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 information disclosure statement filed 10/5/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. The copy of the NPL does not match that which is listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
"means for connecting with the lower front part of a liquid tank and to which are coupled means for distributing said liquid contained in the tank inside the leveling drawer" (of claim 12);
"a support wheel in its front part, being free in its vertical direction, a chassis in its upper part and some quick mooring points to the coupling plate and in its rear part a joint forced hydraulically or electrically to be able to confer slopes laterally and transversely a joint that acts horizontally and perpendicular to the direction of advance and that is attached to the coupling plate with the quick hitch acting by advancing or retarding the coupling plate of the compact loader to raise or lower the cross section rear to raise or lower the rear cross member with the arms of the CTL" (of claim 14); and
"coupling claws at the bottom and three attachment points to be connected to a three-point lifting system of an agricultural tractor" (of claim 15).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains an implied phrase (i.e., "The invention relates to..." in labeled line 2) and identifies "the front transverse support" with reference numeral "1" in labeled line 7 (instead of reference numeral "2" as in labeled line 2). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because labeled p. 7, line 13 recites "the front transverse support (1)," instead of "the front transverse support (2),". Appropriate correction is required. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors including irregular language and those of grammar. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which Applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 1, line 4 recites "both supports" (instead of "both transverse supports" as recited later in line 4);
claim 1, line 4 recites "the machine" (instead of "the leveling machine" as recited elsewhere throughout the claims);
claim 2, line 4 recites "the machine" (instead of "the leveling machine" as recited elsewhere throughout the claims);
claim 3, line 3 recites "in its rear part, rear thrust elements" (instead of "in their rear part, comprise rear thrust elements");
claim 4, line 3 recites "this plate" (instead of "said plate" or "the plate");
claim 6, line 4 recites "and vertical inclination" (instead of "and vertically inclined");
claim 6, line 4 recites "the machine" (instead of "the leveling machine" as recited elsewhere throughout the claims);
claim 8, lines 3-4 recite "as well as a joint hydraulics to confer lateral slopes" (instead of "as well as joint hydraulics..." or something else that makes sense);
claim 14, line 9 recites "the CTL" (instead of "the CTL compact loader"); and
claim 15, line 1 recites "The machine" (instead of "The leveling machine" as recited elsewhere throughout the claims).
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.
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 1-15 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.
The claims are replete with indefinite language. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and contain narrative language as well as grammatical and idiomatic errors. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. Applicant is respectfully requested to proofread and correct the claim language.
Claim 1 includes the phrases "integral with", "integrally attached", and "integrally joined". The term "integral" is typically synonymous with one piece construction. However, use of the term in the claim (e.g., "integrally attached" and "integrally joined") contradicts meaning as such, since "attached" and "joined" signify connections of different pieces. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the terms "integral" and "integrally" cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Additionally, claims 2-15 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites "where a plurality of scarifying or scraping elements are accommodated on the front transverse support," in lines 5-7. It is unclear if "a plurality of scarifying or scraping elements" are part of the claimed machine or are merely "accommodated" thereon. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claimed machine cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the lower surface" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites "where a plurality of scarifying or scraping elements are ... horizontally aligned at their lower point with the lower surface of some lateral skates integrally attached to the longitudinal lateral supports..." in lines 5-8. It is unclear if "some lateral skates" are part of the claimed machine or are only required by functionality of "a plurality of scarifying or scraping elements" in an intended use of the machine. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claimed machine cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the lower edge" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites "where a plurality of scarifying or scraping elements are ... horizontally aligned at their lower point ... with the lower edge of a leveling blade integrally joined to the rear transverse support..." in lines 5-9. It is unclear if "a leveling blade" is part of the claimed machine or is only required by functionality of "a plurality of scarifying or scraping elements" in an intended use of the machine. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claimed machine cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 1 recites "... the lower edge of a leveling blade integrally joined to the rear transverse support by its lower part." It is unclear if "its lower part" is referring to "the rear transverse support", "a leveling blade", or "the lower edge". Thus, the metes and bounds of limitations in claim 1 (particularly "its lower part") cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 2 recites "one or more oscillating scraper tines are mounted and whose tips are oriented..." in line 3. It appears "whose tips" applies to "one or more oscillating scraper tines". However, it is unclear if or how "one ... oscillating scraper tine[]" includes plural "tips". Thus, the metes and bounds of limitations in claim 2 (particularly "whose tips") cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 2 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Where Applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term "profiles" in claim 3 is used by the claim to mean "beams," while the accepted meaning of "profile" is "n. 1a. A view of something, esp. of a human head, from the side. b. A representation of a side view, esp. of a human head. 2. The outline of something. 3. A biographical sketch." (See Webster's II Dictionary, Third Edition, p. 567.) The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the leveling body" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the central part" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the front crossbar" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the rear one" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the articulated rear axle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 is being further examined as though it depends from claim 8.
Claim 9 recites "a compaction roller coupled to the articulated rear axle or other auxiliary tools with hydraulic lifting." It is unclear if the leveling machine is being defined to be further comprise "a compaction roller coupled to the articulated rear axle" or further comprise "other auxiliary tools with hydraulic lifting", or if the leveling machine is being defined to further comprise "a compaction roller" that is coupled to "the articulated rear axle or other auxiliary tools with hydraulic lifting." Thus, the metes and bounds of the claimed machine cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 9 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the rear and/or front part" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the fragments of shrapnel and/or stones" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites "one or more scarifying or scraping elements are selected from a plurality of scarifying tines and/or a serrated blade." It is unclear if "one or more scarifying or scraping elements" is referring to "a plurality of scarifying or scraping elements" previously introduced in claim 1 (as taken in light of the specification) or if "one or more scarifying or scraping elements" is/are being introduced in addition to that of claim 1 (as taken from the claim language). Additionally, if "one or more scarifying or scraping elements" is referring to the elements of claim 1, "a plurality of scarifying or scraping elements" cannot be a singular serrated blade. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claimed elements cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the lower front part" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "said liquid" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the leveling drawer" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 12, claim limitations "means for connecting with the lower front part of a liquid tank" and "means for distributing said liquid contained in the tank inside the leveling drawer" invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structures, materials, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structures, materials, or acts to the functions. In the original disclosure, p. 4, ll. 9-17 of the specification sets forth "water dosing means" and that "this embodiment involves the presence of a water tank," but fails to disclose structure(s) corresponding to means for connecting a liquid tank or means for distributing liquid as claimed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, Applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the leveling drawer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "its rear transverse crossbar" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites "which comprises on its rear transverse crossbar a quick coupling plate configured for coupling with a CTL compact loader, to which a superstructure is attached conformed with a support wheel in its front part..." in lines 1-3. It is unclear which part (i.e., its rear transverse crossbar, a quick coupling plate, or a CTL compact loader) "to which a superstructure is attached". Further, it is unclear which part is "conformed with" structure as claimed. Thus, the metes and bounds of the limitations in claim 14 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 14 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 14 recites "being free in its vertical direction," in lines 3-4. It is unclear which part is "free in its vertical direction". Thus, the metes and bounds of this limitation in claim 14 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 14 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the direction of advance" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the quick hitch" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the coupling plate of the compact loader" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for "the compact loader" limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the cross section rear" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the rear cross member" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the arms" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the central plate" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the bottom" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-4, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lapins et al. (US 2,986,828)
Regarding claim 1, Lapins discloses a land leveling machine comprising a leveling box made up of a front transverse support (20) and a rear transverse support (including upper 40 and/or 42), parallel to each other and in a horizontal position with respect to the ground (see Figs. 1-3), both transverse supports being transverse in the direction of advance of the leveling machine (to the right in Figs. 1-3; see Fig. 3), both transverse supports being also integral with each other (shown forming a continuous structure with the following) by two longitudinal lateral supports (including 51 and upper portion of 45, and including 52 and upper portion of 46); and where a plurality of scarifying or scraping elements (including or of 37) are accommodated on the front transverse support, horizontally aligned at their lower point with a lower surface of some lateral skates (including lower portions of 45 and 46) integrally attached (to form continuous structure) to the longitudinal lateral supports and with a lower edge of a leveling blade (including 41) integrally joined (to form continuous structure) to a lower part of the rear transverse support (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 2, Lapins discloses, on the front transverse support, on its rear side and oriented in the direction of travel of the tractor unit, one or more oscillating scraper tines (including 90 and/or 92) are mounted and whose tip (or tips) is (or are) oriented in the opposite direction to the direction of advance of the leveling machine (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 3, Lapins discloses central longitudinal beams (including 71 and 72) that, in their front part, comprise front hooking elements (for 74) and in their rear part, comprise rear thrust elements (including or portions connected to 73) connectable with a tractor unit (with 11 as shown).
Regarding claim 4, Lapins discloses a plate (including 71 and/or 72) in a central part that joins the front transverse support (20) with the rear transverse support (including upper 40 and/or 42) and said plate having fixing holes (for 74) or fixing elements (further including 32 and/or 74) to be pushed or dragged by elements from their top.
Regarding claim 7, Lapins discloses a front hooking element (including or of 30) of the leveling box that has a vertical joint (including or at 33) attached.
Regarding claim 10, Lapins discloses anti-deflagration protections (including those of 47, 54, 55, 58, and/or 59) in the leveling box, the anti-deflagration protections being configured to project the fragments of shrapnel and/or stones forward and downward, protecting people and equipment, in eminently military uses (capable of such an intended use).
Regarding claim 11, Lapins discloses one or more scarifying or scraping elements are a plurality of scarifying tines (including or of 37).
Regarding claim 13, Lapins discloses a rear blade (including 90 and/or 92) oriented in the opposite direction to the direction of advance of the leveling box (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 15, Lapins discloses, on the plate (including 71 and/or 72), a truncated pyramid-shaped body (including 12 and 16) is attached with bottom coupling claws (including or of 24) and three attachment points (of 12 and 16) to be connected to a three-point lifting system (including 13) of an agricultural tractor.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boschung et al. (US 3,724,557)
Regarding claim 1, Boschung discloses a land leveling machine comprising a leveling box made up of a front transverse support (including 30) and a rear transverse support (including 41 and/or 42), parallel to each other and in a horizontal position with respect to the ground (see Fig. 2), both transverse supports being transverse in the direction of advance of the leveling machine (to the left in Figs. 1 and 2), both transverse supports being also integral with each other (shown forming a continuous structure with the following) by two longitudinal lateral supports (including 31 and 38); and where a plurality of scarifying or scraping elements (including or of 36) are accommodated on the front transverse support, horizontally aligned at their lower point with a lower surface of some lateral skates (including or of 57 and/or 67) integrally attached (to form continuous structure) to the longitudinal lateral supports and with a lower edge of a leveling blade (of 49) integrally joined (to form continuous structure) to a lower part of the rear transverse support (including 41 and/or 42).
Regarding claim 2, Boschung discloses, on the front transverse support, on its rear side and oriented in the direction of travel of the tractor unit, one or more oscillating scraper tines (including 61, which are capable of oscillating via 40) are mounted and whose tips are oriented in the opposite direction to the direction of advance of the leveling machine (to the left in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Boschung discloses central longitudinal beams (including 1, 2, 3, 4, and 17) that, in their front part, comprise front hooking elements (including 2 and/or 17) and in their rear part, comprise rear thrust elements (including 4) connectable with a tractor unit (such as that including 15).
Regarding claim 4, Boschung discloses the leveling box comprising a plate (including 1 and 17) in a central part that joins the front transverse support with the rear transverse support and said plate has fixing holes or fixing elements (within 17) to be pushed or dragged by elements from their top.
Regarding claim 7, Boschung discloses a front hooking element (including 2) of the leveling box that has a vertical joint (including or of 17) attached.
Regarding claim 8, Boschung discloses a rear hitch element (including 5) where an articulated rear axle (including 14) configured to hydraulically raise or lower the leveling box is coupled, as well as joint hydraulics (of or for 12) to confer lateral slopes.
Regarding claim 11, Boschung discloses one or more scarifying or scraping elements being a plurality of scarifying tines (including or of 36).
Claims 1-4, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keigley (US 9,609,796).
Regarding claim 1, Keigley discloses a land leveling machine comprising a leveling box made up of a front transverse support (including 116) and a rear transverse support (including 112), parallel to each other and in a horizontal position with respect to the ground (see Fig. 1), both transverse supports being transverse in the direction of advance of the leveling machine (see Fig. 4), both transverse supports being also integral with each other (shown forming a continuous structure with the following) by two longitudinal lateral supports (including 114); and where a plurality of scarifying or scraping elements (of 140) are accommodated on the front transverse support, horizontally aligned at their lower point with a lower surface of some lateral skates (including outer or lateral 150) integrally (to form continuous structure) attached to the longitudinal lateral supports and with a lower edge of a leveling blade (including or of 134) integrally (to form continuous structure) joined (via 132) to a lower part of the rear transverse support.
Regarding claim 2, Keigley discloses, on the front transverse support, on its rear side and oriented in the direction of travel of the tractor unit, one or more oscillating scraper tines (including inner 150, which are capable of oscillating via their pinned connections) are mounted and whose tips are oriented in the opposite direction to the direction of advance of the leveling machine (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Keigley discloses central longitudinal beams (including 132) that, in their front part, comprise front hooking elements (see Fig. 3) and in their rear part, comprise rear thrust elements (including holes shown) connectable with a tractor unit (such as 200).
Regarding claim 4, Keigley discloses the leveling box comprising a plate (including 115, or including 132) in a central part that joins the front transverse support with the rear transverse support and said plate has fixing holes (as shown) or fixing elements (including those shown in 112 aligned with 115, or including 133) to be pushed or dragged by elements from their top.
Regarding claim 11, Keigley discloses one or more scarifying or scraping elements being a plurality of scarifying tines (of 40).
Regarding claim 14, Keigley discloses, on its rear transverse support, a quick coupling plate (including 120 and/or 210) configured for coupling with a CTL compact loader (such as 200) as claimed.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lapins in view of Armstrong (US 2019/0040606).
Regarding claim 5, Lapins discloses the leveling machine with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Lapins does not explicitly disclose electrically or hydraulically actuatable tilt skids and that are configured to raise and lower synchronously or independently. However, Armstrong teaches a leveling machine that includes hydraulically actuatable tilt skids (including 42 and 64) and that are configured to raise and lower synchronously or independently (via 44 and 45).
Armstrong is analogous because Armstrong discloses a leveling machine including actuatable tilt skids. 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 machine of Lapins with the skid means as taught by Armstrong in order to adjust tilt. (See Armstrong, paras. 0002-0004.)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lapins in view of Challen et al. (US 2010/0044062)
Regarding claim 6, Lapins discloses the leveling machine with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Lapins does not explicitly disclose a folding side arm that has a lateral leveling blade as claimed. However, Challen teaches a leveling machine that includes a folding side arm (including 12) that has a lateral leveling blade (including 14) that, in addition, is configured to be arranged straight or inclined laterally with respect to the axis of the arm and vertically inclined with respect to the direction of advance of the leveling machine (see figures).
Challen is analogous because Challen discloses a leveling machine including a folding side arm having a lateral leveling blade. 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 machine of Lapins with the arm and blade means as taught by Challen in order to grade a surface beside a vehicle. (See Challen, Abstract.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boschung in view of Manor (US 3,889,760).
Regarding claim 9, Boschung discloses the leveling machine with respect to claim 8, as set forth above. Boschung does not explicitly disclose a compaction roller coupled to the articulated rear axle or other auxiliary tools with hydraulic lifting. However, Manor teaches a leveling machine comprising a compaction roller (including 9) coupled (centrally and) rearwardly (see Figs. 1, 3, 6, and 8).
Manor is analogous because Manor discloses a leveling machine comprising a leveling blade and a compaction roller. 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 machine of Boschung with the roller means as taught by Manor in order to pack the soil. (See Manor, Abstract and col. 1.)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boschung in view of Chern (US 10,119,243).
Regarding claim 12, Boschung discloses the leveling machine with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Boschung does not explicitly disclose means for connecting with a lower front part of a liquid tank and to which are coupled means for distributing liquid contained in the tank as claimed. However, Chern teaches a leveling machine (see Fig. 25) comprising means for connecting with a lower front part of a liquid tank (including or of 202) and to which are coupled means for distributing (including 404) liquid contained in the tank inside a leveling box (see col. 19, line 50 - col. 20, line 3).
Chern is analogous because Chern discloses a leveling machine comprising a leveling box and a liquid distribution system. 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 machine of Boschung with the means for connecting and the means for distributing as taught by Chern for dust suppression. (See Chern, col. 19, line 50 - col. 20, line 3.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Perold (US 3,324,955), Bentley et al. (US 3,448,814), and Schaefer (US 4,217,962) each disclose a land leveling machine as set forth in at least claim 1.
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/1/3/26
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675