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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the Applicant appears to be narrowly interpreting the claim term “clamped”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard, the Examiner is interpreting “clamped” as “to fasten with or as if with a device designed to bind so as to hold them firmly” (Merriam-Webster). Under this interpretation, the clamps of Jambor and Pollard fasten the tool and tool carrier firmly together.
Second, the amended claim language of the clamping lever being elastically deformed is considered obvious based the broadest reasonable interpretation. All materials are able to be deformed elastically. The clamps of Jambor and Pollard elastically deform in different ways (Jambor with a spring; Pollard’s lever appears to be elastically deformed during assembly) both of which meet the current claim language. Examiner understands the type of elastic deformation of the prior is different from the elastic deformation presented in Applicant’s specification, but the current claim language merely requires some level of elastic deformation which a spring element would appear to meet. A more explicit recitation of the deformation that distinguishes from this broad interpretation would likely overcome the rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jambor (AT 501965).
Regarding claim 1, Jambor discloses a tool change system for agricultural ground cultivating machines, comprising:
- a ground cultivation tool which is configured to be moved through soil for ground cultivation (3 and 5);
- a tool carrier on which said ground cultivation tool is arranged (1 and 4), and
- a locking device (6);
wherein said ground cultivation tool and said tool carrier together form an engagement mechanism by way of which said ground cultivation tool and said tool carrier can be made to engage with one another in a non-destructively releasable manner (engagement mechanism 31/41 or 44/54 and 43/53);
wherein said locking device comprises a clamping lever by way of which said engagement mechanism can be locked (clamping lever 64/65 with handle at the far end; lever 64 clamps on pin 62 to lock engagement mechanism);
wherein said ground cultivation tool and said tool carrier are configured to be clamped to one another by way of the clamping lever (the clamping lever clamps the tool and tool carrier together); and
wherein said clamping lever is configured to be elastically deformed when the ground cultivation tool and the tool carrier are clamped to one another (lever 64/65 is spring loaded which is considered to meet the broad “elastically deformed” limitation; pg 3, lines 29-35).
For the sake of argument that a spring loaded lever does not meet the “elastically deformed” limitation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the lever elastically deformable to some degree. In fact, all material is elastically deformable to some degree. Regardless, a modification of a spring loaded lever to an elastically resilient material is considered an obvious design choice. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Regarding claim 2, Jambor discloses a tool change system wherein said clamping lever has a locking section which can be inserted into a lever receiving recess of said engagement mechanism, and wherein said lever receiving recess is arranged in said ground cultivation tool (locking section 65 is received in lever receiving recess 55 on the tool 5).
Regarding claim 4, Jambor discloses a tool change system wherein said clamping lever has a tool contact region which is configured to be pressed against the contour of said lever receiving recess when said ground cultivation tool and said tool carrier are clamped to one another (tool contact region is considered to be the surfaces of locking section 65; it appears the tool contact region is disposed on the locking section in Applicant’s invention; Applicant’s specification pg 11, lines 2-5).
Regarding claim 5, Jambor discloses a tool change system wherein said clamping lever has a carrier contact region which is configured to be pressed against a lever guide region of said tool carrier when said ground cultivation tool and said tool carrier are clamped to one another (carrier contact region 67 presses against lever guide region 7 of tool carrier 1 in Fig 3).
Regarding claim 6, Jambor discloses a tool change system wherein
- said carrier contact region of said clamping lever has a convexly curved contact surface (carrier contact region 67 is depicted as convexly curved in Fig 2);
- said lever guide region of said tool carrier has a concavely curved contact surface (lever guide region 7 of tool carrier is depicted as having a small concave surface in Fig 2).
Regarding claim 7, Jambor discloses a tool change system wherein said carrier contact region and said lever guide region together form a rotary bearing for said clamping lever which allows for a guided rotational motion of said clamping lever across a pivot angle range (Figs 3-3c depict regions 67 and 7 forming a rotary bearing in the same way as Applicant’s invention to allow for guided rotational motion of the clamping lever).
Regarding claim 8, Jambor discloses a tool change system wherein said locking device has a retaining member which is configured to retain said clamping lever in a locking position in which said ground cultivation tool and said tool carrier are clamped to one another by way of said clamping lever (retaining member 61 is considered to retain the clamping lever 6 in a locking position).
Regarding claim 9, Jambor discloses a tool change system wherein said engagement mechanism has one or more engagement bodies, wherein each engagement body is configured to engage in said lever receiving recess of said engagement mechanism (engagement bodies 43 and 44 engagement receiving recess 53 and 54).
Regarding claim 10, Jambor discloses a tool change system wherein an engagement body of said engagement mechanism is configured to engage in said lever receiving recess into which also said locking section of said clamping lever can be inserted (engagement body 44 engages recess 54 which is considered to be a lever receiving recess where clamping lever 6 is also inserted).
Regarding claim 11, Jambor discloses a tool change system wherein said one or more engagement bodies have a contact surface which are each configured to press against a contact section of the inner contour of a receiving recess when said ground cultivation tool and said tool carrier are clamped to one another (engagement bodies 43 and 44 have inner contact surfaces that press against a contact surface of the corresponding receiving recess when the tool and carrier are clamped together).
Regarding claim 12, Jambor discloses a tool change system wherein said contact surface of said one or more engagement bodies and said contact section of said inner contour of said one or more receiving recesses have corresponding bevels (claim language is broad; the surfaces are considered to have corresponding bevels because the engagement bodies have a small lip that hooks onto the recesses).
Regarding claim 14, Jambor discloses a ground cultivation tool for a tool change system which is configured to be moved through soil for ground cultivation, wherein said ground cultivation tool has at least one receiving recess by way of which said ground cultivation tool is configured to form an engagement mechanism with a tool carrier in order to be arranged on said tool carrier, wherein said engagement mechanism includes a lever receiving recess into which a clamping lever can be replaced (tool 5 has receiving recesses 53 and 54 with lever receiving recess 55; engagement mechanism 43 and 44 and clamping lever 65).
Regarding claim 15, Jambor discloses a method for mounting a ground cultivation tool on a soil cultivation machine using a tool change system comprising:
- non-destructively releasing engagement of a ground cultivation tool and a tool carrier with one another by way of an engagement mechanism which is formed together by said ground cultivation tool and said tool carrier (engagement mechanism 43 and 44 engage with recesses 53 and 54; once the locking device 6 is released, the tool 5 is non-destructively released from the tool carrier); and
- locking of said engagement mechanism by way of a clamping lever of a locking device of said tool change system (locking device 6 locks the engagement mechanism by clamping lever 65); and
- clamping said ground cultivation tool and said tool carrier to one another by way of the clamping lever (the clamping lever clamps the tool and tool carrier together).
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Pollard (US 7255179).
Regarding claim 1, Pollard discloses a tool change system for agricultural ground cultivating machines, comprising:
- a ground cultivation tool which is configured to be moved through soil for ground cultivation (10);
- a tool carrier on which said ground cultivation tool is arranged (25), and
- a locking device (30);
wherein said ground cultivation tool and said tool carrier together form an engagement mechanism by way of which said ground cultivation tool and said tool carrier can be made to engage with one another in a non-destructively releasable manner (Figs 1-2 depict the tool and tool carrier engaging in a non-destructively releasable manner);
wherein said locking device comprises a clamping lever by way of which said engagement mechanism can be locked (clamping lever 30 locks the engagement mechanism with projection portion 35);
wherein said ground cultivation tool and said tool carrier are configured to be clamped to one another by way of the clamping lever (the clamping lever clamps the tool and tool carrier together); and
wherein said clamping lever is configured to be elastically deformed when the ground cultivation tool and the tool carrier are clamped to one another (lever 30 is pushed to a second position and is biased back to return to a first position; col 3, lines 48-55).
While it seems likely that coupling 30 would be elastically deformed when the tool and tool carrier are clamped together, for the sake of argument, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the lever elastically deformed when assembled to some degree. Regardless, a modification of a thin coupling clip to be elastically deformed when assembled is considered an obvious design choice. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Regarding claim 2, Pollard discloses a tool change system wherein said clamping lever has a locking section which can be inserted into a lever receiving recess of said engagement mechanism, and wherein said lever receiving recess is arranged in said ground cultivation tool (locking section 35 engages with lever receiving recess 24).
Regarding claim 4, Pollard discloses a tool change system wherein said clamping lever has a tool contact region which is configured to be pressed against the contour of said lever receiving recess when said ground cultivation tool and said tool carrier are clamped to one another (the regions surrounding locking section 35 are considered to press against the corresponding recess surfaces; it appears the tool contact region is disposed on the locking section in Applicant’s invention; Applicant’s specification pg 11, lines 2-5).
Regarding claim 5, Pollard discloses a tool change system wherein said clamping lever has a carrier contact region which is configured to be pressed against a lever guide region of said tool carrier when said ground cultivation tool and said tool carrier are clamped to one another (carrier contact region 32 presses against lever guide region 35a).
Regarding claim 8, Pollard discloses a tool change system wherein said locking device has a retaining member which is configured to retain said clamping lever in a locking position in which said ground cultivation tool and said tool carrier are clamped to one another by way of said clamping lever (retaining member 40 is considered to retain the clamping lever 30 in a locking position).
Regarding claim 13, Pollard discloses a tool change system wherein said clamping lever is configured as a bent wire part as a spring clip (clamping lever 30/35 is considered to be a bent wire part).
Regarding claim 15, Pollard discloses a method for mounting a ground cultivation tool on a soil cultivation machine using a tool change system comprising:
- non-destructively releasing engagement of a ground cultivation tool and a tool carrier with one another by way of an engagement mechanism which is formed together by said ground cultivation tool and said tool carrier (engagement mechanism 27 engage with recess in housing 16; once the locking device 30 is released by being pushed, the tool 10 is non-destructively released from the tool carrier); and
- locking of said engagement mechanism by way of a clamping lever of a locking device of said tool change system (locking device 30 locks the engagement mechanism by clamping lever 35); and
- clamping said ground cultivation tool and said tool carrier to one another by way of the clamping lever (the clamping lever clamps the tool and tool carrier together).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BLAKE SCOVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30-6 (ET).
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.
/BLAKE E SCOVILLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights