DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “the retaining member” in line 3. Because there is a “retaining member” and “second retaining member” it is unclear to which element this limitation refers. The claim is rendered indefinite for this reason. Examiner suggests amending the limitation to a “first retaining member” and correcting the remaining claims.
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, 11-13 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 in a first surface of the mounting member (mounting member 110 with cavities 112 on the first surface);
the retention portion of the tine received in the cavity (Fig 4);
a retaining member removably connected to the mounting member (129); 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 flush with the first surface of the mounting member such that the retaining member engages the retention portion (Fig 4; the retention portion is considered flush with the first surface of the mounting member).
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).
Regarding claim 13, Kinkead discloses the strip freshener further comprising the toe plate having a toe window configured to show a position of the bracket plate relative to the toe plate; and an indicia set next to the toe window; wherein the indicia represents at least one predefined toe angle when the bracket plate aligns with the indicia (claim language is broad; Fig 2 depicts the side of the machine open which is considered to be a toe window to show the positions of the bracket and toe adjustment assembly; “indicia” is broadly interpreted to mean any kind of indication or sign; therefore, when lift handle 162 is pulled to the handle 36 and the lift tube 160 acts upon plate 140 and bracket plate 150, the user is able to look at the side of the machine and determine the bracket plate has been actuated to a predetermined toe angle based on the signs of actuation).
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takata (US 3702638).
Regarding claim 1, Takata discloses a strip freshener comprising:
a tine having a retention portion and a tooth (tine 7 with retention portion 12 and tooth 13);
a mounting member having a cavity in a first surface of the mounting member (mounting member 9 and 27 is considered to create a cavity that the tine 7 sits up against);
the retention portion of the tine received in the cavity (Fig 4-5);
a retaining member removably connected to the mounting member (23); and
wherein the cavity is shaped like the retention portion (claim language is broad; Fig 5);
wherein the retention portion is positioned between the retaining member and a second surface of the mounting member (Fig 4; tine 7 is between the retaining member 23 and the opposite surface of mounting member 9).
Regarding claim 2, Takata discloses the strip freshener wherein the retention portion has a circular base and a rectangular portion, and the rectangular portion is positioned between the circular base and the tooth (Fig 5; circular base depicted at element 26 and rectangular portion is the portion of 12 that is between 26 and 13).
Regarding claim 3, Takata discloses the strip freshener wherein the retention portion is flush with the first surface of the mounting member such that the retaining member engages the retention portion (Figs 4-5).
Regarding claim 4, Takata discloses the strip freshener wherein the tooth tapers from the 18
retention portion in a helix shape (claim language is broad; the tine 7 and 13 are considered to be in a helical shape because it tapers and twist in Fig 4).
Regarding claim 5, Takata 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 is considered to be tube 8 which is connected to the mounting member 9).
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) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Monk et al. (US 3202221).
Regarding claim 6, Takata discloses the strip freshener further comprising a second tine received in a second mounting member; a second retaining member removably connected to the second mounting member (Fig 1 depicts multiple mounting members, tines, and retaining members); however, Takata fails to specifically disclose the second mounting member being smaller than the mounting member.
Monk discloses a similar field cultivator (Figs 1-3, 8) and teaches a second mounting member being smaller or tapered from the first mounting member (Fig 8 depicts the left mounting member being smaller than the right mounting member). Monk states the purpose of this configuration is to move dirt either towards or away from the plant rows during use (col 4, lines 42-51).
Takata and Monk are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of field cultivation 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 Takata to incorporate the teachings of Monk and made the outer mounting members smaller than the inner mounting members of Takata. One would have made this combination for the purpose of moving dirt either towards or away from the plant rows during use (Monk; col 4, lines 42-51).
Regarding claim 7, Takata further discloses the strip freshener further comprising the second mounting member having a second cavity, wherein the second cavity is sized and shaped to match the cavity of the mounting member (Fig 1 depicts multiple mounting members, tines, and retaining members all of which comprise a cavity similar to the first mounting member).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata and Monk as applied to claim 6 above, or Takata and Monk in further view of Marcil et al. (US 8627897).
Regarding claim 8, Takata discloses the strip freshener further comprising a sleeve that extends from a first end and a second end; the mounting member and the second mounting member arranged in a back-to-back arrangement such that the retaining member and the second retaining member are positioned outwards towards the first end and the second end of the sleeve (sleeve is considered to be tube 8 which is connected to the mounting member 9; claim language is broad; back-to-back is broadly interpreted to mean next to each other; the retaining members are positioned outwards of the mounting members and outwards towards the first end and second end of the sleeve because each of the retaining members of the first and second mounting members are closer to either the first end or second end respectively).
For the sake of argument, Marcil discloses a similar tiller (Fig 1) and teaches the tines and hubs being capable of being switched from inboard to an outboard direction and vice versa (col 8, line 54 – col 9, line 2).
Takata, Monk, and Marcil are all 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 the combination of Takata and Monk to incorporate the teachings of Marcil and orient the second mounting member to be outward from the first mounting member. One would have made this modification to allow the tine configuration to be versatile and changed as desired based on a given tilling task (Marcil; col 8, line 54 – col 9, line 2).
The above configuration would arrange the first and second mounting members in a back-to-back formation with the respective retaining members facing either the first or second end of the sleeve as claimed.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinkead as applied to claim 1 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).
Claim(s) 14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Martindale.
Regarding claim 14, Takata 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
Takata 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 Takata to incorporate the teachings of Martindale and combined the use of a camber assembly with a camber plate connected to the sleeve of Takata. The camber assembly of the combination is considered to adjust the angle of the tines of Takata. 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).
Regarding claim 20, Takata discloses a strip freshener comprising:
a tine having a retention portion and a tooth (tine 7 with retention portion 12 and tooth 13);
a mounting member having a cavity in a first surface of the mounting member, wherein the cavity is shaped like the retention portion (mounting member 9 and 27 is considered to create a cavity that the tine 7 sits up against);
the retention portion of the tine received in the cavity (Fig 4-5);
a retaining member removably connected to the mounting member, wherein the retention portion is positioned between the retaining member and a second surface of the mounting member (Fig 4; tine 7 is between the retaining member 23 and the opposite surface of mounting member 9);
a sleeve fixedly connected to the mounting member (sleeve is considered to be tube 8 which is connected to the mounting member 9);
the sleeve connected to a frame (sleeve 8 is connected to a frame; col 3, lines 28-35);
the frame having a spindle assembly; wherein the spindle assembly is configured to rotate the sleeve (sprockets are connected to the shaft 10; col 3, lines 28-35);
the frame having a toe angle assembly, wherein the toe angle assembly is configured to adjust a toe angle of the sleeve relative to the frame (claim language is broad; the frame can raise and lower the rotor which is considered to be the toe angle assembly to change the toe angle of the sleeve 8 relative to the frame).
Takata 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).
Takata 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 Takata to incorporate the teachings of Martindale and combined the use of a camber assembly with a camber plate connected to the sleeve of Takata. The camber assembly of the combination is considered to adjust the angle of the tines of Takata. 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 Takata as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kirby (US 6067918).
Regarding claim 19, Takata discloses the strip freshener further comprising the sleeve connected to a stem assembly having a stem (claim language is broad; sleeve 8 is connected to stem assembly and stem 10). Takata 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).
Takata 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 Takata to incorporate the teachings of Kirby and combined the use of a debris scraper connected to the sleeve of Takata. One would have made this combination to clear material from between the fingers or tines 16 (Kirby; col 7, lines 62-67).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 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.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Takata and Martindale above discloses an agricultural strip freshener with a general camber assembly to adjust a camber of the tines. However, neither of these references, nor any other reference, teach the specific structure of the camber assembly with the various connections and additional structure as claimed in claim 15. In view of the prior art of record, any obvious combination to include the structures and connections as currently claimed would require improper hindsight reasoning. Further, any teaching to include the structure of the camber assembly as claimed would likely function differently and, therefore, render the inventions of Takata and Martindale unusable. For these reasons, the claim is allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wallace (US 3101123) discloses an earth working machine with mounting members of different sizes similar to the claimed invention.
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