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 drawn to Kinkead have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments are considered to overcome the Takata reference.
Regarding claim 1, as stated below, Kinkead’s retaining member 129, either individually or collectively, is positioned over all the cavities.
Regarding claim 3, it appears Applicant is narrowly interpreting the term “flush”. Giving the broadest reasonable interpretation, the retention portion as a whole is considered flush with the first surface of the mounting member because the retention portion is aligned with the first surface. Examiner suggests amending to state a surface of the retention portion is flush with the first surface of the mounting member.
Examiner has changed the indefiniteness rejections to claim objections. As stated below, claims 1, 6, and 8 introduce a similar form of “a cavity” and “a second cavity” and reference “a cavity”. The claims appear to consistently reference the correct cavity/mounting member/retaining member to avoid indefiniteness. The examiner still suggests amending the limitation to “a first cavity” for clarity. However, if Applicant opts to maintain the same limitations, the examiner notes that any reference to “the cavity”, “the mounting member”, and “the retaining member” must be interpreted as referring to the verbatim element and NOT the second cavity/second mounting member/second retaining member.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 6-8, 13, and 15-18 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. The reasons for allowance related to claim 15 put forth in the previous office action still applies.
Claim 20 is allowed.
Claims 2, 4, and 6 each provide structural details of the teeth/tines as well as a second mounting member. Each of these claims contain details that overcome the aerator machine of Kinkead. Neither Kinkead, nor any other reference, teaches the structural details of the second mounting member or the specific shape of the teeth. Further, any obvious combination to modify the shape of the teeth in this context would require improper hindsight reasoning and render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Claim 13 recites the toe window being located through the toe plate which is a distinction over the prior art. Any obvious combination to locate the toe window through the toe plate as claimed would require improper hindsight reasoning.
Similarly, claim 20 now includes the toe plate and bracket plate to adjust the toe angle. Neither Kinkead, nor any other reference, teaches the use of a toe plate and bracket plate to adjust the toe angle of the tine as well as a camber assembly to adjust the camber of the sleeve. Any obvious combination to include both of these assemblies as currently claimed would require improper hindsight reasoning.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each of the claim introduce a similar form of “a cavity” and “a second cavity” and reference “a cavity”. The claims appear to consistently reference the correct cavity/mounting member/retaining member to avoid indefiniteness. The examiner still suggests amending the limitation to “a first cavity” for clarity. However, if Applicant opts to maintain the same limitations, the examiner notes that any reference to “the cavity”, “the mounting member”, and “the retaining member” must be interpreted as referring to the verbatim element and NOT the second cavity/second mounting member/second retaining member. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 20 recites “connected toa bracket plate” in line 13. This limitation should be amended to read --connected to a bracket plate--.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kinkead et al. (US 10212872).
Regarding claim 1, Kinkead discloses a strip freshener comprising:
a tine having a retention portion and a tooth (tine 104 with retention portion 128 and tooth at the other end);
a mounting member having a cavity and a second cavity in a first surface of the mounting member (mounting member 110 with cavities 112 on the first surface; there is more than one cavity);
the retention portion of the tine received in the cavity (Fig 4);
a retaining member removably connected to the mounting member, wherein the retaining member is positioned over the cavity and the second cavity (retaining member 129, either individually or collectively, is positioned over all the cavities); and
wherein the cavity is shaped like the retention portion (Fig 4; 112);
wherein the retention portion is positioned between the retaining member and a second surface of the mounting member (Fig 4; tine 104 is between the retaining member 129 and the opposite surface of mounting member 110).
Regarding claim 3, Kinkead discloses the strip freshener wherein the retention portion is received within the cavity such that the retention portion is flush with the first surface of the mounting member such that the retaining member engages the retention portion (Fig 4; the retention portion is received within the cavity 112 and considered flush with the first surface of the mounting member because the surface of the retention portion is aligned with the first surface; the retention portion is generally not sticking out from the first surface of the mounting member and creates a generally smooth assembly surface).
Regarding claim 5, Kinkead discloses the strip freshener further comprising a sleeve that extends from a first end to a second end, and the mounting member is fixedly connected to the sleeve (sleeve 116 is connected to the mounting member).
Regarding claim 11, Kinkead discloses the strip freshener further comprising the sleeve connected to a bracket of a toe angle assembly; the toe angle assembly having a toe plate pivotally connected to a bracket plate of the bracket; wherein the toe angle assembly is configured to adjust a toe angle of the tine and the mounting member in relation to the toe plate (bracket/bracket plate 150; toe plate 136 is pivotally connected to bracket; the toe plate is considered to adjust the angle of the tine and mounting member by way of manipulating the wheels of the machine).
Regarding claim 12, Kinkead discloses the strip freshener further comprising the toe plate having a swivel slot that aligns with a swivel bore of the bracket plate (toe plate 136; swivel slot aligns with swivel bore at 150a because the two elements are pivotally connected).
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) 9-10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinkead as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Martindale et al. (US 20110155401).
Regarding claim 9, Kinkead discloses the strip freshener further comprising a spindle assembly having a shaft that extends from a first end to a second end, a frame connector, and a cap (Fig 4; shaft 102 extends from a first to a second end; frame connector and cap depicted in the Annotated Figure 1); the cap connected to the first end of the shaft; the shaft received within and connected to the sleeve; and the frame connector connected to a frame (see Annotated Figure 1; shaft 102 is received within sleeve 116 and the frame connector connects to the frame of the machine).
PNG
media_image1.png
407
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
While the machine of Kinkead fails to specifically mention a bearing, there would likely have to some kind of bearing structure in order for the rotatable elements to rotate on the shaft. However, Martindale discloses a similar earth working machine with rotatable tines to work the earth (Fig 6, Fig 12, and Fig 14) and teaches the use of a bearing to support the rotatable shaft located between the tines (bearing G).
Kinkead and Martindale are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of earth working machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kinkead to incorporate the teachings of Martindale and combined the use of a bearing to support the rotatable components of the combination. One would have made this combination to support the rotatable components and support the shaft (Martindale; para [0084], lines 4-5).
The bearing of the combination is considered to be contained inside the cap of Kinkead and around the shaft with no bearing outside the cap of Kinkead as claimed.
Regarding claim 10, Kinkead further discloses the strip freshener wherein the second end of the shaft extends to the second end of the sleeve (Kinkead; shaft 102 extends to the second end of sleeve 116).
Regarding claim 14, Kinkead fails to specifically disclose the strip freshener comprising a camber assembly. However, the claim language is broad. Camber is broadly interpreted as an angle of the tines. Martindale discloses a similar earth working machine with rotatable tines to work the earth (Fig 6, Fig 12, and Fig 14) and teaches a camber assembly to angle the tines in Figs 5-7. Martindale further teaches a camber plate as part of these assembly with the tines pivotally connected to the camber plate (see Annotated Figure 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
345
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Kinkead and Martindale are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of tilling machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kinkead to incorporate the teachings of Martindale and combined the use of a camber assembly with a camber plate connected to the sleeve of Kinkead. The camber assembly of the combination is considered to adjust the angle of the tines of Kinkead. One would have made this combination to navigate around corners in the field and reduce excessive and unnecessary thrust forces on suspension system components and framing (Martindale; para [0059], lines 4-8).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinkead as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kirby (US 6067918).
Regarding claim 19, Kinkead discloses the strip freshener further comprising the sleeve connected to a stem assembly having a stem (claim language is broad; sleeve 116 is connected to stem assembly and stem 102). Kinkead fails to specifically disclose a scraper to remove debris from the tine.
However, Kirby discloses a similar earth working machine with tines (Fig 1 and Fig 15; tine 12) and teaches the use of a debris scraper to clear material from between the fingers or tines 16 (scraper 26; col 7, lines 62-67).
Kinkead and Kirby are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of earth working machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kinkead to incorporate the teachings of Kirby and combined the use of a debris scraper connected to the sleeve of Kinkead. One would have made this combination to clear material from between the fingers or tines 16 (Kirby; col 7, lines 62-67).
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