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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because it recites "such that first end of" in line 2 (instead of "such that a first end of"). 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 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.
Claim 1 recites "first and second substantially circular end plates" in line 6. The metes and bounds of what constitutes "substantially circular" cannot be determined, especially in light of the specification. The figures do not show end plates as circles, but rather show end plates 302 ("which are circular in shape" as described in labeled para. 0019) as 12-sided polygons (i.e., dodecagons) with indented portions. As such, it is unclear what shapes would or would not constitute that which is "substantially circular." Thus, the metes and bounds of "substantially circular" end plates cannot be determined due to the ambiguity of the shape required by the claim language. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction (and/or definition of "substantially circular") are required. (Although Applicant is cautioned that introducing a definition must be supported by the original disclosure so as not to introduce new matter.) Additionally, claims 2-15 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1. The term "substantially circular" is being further examined to mean "a closed shape that contains a circle within its interior and whose end points lie on a circle, wherein any polygon that meets this definition must include at least five sides."
Claim 1 has been amended to recite "a removable section ... that is attached by at least one fastener so as to be removable using only hand tools," in lines 11-13. It is unclear what structure this recitation imparts to the claimed device. Further, it is unclear what this recitation changes with respect to the application of prior art, as it appears that any removably attached structure would read on this since any removably attached structure could be removable using only particular hand tools when used in such an intended manner. Additionally, it is unclear how structure is "removable using only hand tools" given any particular "hand tool" can be powered or operated by non-hand (e.g., robotic) means. As such, the metes and bounds of structure that is "removable using only hand tools" 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 has been amended to recite "remaining structural members" in line 13. It is unclear if these are of "a plurality of structural members" previously introduced in line 8 of the claim. Thus, the metes and bounds of remaining structural members in claim 1 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 1 is being further examined as though "remaining structural members" reads "remaining structural members of the plurality of structural members" in line 13.
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 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by van der Lely (US 4,344,490).
Regarding claim 1, van der Lely discloses a towable rear tool attachment configured for soil clod sizing and firming, comprising:
a rolling cage (including end 9, 10 and 14) that rotates when being towed and is in contact with a soil surface,
the rolling cage includes
first and second substantially circular end plates (including first and second end 9; "substantially circular" in Figs. 3-5) located at each lateral end of the rolling cage (see Fig. 1), and
a plurality of structural members (including 10 and 14) arranged spaced apart around a circumference of the first and second end plates (see Figs. 3-5) and extending laterally between the first and second end plates, forming a cage-like structure (see Fig. 2),
wherein at least one of the structural members (including 14) includes a removable section laterally disposed between the first and second end plates that is attached by at least one fastener (including 21) so as to be removable using only hand tools (when used as such), and remaining structural members (including 10) of the plurality of structural members are welded to the first and second end plates (see col. 2, line 66 - col. 3, line 2).
Regarding claim 2, van der Lely discloses the towable rear tool attachment with respect to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of structural members (including 10 and 14) is a bar (being a relatively long, rigid piece of solid material).
Regarding claim 3, van der Lely discloses the towable rear tool attachment with respect to claim 2, wherein each of the bars (including 10 and 14) has a circular cross-section (see Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 4, van der Lely discloses the towable rear tool attachment with respect to claim 2, wherein each of the bars (including 10 and 14) has a rectangular cross-section (along its length, as depicted in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, van der Lely discloses the towable rear tool attachment with respect to claim 1, wherein the removable section (including 14) is a portion of one structural member of the plurality of structural members that is removably bolted to the first end plate (including first end 9) and a support plate (including middle supporting 9) disposed laterally between the first and second end plates (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, van der Lely discloses the towable rear tool attachment with respect to claim 1, wherein the plurality of structural members (including 10 and 14) is arranged in a twisted pattern (see Fig. 2) such that a first end of each structural member attached to the first end plate is in a position rotated a predetermined angle from a second end of each structural member that is attached to the second end plate.
Regarding claim 8, van der Lely discloses the towable rear tool attachment with respect to claim 1, wherein the removable section (including 14) is a bolt-in bar including a bar (14) and a pair of mounting plates (including 24) welded to each end of the bar (see col. 4, lines 22-29).
Regarding claim 9, van der Lely discloses the towable rear tool attachment with respect to claim 1, wherein the removable section includes a bar (14),
wherein the first and second end plates have a plurality of indented portions (13) spaced around the circumference thereof into which the structural members are positioned (see Figs. 3-5), and
wherein the bar is positioned in one indented portion of the indented portions (see Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 10, van der Lely discloses the towable rear tool attachment with respect to claim 8, wherein one of the mounting plates (24) is mounted within a periphery of the circumference of the first end plate (including first end 9; see Figs. 3-5).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Lely in view of Luttrell (US 1,128,337).
Regarding claim 7, van der Lely discloses the towable rear tool attachment with respect to claim 6, as set forth above. van der Lely does not explicitly disclose the predetermined angle being substantially five degrees of rotation. Luttrell teaches a plurality of structural members (11) arranged in a twisted pattern (see Fig. 3) such that a first end of each structural member attached to a first end plate (including 7) is in a position rotated a predetermined angle from a second end that is attached to a second end plate (including 7). Luttrell shows the predetermined angle being relatively small (see Fig. 3).
Luttrell is analogous because Luttrell discloses a rolling cage including end plates and angled structural members. 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 attachment of van der Lely with the angular arrangement as taught by Luttrell for decreased shearing action. (See Luttrell, p. 1, lines 96-100).
Neither van der Lely nor Luttrell explicitly discloses a value of the predetermined angle. However, the angle at which the structural members are disposed (i.e., the predetermined angle) is a result-effective variable from which a desired outcome can be controlled. Such an outcome being shearing action that the structural members have on material (e.g., soil and/or debris) being acted upon. Luttrell shows structural members (11) being angularly arranged in Fig. 3 and states: "It will be observed that this angular arrangement may be increased or decreased, so that the shearing action may be correspondingly increased or decreased." (See p. 1, lines 96-100.) One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the shearing action of the device is desirably controlled and optimized for the material being acted upon. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed angle based on routine optimization in order to achieve the desired shearing action. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Lely in view of Casper et al. (US 2013/0062084)
Regarding claim 11, van der Lely discloses the towable rear tool attachment with respect to claim 8, as set forth above. van der Lely does not explicitly disclose one of the mounting plates being mounted to the first end plate by at least two threaded bolts and corresponding nuts as claimed. However, Casper teaches a towable rear tool attachment having a mounting plate (including 186) mounted to a first end plate (of 205) by at least two threaded bolts (210) and corresponding nuts (shown on 210 in Figs. 7 and 11).
Casper is analogous because Casper discloses a towable rear tool attachment comprising a rolling cage. 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 attachment of van der Lely with the threaded mounting means as taught by Casper for a secure connection. Additionally, providing van der Lely with the attachment means of Casper is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., threaded bolts and nuts as taught by Casper) for another (i.e., the hole and pin of van der Lely) to obtain predictable results (as taught by Casper). See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Lely in view of Sharp (US 1,247,018).
Regarding claim 12, van der Lely discloses the towable rear tool attachment with respect to claim 8, as set forth above. van der Lely does not explicitly disclose cotter pins as claimed. However, Sharp teaches a towable rear tool attachment comprising a rolling cage (including 33) wherein mounts (including 34) are attached to respective end plates (including 30) by cotter pins (41).
Sharp is analogous because Sharp discloses a towable rear tool attachment comprising a rolling cage. 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 attachment of van der Lely with cotter pin mounting means as taught by Sharp in order to hold the mounting plates in locked position. (See Sharp, p. 1, lines 101-103.)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Lely in view of Christie et al. (US 2021/0048064)
Regarding claim 13, van der Lely discloses the towable rear tool attachment with respect to claim 8, as set forth above, and van der Lely discloses the mounting plates (including 24) being mounted to respective end plates (of 9) by a pin (21). van der Lely does not explicitly disclose the first end plate having a threaded opening for a threaded bolt. However, Christie teaches a mounting plate (550) being mounted to an end plate (810) having a threaded opening (16 or 830), by a threaded bolt (400).
Christie is analogous because Christie discloses a rolling, ground-engaging tool comprising an end plate, and Christie addresses the problem of mounting a mounting plate to the end plate. 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 attachment of van der Lely with the attachment means (i.e., that including a threaded opening) as taught by Christie in order to reduce parts (and thus wear between parts) and space required. Additionally, providing van der Lely with the attachment means of Christie is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., threaded hole and bolt as taught by Christie) for another (i.e., the hole and pin of van der Lely) to obtain predictable results (as taught by Christie). See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Lely in view of Hurtis (US 6,763,896).
Regarding claim 14, van der Lely discloses the towable rear tool attachment with respect to claim 1, wherein the plurality of structural members (including 10 and 14) is arranged around a circumference of at least one support plate (including at least one middle supporting 9),
wherein the at least support plate is arranged in parallel with and laterally between the first and second end plates (see Fig. 2).
van der Lely does not explicitly disclose the support plate being ring-shaped. However, Hurtis teaches a towable rear tool attachment having at least one ring-shaped support plate (such as 32, 33, or 34) in order to accommodate an axle (38).
Hurtis is analogous because Hurtis discloses a towable rear tool attachment comprising a rolling cage. 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 attachment of van der Lely with the ring-shaped support means as taught by Hurtis for superior support and strength. (See Hurtis, col. 5, lines 6-23.)
Regarding claim 15, van der Lely discloses the towable rear tool attachment with respect to claim 14, wherein the removable section (including 14) is disposed between the first end plate (including first end 9) and the at least one support plate (including at least one middle supporting 9; see Fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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/10/9/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
