with respect to the pull line of the plowing device. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the invention to perform equally well with the swivel axis being situated at 25° to 70° with respect to the pull line of the plowing device because the first cutting element would still have been capable of being swiveled from a first position on a first side of the plow beam into a second position on a second side opposite from the first side of the plow beam. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that situating the swivel axis at 90° with respect to the pull line of the plowing device would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Topham to obtain the invention specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 10, Topham shows wherein the first cutting element is swivelable in a plane (Fig. 2).
As concerns claim 11, Topham shows wherein the first cutting element is swivelable via a swivel lever and are lockable in the respective position (col 6, ln 24-28).
As concerns claim 12, Topham shows wherein a blade-like cutting element of the blade-like cutting elements is situated behind the first cutting element (Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 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.
Claims 7 and 8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not appear to anticipate and/or render obvious:
a) a turning plowing device with blade-like cutting elements situated on both sides of a plow beam, comprising at least one first cutting element on one side, having a hollow disc-like design, is swiveled from a first position on a first side of the plow beam, in which the first cutting element is situated with respect to the blade-like cutting elements, in such a way that in each case a blade-like cutting element of the blade-like cutting elements and the first cutting element together form a complete module for plowing in a plowing direction, into a second position, on a second side opposite from the first side of the plow beam, by means of a swivel arm, in which the blade-like cutting element as a semi-module in each case forms a complete module after the first cutting element is swiveled around, the complete module on the second side being turnable toward the ground in such a way that for a reverse plowing direction opposite the plowing direction, the ground is plowable with the same camber angle and cutting angle of the first cutting element, and wherein the at least one first cutting element comprises multiple hollow disc-like first cutting elements which are connected to one another via a rod assembly, and at the same time are swivelable from the first position into the second position by means of the respective swivel arm.
b) a turning plowing device with blade-like cutting elements situated on both sides of a plow beam, comprising at least one first cutting element on one side, having a hollow disc-like design, is swiveled from a first position on a first side of the plow beam, in which the first cutting element is situated with respect to the blade-like cutting elements, in such a way that in each case a blade-like cutting element of the blade-like cutting elements and the first cutting element together form a complete module for plowing in a plowing direction, into a second position, on a second side opposite from the first side of the plow beam, by means of a swivel arm, in which the blade-like cutting element as a semi-module in each case forms a complete module after the first cutting element is swiveled around, the complete module on the second side being turnable toward the ground in such a way that for a reverse plowing direction opposite the plowing direction, the ground is plowable with the same camber angle and cutting angle of the first cutting element, wherein the first cutting element is designed in such a way that when the first cutting element is moved in the plowing direction, a side area of a soil ridge is cuttable from the ground, and the blade-like cutting element is designed in such a way that due to movement of the blade-like cutting element in the plowing direction a base area of the soil ridge is cuttable, the first cutting element which is swivelable from the first side of the plow beam to the second side having equal cutting and camber angles in both the first position and the second position, and for turning by 180° the plow beam being rotatable about a plow tower turning unit, and wherein during swiveling of 77.3° by the swivel arm from the first position into the second position or vice versa, the cutting angle and the camber angle are equal.
c) a turning plowing device with blade-like cutting elements situated on both sides of a plow beam, comprising at least one first cutting element on one side, having a hollow disc-like design, is swiveled from a first position on a first side of the plow beam, in which the first cutting element is situated with respect to the blade-like cutting elements, in such a way that in each case a blade-like cutting element of the blade-like cutting elements and the first cutting element together form a complete module for plowing in a plowing direction, into a second position, on a second side opposite from the first side of the plow beam, by means of a swivel arm, in which the blade-like cutting element as a semi-module in each case forms a complete module after the first cutting element is swiveled around, the complete module on the second side being turnable toward the ground in such a way that for a reverse plowing direction opposite the plowing direction, the ground is plowable with the same camber angle and cutting angle of the first cutting element, wherein the blade-like cutting elements are adjustable at the plow beam with regard to a cutting angle of the blade-like cutting elements for penetration depth control by means of hydraulic actuators.
d) a turning plowing device with blade-like cutting elements situated on both sides of a plow beam, comprising at least one first cutting element on one side, having a hollow disc-like design, is swiveled from a first position on a first side of the plow beam, in which the first cutting element is situated with respect to the blade-like cutting elements, in such a way that in each case a blade-like cutting element of the blade-like cutting elements and the first cutting element together form a complete module for plowing in a plowing direction, into a second position, on a second side opposite from the first side of the plow beam, by means of a swivel arm, in which the blade-like cutting element as a semi-module in each case forms a complete module after the first cutting element is swiveled around, the complete module on the second side being turnable toward the ground in such a way that for a reverse plowing direction opposite the plowing direction, the ground is plowable with the same camber angle and cutting angle of the first cutting element, wherein the blade-like cutting elements are fastened to the plow beam and are mechanically adjustable with regard to a cutting angle of the blade-like cutting elements for penetration depth control via a perforated plate with shear bolts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Topham (US 5,417,238) shows a turning plowing device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30-5.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679