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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 7A reference number (162) points to what should be the support structure (160). 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 14, 16, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, line 3 recites “and the at least one of the plurality of support fins.”, should read – and at least one of the plurality of support fins. –.
At the end of claim 14, there is a semi-colon instead of a period.
Claim 16, line 11 recites “a stowed state to a transport state”, should read – the stowed state to the transport state – due to earlier mention of both states in lines 4-5.
Claim 19, line 3 recites “a stowed state to a transport state”, should read – the stowed state to the transport state – due to earlier mention of both states in dependent claim 16, lines 4-5.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-3 and 10-13 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.
Claim 2, lines 1-2 set forth “wherein the support surface and the mating surface are horizontal surfaces.” However, it is unclear if the surfaces are horizontal in every position of the mowing assembly or horizontal in one of the field or transport positions; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean the surfaces are horizontal when the mowing assembly is in the transport position.
Due to dependency on claim 2, claim 3 is rejected as well.
Claim 10, lines 2-3 set forth “wherein the mating structure comprises: a top plate having a horizontal surface forming the support surface;”, but is dependent on claim 1 that sets forth “the support structure having a support surface” in lines 8-9. It is unclear how the support surface of claim 10 is related to the support surface of claim 1. Specifically, it is unclear if this is the same limitation or two different limitations; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
Claim 13, line 3 recites “the support surface” and is rejected for the same reason as stated above.
Due to dependency on claim 10, claims 11-12 are rejected as well.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ermacora (US 4986064 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Ermacora teaches a mowing assembly [1] having an integrated transport mechanism (mechanism of Fig. 10), the mowing assembly comprising:
a trail frame (free end of [10 or 11] see below, each side of the mowing assembly, and [19 and 20], see Col. 3, lines 45-56) configured to support a mowing device ([29]; supports mowing device through working wheels [17]) and to be towed by an agricultural vehicle (towed through tongue [4] connected to mowing assembly), the mowing device having a field position (working wheels [17] are lowered, see Fig. 2) and a transport position (working wheels [17] are raised, see Fig. 5);
a transport frame (see below) having a stowed state (state when the transport wheels [27] are raised see Fig. 2) in which the transport frame is positioned above the mowing device (transport frame is above mowing device [29] when stowed, see Fig. 2) and a transport state (state when the transport wheels [27] are lowered, see Fig. 5) in which the mowing device is supported by the transport frame for transport (see Fig. 5 and Col. 5, lines 1-19);
a support structure [25] coupled to the transport frame (see Fig. 10), the support structure having a support surface (see below; surface of support structure [25] that comes into contact with the mating structure [24] for abutment, see Col. 4, lines 21-32);
a mating structure ([24], see Col. 3, lines 59-62) coupled to the trail frame (connected to the free end of the trail frame, see above), the mating structure having a mating surface [36] and positioned on the trail frame (the mating surface is positioned on the trail frame where the mating structure is connected, see above) such that the mating surface is adjacent the support surface when the mowing device is in the transport position and the transport frame is in the transport state (support structure abuts the mating structure in order to hold the transport frame in the transport state, see Col. 4, lines 24-32; therefore, the mating surface is adjacent the support surface when the mowing device is in the transport position).
PNG
media_image1.png
615
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
429
713
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Note: while claim 1 doesn’t recite a function of the support and mating structures, Ermacora teaches the trail and transport frames are reinforced by the support and mating structures in order to hold the transport frame in either the stowed or transport positions (see Col. 3, lines 59-68 and Col. 4 lines 1-6 and 20-32); therefore, acting as a support system to maintain the position of the mowing assembly.
Regarding claim 2, Ermacora teaches wherein the support surface (see above; surface of support structure [25] that comes into contact with the mating structure [24] for abutment, see Col. 4, lines 21-32) and the mating surface [36] are horizontal surfaces (see below; ends of both surfaces are aligned parallel to the ground, therefore both are horizontal surfaces).
PNG
media_image3.png
429
713
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Ermacora teaches wherein the mating surface [36] is less than 0.75 inch from the support surface (see above; surface of support structure [25] that comes into contact with the mating structure [24] for abutment, see Col. 4, lines 21-32) when the mating surface is adjacent the support surface (in the transport state, support surface abuts the mating surface to hold the frames, see Col. 4, lines 24-32; therefore, they are less than 0.75 inches from each other) and the transport frame (see above) is in the transport state (state when the transport wheels are lowered, see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, Ermacora teaches a transport actuator ([49], see Col. 6, lines 7-12) configured to move the transport frame (see above) between the stowed state (state when the transport wheels are raised, see Fig. 2) and the transport state (state when the transport wheels are lowered, see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, Ermacora teaches a mowing system (see system of Fig. 1), comprising:
an agricultural vehicle [2]; and
the mowing assembly of claim 1 coupled to the agricultural vehicle (see claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, Ermacora teaches a method (method of using [1]) for transporting a mowing assembly [1] having an integrated lateral transport mechanism (mechanism of Fig. 10), the mowing assembly comprising a trail frame (free end of [10 or 11] see below, each side of the mowing assembly, and [19 and 20], see Col. 3, lines 45-56) configured to support a mowing device ([29]; supports mowing device through use of working wheels [17]) and to be towed by an agricultural vehicle (towed through tongue [4] connected to mowing assembly), the mowing device having a field position (working wheels [17] are lowered, see Fig. 2) and a transport position (working wheels [17] are raised, see Fig. 5),
a transport frame (see below) having a stowed state (state when the transport wheels [27] are raised, see Fig. 2) in which the transport frame is positioned above the mowing device (transport frame is above mowing device [29] when stowed, see Fig. 2) and a transport state (state when the transport wheels [27] are lowered, see Fig. 5) in which the mowing device is supported by the transport frame for transport (see Fig. 5 and Col. 5, lines 1-19),
a first support structure [25] coupled to the transport frame, the first support structure having a horizontal surface (see below; surface of support structure [25] that comes into contact with the mating structure [24] for abutment, end is horizontal in relation to the ground), and a second support structure ([24], see Col. 3, lines 59-62) coupled to the trail frame (connected to the free end of the trail frame, see above), the second support structure having a mating surface [36] that is adjacent the horizontal surface of the first support structure when the mowing device is in the field position and the transport frame is in the transport state (see adjacent surfaces in Fig. 4 in which the mowing device is in the field position while the transport frame is in the transport state), the method comprising:
moving the transport frame from the stowed state to the transport state in which the transport frame supports the mowing assembly (transport frame is moved by actuator [49], see Figs. 2-5 and Col. 6, lines 7-12);
rotating the trail frame with respect to the transport frame (portion [20] of trail frame rotates to begin the switch between positions, see Col. 4, lines 48-59) until the mating surface is adjacent the horizontal surface when the transport frame is in the transport state (mating surface is adjacent the horizontal surface once transport frame is in the transport state, see Fig. 10; this occurs after trail frame has rotated, see Col. 4, lines 48-64) for transport by the integrated lateral transport mechanism.
PNG
media_image1.png
615
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
360
583
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Note: while claim 16 doesn’t recite a function of the support and mating structures, Ermacora teaches the trail and transport frames are reinforced by the support and mating structures in order to hold the transport frame in either the stowed or transport positions (see Col. 3, lines 59-68 and Col. 4 lines 1-6 and 20-32); therefore, acting as a support system to maintain the position of the mowing assembly.
Regarding claim 17, Ermacora teaches wherein the mowing assembly [1] further comprises a towing tongue [4] rotatably coupled (rotatably coupled to body [3], see Col. 3, lines 26-36; therefore rotatably coupled to the trail frame) to the trail frame (free end of [10 or 11] see above, each side of the mowing assembly, and [19 and 20], see Col. 3, lines 45-56) and a transport actuator [49] coupled between the towing tongue and the transport frame (coupled between the transport frame, see above, and part of body [9]; therefore, coupled to the towing tongue, see Col. 3, lines 22-25 and Figs. 9-10), and wherein moving the transport frame from the stowed state (state when the transport wheels [27] are raised, see Fig. 2) to the transport state (state when the transport wheels [27] are lowered, see Fig. 5) comprises:
activating the transport actuator to move the transport frame from the stowed state to the transport state (see Col. 6, lines 7-14).
Regarding claim 18, Ermacora teaches wherein the mowing assembly [1] further comprises a transport swing actuator [31] coupled between the trail frame (free end of [10 or 11] see above, each side of the mowing assembly, and [19 and 20], see Col. 3, lines 45-56) and the towing tongue ([4]; actuator is coupled to the trail frame which is a part of the body [3], therefore, is coupled to towing tongue through connection to the body, see Fig. 2), and wherein rotating the trail frame with respect to the transport frame (portion [20] of trail frame rotates to begin the switch between positions, see Col. 4, lines 48-59) until the mating surface [36] is adjacent the horizontal surface (see above) when the transport frame is in the transport state (mating surface is adjacent the horizontal surface once transport frame is in the transport state, see Fig. 10; this occurs after trail frame has rotated, see Col. 4, lines 48-64) comprises:
activating the transport swing actuator to rotate the trail frame with respect to the transport frame to position the mowing device in the transport position (activating transport swing actuator is the first step to position the mowing device in the transport position, see Col. 4, lines 48-59).
Regarding claim 20, Ermacora teaches rotating the trail frame (free end of [10 or 11] see above, each side of the mowing assembly, and [19 and 20], see Col. 3, lines 45-56; [20] rotates to begin the switch between positions, see Col. 4, lines 48-59) with respect to the transport frame (see above) until the mating surface [36] is not adjacent the horizontal surface (see above; when the trail frame is rotating downwards, the transport frame has rotated upwards into the field position, as seen in Figs. 5-2, therefore, the mating surface is no longer adjacent the horizontal surface);
and moving the transport frame (moves through actuator [49], see Col. 6, lines 7-14) from the transport state (state when the transport wheels [27] are lowered see Fig. 5) to the stowed state (state when the transport wheels [27] are raised in Fig. 2).
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.
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) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ermacora (US 4986064 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Ermacora teaches the support (see above) and mating surfaces [36] are horizontal surfaces (see above; ends of both surfaces are aligned parallel to the ground, therefore both are horizontal surfaces), but fails to explicitly disclose the horizontal surfaces are rectangular.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the horizontal surfaces to a rectangle since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a simple matter of design choice well within the skill of one in the art and since Ermacore teaches numerous modifications and variations of the present invention are possible (see Col. 6, lines 50-55).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 and 19 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.
Claims 10-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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. Please see attached PTO-892 for the full list of references.
Reference US 4871030 A discloses a similar integrated transport mechanism (see Fig. 1) with a trail frame [12] and a transport frame [44] having a stowed state (see Fig. 1) and a transport state (see Fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNNY WEBB whose telephone number is (571)272-3830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 to 5:30 E.T..
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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/SUNNY D WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671