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 .
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.
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 19 is 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 19 recites the limitation "the fifth wheel coupling" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11, 13-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson (Pat. No.: 4,340,240).
Regarding independent claim 1, Anderson discloses a three-point hitch adapter (title) comprising: a structural frame (See Fig. 1 and col. 2, lns. 31-42 where the disclosed “welded box beam” corresponds to the structural frame), a three-point hitch connector (ears 15 and 17) at a leading end of the structural frame (See col. 2, lns. 43-56 for disclosure of the three-point hitch connector elements); a three-point hitch (generally defined by the three hooks in Fig. 1 labeled 19 and 24) at a trailing end of the structural frame; and a fifth wheel coupling (48) mounted on the structural frame (See col. 3, lns. 42-43 where it discloses “a ‘fifth wheel’ or elevated ball hitch member at 48 is secured at the upper end of coupling means post 18”).
Regarding claim 11, Anderson discloses the three-point hitch adapter of claim 1, and also discloses in which the three-point hitch comprises a pair of base quick-connect hooks (24) and a top quick-connect hook (19).
Regarding claim 13, Anderson discloses the three-point hitch adapter of claim 1, and further discloses quick-connect locks (32), for each of the pair of base quick-connect hooks (24), and that are biased to permit entry but prevent exit of a lateral pin (25) from a three-point hitch connector (See Fig. 1 where the unlabeled flanges/ears that support lateral pin 25 correspond to the claimed three-point hitch connector, See col. 3, lns. 3-14 where it discloses locks 32 are urged towards a pin locking position by a spring).
Regarding claim 14, Anderson discloses a combination comprising: the three-point hitch adapter of claim 1; and a tool apparatus (A), which has a three-point hitch connector that is mounted to the three-point hitch of the three-point hitch adapter (See Fig. 1 where the unlabeled ears/flanges that support lateral pins 47 and 25 correspond to the additionally claimed three-point hitch connector; further See cols. 3-4, lns. 44-12 where it discloses coupling of the three-point hitched connector to the three-point hitch).
Regarding claim 17, Anderson discloses the combination of claim 14 and also discloses in which each of the tool apparatus and the three-point hitch adapter comprise structural frame members (See Fig. 1 for unlabeled structural frame elements of tool apparatus A, members 6-8 of the structural frame corresponds to the claimed structural frame members) that are oriented to collectively define a power take off passage through both the tool apparatus and the three-point hitch adapter (See col. 2, lns. 41-42 where it discloses “it may be desirable to remove member 12 to prevent interference with a power take-off shaft, note that disclosed take-off shaft corresponds to the claimed take-off passage through the structural frame elements).
Regarding claim 18, Anderson discloses the combination of claim 14 and also discloses a fifth wheel trailer hitched to the fifth wheel coupling (48, as disclosed col. 1, lns. 43-47).
Regarding claim 19, Anderson discloses a method of connecting a fifth wheel trailer to the fifth wheel coupling (48, See col. 1, lns. 48-60 where it discloses “the provision of a three-point hitch adaptor capable of mounting ball coupling members at two different levels for towing of conventional trailers as well as trailers having an elevated coupling location known as ‘fifth wheel’ type trailers”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gay (Pat. No.: 3,779,208).
Regarding claim 20, Gay discloses a bale wrap roller assembly (title) comprising: a structural frame (See frame 10 in Fig. 1); a hitch connector at a leading end of the structural frame (as disclosed in col. 2, lns. 4-10 where it discloses connecting the frame 10 to hitch H); a wrap-receiving spool (228a or 228b, See Fig. 8); and a motor (240) connected to rotate the wrap-receiving spool (See col. 4, lns. 4-13 where it discloses the hydraulic motor 240 is “arranged to rotate the roller segments 228 and 228b”).
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.
Claims 2-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Pyle (Pat. No.: 6,612,380).
Regarding claim 2, Anderson discloses the three-point hitch adapter of claim 1, but fails to disclose that the fifth wheel coupling comprises a top plate that defines a kingpin-receiving slot. Pyle discloses a tractor attachment for a three-point hitch (title) with a fifth wheel coupling (70) mounted on a structural frame (50, Fig. 4 depicts the mounting interface of 70 and 50). More specifically, Pyle teaches that the fifth wheel coupling (70) comprises a top plate (75) that defines a kingpin-receiving slot (83, See Fig. 10 which is a top-view of the fifth-wheel coupling, also See col. 4, lns. 15-32 for corresponding disclosure of “a post of a fifth wheel trailer passes through opening 83 at the bottom of the U”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the fifth wheel coupling of Anderson to be the fifth wheel coupling with a top plate and kingpin receiving slot taught by Pyle, as selecting a fifth wheel coupling for a hitch is well within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Anderson. Further, such a modification merely constitutes the substitution of a known fifth wheel coupling for a specific type of fifth wheel coupling to produce the predictable result of coupling a fifth wheel trailer to a three-point hitch (See MPEP 2143, Subsection 1, B).
Regarding claim 3, the above combination discloses the three-point hitch adapter of claim 2. Anderson fails to disclose in which the top plate is secured above or forms part of a coupling cover that mounts by reversible connectors to an upper member of the structural frame. However, in light of the modification made in relation to Claim 2, Pyle further teaches in which the top plate (75) is secured above or forms part of a coupling cover (72, See col. 4, lns. 18-21 where it discloses cover 72 is formed in part by top plate 75) that mounts by reversible connectors (60, the term ‘reversible’ is broad and is being interpreted as interchangeable, since the connectors 60 are identical they are also interchangeable and thereby reversible, See Fig. 4 for depiction of connectors) to an upper member (54) of the structural frame (50, See col. 4, lns. 9-14 where it discloses the mounting configuration of the upper 54 to the coupling cover 72 via connectors 60 and opposed upright post members 56).
Regarding claim 4, the above combination discloses the three-point hitch adapter of claim 3. Anderson fails to disclose in which the structural frame comprises opposed upright post members, and the reversible connectors comprises fasteners passed through aligned apertures in the coupling cover and the upright post members. Pyle, of the combination, teaches wherein the structural frame (50) comprises opposed upright post members (56), and the reversible connectors (60) comprises fasteners passed through aligned apertures in the coupling cover and the upright post members (See col. 4, lns. 13-18 where it discloses the aligned apertures 58 of the upright post members 56 and the aligned apertures of 79 in the coupling cover 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the fifth wheel coupling of Anderson to be the fifth wheel coupling with aligned apertures and opposed upright post members taught by Pyle, as selecting a fifth wheel coupling for a hitch is well within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Anderson. Further, such a modification merely constitutes the substitution of a known fifth wheel coupling for a specific type of fifth wheel coupling to produce the predictable result of coupling a fifth wheel trailer to a three-point hitch (See MPEP 2143, Subsection 1, B).
Regarding claim 6, the combination discloses the three-point hitch adapter of claim 2. Anderson fails to disclose a kingpin gate lock that is structured to move between a retracted position in which a lateral mouth of the kingpin- receiving slot is unobstructed, and a locked position in which the lateral mouth is blocked to prevent kingpin removal. Pyle teaches a kingpin gate lock (90) that is structured to move between a retracted position in which a lateral mouth of the kingpin-receiving slot is unobstructed, and a locked position in which the lateral mouth is blocked to prevent kingpin removal (See Fig. 11A for the locked position, See Fig. 11B for the retracted position, See col. 4, lns. 33-50 for generally disclosure of the kingpin gate lock. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify the fifth wheel coupling of the combination, to include the kingpin gate lock taught by Pyle, in order to provide a means of securing the coupling post of a fifth wheel coupling to the hitch adapter.
Regarding claim 7, the combination discloses the three-point hitch adapter of claim 6. In light of the modification made in relation to Claim 6, Pyle further teaches wherein the gate lock (90) comprises a slide bar (93 or 94, See elements 93 and 94 depicted in Figs. 11A or 11.B, note that the term “slide bar” is broad and therefore any bar that moves smoothly, i.e., slides, can be reasonably interpreted as a slide bar).
Regarding claim 8, the combination discloses the three-point hitch adapter of claim 7. In light of the modification made in relation to Claim 7, Pyle further teaches in which the slide bar (93 or 94) is connected to a manual release bar (95) for manual actuation of the slide bar (93 or 94, See col. 4, lns. 40-42 where it discloses “the jaws are moved toward and away from one another by links 93 and 94, actuated by lever 95”). The resultant combination therefore discloses the claimed invention except for the manual actuator is specifically a hydraulic actuator as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the manual bar release bar to be a hydraulic actuator, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Regarding claim 9, the combination discloses the three-point hitch adapter of claim 8. Pyle, of the combination, further teaches in which the slide bar (93 or 94) is connected to a manual release bar (95) for manual operation of the slide bar (See col. 4, lns. 40-42 where it discloses “the jaws are moved toward and away from one another by links 93 and 94, actuated by lever 95”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination discloses the three-point hitch adapter of claim 7. Pyle, of the combination, further teaches a slide bar lock (See col. 4, lns. 40-47 where it discloses a “holding pin to ensure that the jaws remain closed” i.e., locked; note that the disclosed holding pin corresponds to the claimed slide bar lock).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Sundberg (Pub. No.: 2020/0281108).
Regarding claim 12, Anderson discloses the three-point hitch adapter of claim 1, but fails to disclose in which the top quick-connect hook is structured to be selectively lockable in a range of different elevation positions relative to the pair of base quick-connect hooks. Sundberg discloses a similar three-point hitch (See Fig. 1 and para. [0002] discloses that the quick hitch preferably acts as an adapter) that comprises a pair of base quick-connect hooks (32) and a top quick-connect hook (41). More specifically, Sundberg teaches in which the top quick-connect hook (41) is structured to be selectively lockable in a range of different elevation positions relative to the pair of base quick-connect hooks (32, See Fig. 11 and para. [0080] where it is disclosed that the top hook 41 is selectively lockable via lock plate 47 in different vertical positions relative to the lower hooks 32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the top hook of Anderson to be selectively movable and lockable as disclosed by Sundberg, in order to provide a hitch that enables “implements and working tools, having their coupling elements positioned in different ways to be safely attached from the cabin of a working machine” (See para. [0017]-[0018]).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Gay (Pat. No.: 3,779,208).
Regarding claims 15-16, Anderson discloses the three-point hitch adapter of claim 14, but fails to specifically disclose in which the tool apparatus comprises a bale spear (as required by claim 15) or a bale wrap (as required by claim 16). Like Anderson, Gay discloses a three-point hitch connected to a towing vehicle (abstract) and a tool apparatus (10). Unlike Anderson, Gay teaches that the tool apparatus (10) comprises a bale spear (15) and a bale wrap roller (28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tool apparatus of Anderson, to be the bale wrap roller or bale spear of Gay, with a reasonable expectation of success, as selecting which tool to mount to a three-point hitch connector for the desired agricultural operation is a modification well within the scope of one in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. McCoy (Pat. No.: 5,529,329), Meyerhofer (Pat. No.: 5,788,257), Guthard (Pub. No.: 2016/0280021). Additional references cited but not relied upon can be found in the attached 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Audrey L Lusk whose telephone number is (571)272-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8am-5pm.
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.
/A.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights