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 § 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, 6-7, 10-12, 14, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shoup (US 8479669).
Regarding claim 1, Shoup discloses an agricultural row cleaner blade (62), comprising:
a plurality of projections having a rounded end extending from an outer periphery; and
a plurality of depressions having a rounded inside edge (see Annotated Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
503
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 3, Shoup discloses the agricultural row cleaner blade further comprising one or more openings configured for mounting the agricultural row cleaner blade on an implement (see Annotated Figure 1; 6 openings are depicted for mounting of the blade).
Regarding claim 6, Shoup discloses the agricultural row cleaner blade wherein the number of projections equals the number of depressions (see Annotated Figure 1; twelve each).
Regarding claim 7, Shoup discloses the agricultural row cleaner blade wherein the agricultural row cleaner blade is flat (Fig 2 and Fig 4 depict the blade as flat).
Regarding claim 10, Shoup discloses a system for cleaning a field comprising:
a row cleaning implement (16); and
a plurality of agricultural row cleaner blades rotatably attached to the row cleaning implement (62 and/or 64), each comprising:
a plurality of projections having a rounded end extending from an outer periphery; and
a plurality of depressions having a rounded inside edge (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Shoup discloses the system wherein the plurality of agricultural row cleaner blades comprises a single blade (Figs 2-4 depict a single blade 62).
Regarding claim 12, Shoup discloses the system wherein the plurality of agricultural row cleaner blades comprises two blades (Figs 2-4 depict a two blades 62 and 64).
Regarding claim 14, Shoup discloses a method of removing debris from a field comprising:
passing over the field a plurality of agricultural row cleaner blades (abstract; Fig 1; cleaner blades 62) comprising
a plurality of projections having a rounded end extending from an outer periphery; and
a plurality of depressions having a rounded inside edge (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, Shoup discloses the method further comprising one or more openings configured for mounting the agricultural row cleaner blade on an implement (see Annotated Figure 1; 6 openings are depicted for mounting of the blade).
Regarding claim 19, Shoup discloses the method wherein the plurality of agricultural row cleaner blades comprise a plurality of aggressive projections (Applicant’s specification para [046], lines 9-10 states an “aggressive configuration would [be] in which angled center line of the projection intersects the tangent…about perpendicularly”; Shoup’s Fig 1 and Annotated Figure 1 depict the center lines of the projections intersecting the tangent about perpendicularly).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-7, 10-12, 14, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spicer (US 7540245).
Regarding claim 1, Spicer discloses an agricultural row cleaner blade (36), comprising:
a plurality of projections having a rounded end extending from an outer periphery; and
a plurality of depressions having a rounded inside edge (see Annotated Figure 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
439
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 3, Spicer discloses the agricultural row cleaner blade further comprising one or more openings configured for mounting the agricultural row cleaner blade on an implement (see Annotated Figure 2; 6 openings are depicted for mounting of the blade).
Regarding claim 6, Spicer discloses the agricultural row cleaner blade wherein the number of projections equals the number of depressions (see Annotated Figure 2; ten each).
Regarding claim 7, Spicer discloses the agricultural row cleaner blade wherein the agricultural row cleaner blade is flat (Fig 2 and Fig 3 depict the blade as flat).
Regarding claim 10, Spicer discloses a system for cleaning a field comprising:
a row cleaning implement (52); and
a plurality of agricultural row cleaner blades rotatably attached to the row cleaning implement (36), each comprising:
a plurality of projections having a rounded end extending from an outer periphery; and
a plurality of depressions having a rounded inside edge (see Annotated Figure 2).
Regarding claim 11, Spicer discloses the system wherein the plurality of agricultural row cleaner blades comprises a single blade (Figs 2-4 depict a single blade 36).
Regarding claim 12, Spicer discloses the system wherein the plurality of agricultural row cleaner blades comprises two blades (Figs 2-4 depict a two blades 36 and 38).
Regarding claim 14, Spicer discloses a method of removing debris from a field comprising:
passing over the field a plurality of agricultural row cleaner blades (abstract; Fig 2; cleaner blades 36) comprising
a plurality of projections having a rounded end extending from an outer periphery; and
a plurality of depressions having a rounded inside edge (see Annotated Figure 2).
Regarding claim 16, Spicer discloses the method further comprising one or more openings configured for mounting the agricultural row cleaner blade on an implement (see Annotated Figure 2; 6 openings are depicted for mounting of the blade).
Regarding claim 19, Spicer discloses the method wherein the plurality of agricultural row cleaner blades comprise a plurality of aggressive projections (Applicant’s specification para [046], lines 9-10 states an “aggressive configuration would [be] in which angled center line of the projection intersects the tangent…about perpendicularly, or at an angle where the projection angles toward to [sic] direction of rotation”; Spicer’s Figs 2-4 and Annotated Figure 2 depict the center lines of the projections intersecting the tangent toward the direction of rotation).
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) 4-5, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shoup.
Regarding claim 4, Shoup appears to discloses the agricultural row cleaner blade wherein the rounded end has a radius of about 3/8” to about 3/4” (claim language is broad; Figs 1-4 appear to depict rounded ends of the projections and also states “the teeth 63, 65…can take different forms as will be apparent to persons skilled in the art”).
However, for the sake of argument, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the radius of the rounded ends within the range of about 3/8” to about 3/4”, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose and because the ends of the teeth already appear to be rounded. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by adjusting the radii of the rounded ends of the projections to any reasonable radii as long as the projections still function as teeth on trash wheels to help clear trash that may accumulate in operation (col 3, lines 48-49). Further, as a result of the radius of each projection directly working to clear trash, the radius is considered to be a results effective variable in so far as the radius may be adjusted in order to most effectively clear trash as desired. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the radius to be between about 3/8” to about 3/4", as it has been held that the optimization of a results effective variable would have been obvious so as to achieve an optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Regarding claim 5, Shoup appears to disclose the agricultural row cleaner blade wherein the rounded end has a radius of about 1/2” (claim language is broad; Figs 1-4 appear to depict rounded ends of the projections and also states “the teeth 63, 65…can take different forms as will be apparent to persons skilled in the art”).
However, for the sake of argument, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the radius of the rounded ends about 1/2”, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose and because the ends of the teeth already appear to be rounded. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by adjusting the radii of the rounded ends of the projections to any reasonable radii as long as the projections still function as teeth on trash wheels to help clear trash that may accumulate in operation (col 3, lines 48-49). Further, as a result of the radius of each projection directly working to clear trash, the radius is considered to be a results effective variable in so far as the radius may be adjusted in order to most effectively clear trash as desired. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the radius to be about 1/2", as it has been held that the optimization of a results effective variable would have been obvious so as to achieve an optimum value.
Regarding claim 17, Shoup appears to discloses the agricultural row cleaner blade wherein the rounded end has a radius of about 3/8” to about 3/4” (claim language is broad; Figs 1-4 appear to depict rounded ends of the projections and also states “the teeth 63, 65…can take different forms as will be apparent to persons skilled in the art”).
However, for the sake of argument, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the radius of the rounded ends within the range of about 3/8” to about 3/4”, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose and because the ends of the teeth already appear to be rounded. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by adjusting the radii of the rounded ends of the projections to any reasonable radii as long as the projections still function as teeth on trash wheels to help clear trash that may accumulate in operation (col 3, lines 48-49). Further, as a result of the radius of each projection directly working to clear trash, the radius is considered to be a results effective variable in so far as the radius may be adjusted in order to most effectively clear trash as desired. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the radius to be between about 3/8” to about 3/4", as it has been held that the optimization of a results effective variable would have been obvious so as to achieve an optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Regarding claim 18, Shoup appears to disclose the agricultural row cleaner blade wherein the rounded end has a radius of about 1/2” (claim language is broad; Figs 1-4 appear to depict rounded ends of the projections and also states “the teeth 63, 65…can take different forms as will be apparent to persons skilled in the art”).
However, for the sake of argument, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the radius of the rounded ends about 1/2”, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose and because the ends of the teeth already appear to be rounded. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by adjusting the radii of the rounded ends of the projections to any reasonable radii as long as the projections still function as teeth on trash wheels to help clear trash that may accumulate in operation (col 3, lines 48-49). Further, as a result of the radius of each projection directly working to clear trash, the radius is considered to be a results effective variable in so far as the radius may be adjusted in order to most effectively clear trash as desired. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the radius to be about 1/2", as it has been held that the optimization of a results effective variable would have been obvious so as to achieve an optimum value.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoup as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 5704430).
Regarding claim 8, Shoup fails to specifically disclose the agricultural row cleaner blade wherein the agricultural row cleaner blade is convex.
However, Smith discloses a similar agricultural row cleaner blade (Figs 1-4; 43/44) and teaches the blade being convex (Figs 3-4). The claim language is broad, a convex blade could also be considered concave.
Shoup and Smith are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of agricultural row cleaner blades. 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 Shoup to incorporate the teachings of Smith and modified the row cleaner blade to be convex. One would have made this modification to provide improved trash and other residue cleaning with a minimum of soil disturbance (Smith; col 2, lines 44-45).
Regarding claim 9, Shoup fails to specifically disclose the agricultural row cleaner blade wherein the agricultural row cleaner blade is concave.
However, Smith discloses a similar agricultural row cleaner blade (Figs 1-4; 43/44) and teaches the blade being concave (Figs 3-4).
Shoup and Smith are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of agricultural row cleaner blades. 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 Shoup to incorporate the teachings of Smith and modified the row cleaner blade to be concave. One would have made this modification to provide improved trash and other residue cleaning with a minimum of soil disturbance (Smith; col 2, lines 44-45).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoup as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Groff (US 5497836).
Regarding claim 20, Shoup fails to specifically disclose the method wherein the plurality of agricultural row cleaner blades comprise a plurality of gentle projections.
Examiner understands “gentle projections” to be “in which angled center line of the projection intersects the tangent…and the projection angles against to [sic] direction of rotation of the blade” (Applicant’s specification para [046], lines 6-8). Further, Groff discloses a similar row cleaner disc blade (40) and teaches gentle projections against the rotation of the blade (see Annotated Figure 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
487
552
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Shoup and Groff are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of row cleaners. 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 Shoup to incorporate the teachings of Groff and modified the projections to be gentler. One would have made this modification to collect, not stab, large clods and move residual mulch in a lateral fashion in the case of no-till farming (Groff; col 3, lines 39-44).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoup as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Skolness (US 20070175644).
Regarding claim 13, Shoup fails to specifically disclose the system wherein the plurality of agricultural row cleaner blades comprises three blades.
However, Skolness discloses a similar row cleaner blade system (20) and teaches the system comprising three blades (Fig 3 depicts at least 3 blades; para [0023]).
Shoup and Skolness are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of trash clearing discs. 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 Shoup to incorporate the teachings of Skolness and combined the use of three discs. One would have made this combination to penetrate and fracture the crust while ejecting any debris or trash to prevent plugging and destruction of the rowed crop (Skolness; abstract).
Claim(s) 2, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Spicer.
Regarding claim 2, Spicer appears to disclose the agricultural row cleaner blade wherein each of the plurality of projections are disposed at an angle between about 60° and about 90° relative to a tangent of a circle at the outer periphery (claim language is broad; the projections appear to be within the range of “about 60 degrees to about 90 degrees” relative the tangent).
For the sake of argument that Spicer does not expressly disclose that the projections are disposed at an angle between about 60 degrees and about 90 degrees relative to a tangent of the circle, it does disclose the discs being used for trash cleaning (col 3, lines 16-18) and as a result of this, the angle of the projections is considered to be a results effective variable in so far as the angle may be adjusted slightly as long as the wheels adequately clear trash during operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the relative angle to be between about 60 degrees and about 90 degrees, as it has been held that the optimization of a results effective variable would have been obvious so as to achieve an optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Regarding claim 15, Spicer appears to disclose the agricultural row cleaner blade wherein each of the plurality of projections are disposed at an angle between about 60° and about 90° relative to a tangent of a circle at the outer periphery (claim language is broad; the projections appear to be within the range of “about 60 degrees to about 90 degrees” relative the tangent).
For the sake of argument that Spicer does not expressly disclose that the projections are disposed at an angle between about 60 degrees and about 90 degrees relative to a tangent of the circle, it does disclose the discs being used for trash cleaning (col 3, lines 16-18) and as a result of this, the angle of the projections is considered to be a results effective variable in so far as the angle may be adjusted slightly as long as the wheels adequately clear trash during operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the relative angle to be between about 60 degrees and about 90 degrees, as it has been held that the optimization of a results effective variable would have been obvious so as to achieve an optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Winick et al. (US 8596375) discloses a similar row cleaner disc with features analogous to the claimed features.
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