DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the application filed on January 31, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are pending and Claims 12-15 are withdrawn.
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A and Invention I (Claims 1-11, 16-20) in the reply filed on February 06, 2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal of the restriction between inventions is on the ground(s) that
PNG
media_image1.png
302
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive because the inventions as claimed have been shown to be distinct pursuant to MPEP 806.05(e) and search and examination burden has been established pursuant to MPEP § 808.02 (see pp. 2-3 of prior Office Action). As to burden, each invention requires searching different classes/subclasses and a different field of search (e.g., employing different search strategies and search queries) as set forth in the requirement. Applicant has not specifically pointed out any supposed errors in the established burden.
The traversal of the election of species is on the ground(s) that
PNG
media_image2.png
562
802
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive because serious burden was established pursuant to MPEP 808.02 in the prior action. The mutually exclusive and divergent features of the different species each necessitate a different field of search (see prior action pages 5-6); in this case, it is necessary to employ different search queries and search strategies to cover the differences between the respective joints and the rod/bracket/latch. It is necessary to search for the elected species in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other species.
Applicant’s argument implying that a same classification necessarily indicates there is no serious burden is in conflict with MPEP 808.02 (C), which is clear that where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s), a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. Additionally, the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to the other species. Applying additional reference material and/or providing further discussion of each additional species examined, including prior art and non-prior art issues, would present a serious examination burden (pages 5-6 of the prior action).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-11, 16-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to Claims 1 and 16, “a damper pivotably coupled with the first damper bracket and the latch member at a second damper joint” renders the claim indefinite. The recitation, considered in view specification, causes the claim to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty as to what is covered by the claim. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). The claim language on its face suggests the damper pivotably coupled with the first damper bracket and the latch member at a single joint (the second damper joint). However, here, a question is raised based on definitions provided in the specification as to whether a “damper joint” can include multiple joint locations.
The term “joint” conventionally refers to a point of contact and the singular form “a” would not typically be understood to include plural references by one of ordinary skill. However, given the specifical definition for singular form “a” at ¶0022, the examiner turns to the specification for context.
Turning to the specification’s exemplary embodiment, the damper (96) is pivotably coupled with respect to the first damper bracket (92) at a second joint (at 134, solid arrow below) and pivotably coupled (pinned, second pin 130) with respect to the latch member (122) at another separate unnumbered joint (by pin 130, at dashed arrow below). This context raises question as to whether “a joint” might include plural locations and whether this unnumbered location might be considered part of the second joint (134). As such, the degree of uncertainty as to whether a damper joint can include plural joints is high.
The uncertainty is compounded by the fact that the specification also indicates the term “coupled” includes coupling through one or more intermediate components or features (SPEC ¶0020). This raises question if bracket (92) could simply be considered an intermediate member for the pivotal coupling of latch (122) to damper (96), despite the damper not actually being coupled to the latch at this joint. As a result of the above, it is not clear if a “damper joint” can include multiple joint locations.
PNG
media_image3.png
387
801
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The recitation, when considered in view specification, causes the claim to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty as to what is covered by the claim. It is not clear if a damper joint be more than one joint; if it can, does ‘pivotably coupled’ with this damper joint require pivoting with respect to one of the parts or all of the parts of the joint?
As to Claim 3, “the inner bracket” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders claim indefinite. As such, it is not clear what, if any prior recitation, the inner bracket refers to.
As to Claim 3, “the second end section of a hinge pin” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite.
As to Claim 10, it is not clear if “a frame” as recited at in claim 10 refers to: (i) the aforementioned frame as set forth claim 6 or another frame.
As to Claim 18, it is not clear if “linkage” in “coupling linkage” as recited at in claim 18 refers to: (i) the aforementioned linkage as set forth claim 16 or another linkage.
Claims 2, 4-9, 11, 17 and 19-20 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected indefinite claim.
Prior Art Relied Upon
This action references the following issued US Patents and/or Patent Application Publications:
US PATENT or PUBLICATION NUMBER
HEREINAFTER
US-6293475-B1
“SOBOLIK”
US-20050184175-A1
“WUBBEN”
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 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SOBOLIK.
PNG
media_image4.png
1598
1194
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
1152
1302
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 1, SOBOLIK teaches an agricultural system 20 comprising:
a boom assembly 26 including an inner boom section 30 and a breakaway boom section 32;
a hinge assembly [34, 38] configured to guide movement of the breakaway boom section 32 relative to the inner boom section 30 (3:42-56); and
a damper system (Figs. 4-7, 4:3-57, 9:10-40; prevents slamming back) comprising:
a first damper bracket [mount block 64] operably coupled with the inner boom section 30 (Figure 5);
a second damper bracket [formed by plates 62] operably coupled with the breakaway boom section (Figs. 5-7; 4:32-38);
a latch member [56, 58] rotatably coupled with the first damper bracket at a first damper joint [annotated in Image 1] (4:39-45);
a damper 42 pivotably coupled with the first damper bracket and the latch member at a second damper joint [annotated in Image 2] (9:10-40); and
a linkage [54, 60] operably coupled with the latch member on a first end portion [annotated in Image 1] thereof and the second damper bracket on a second end portion [annotated in Image 1] thereof (Figures 5-7, 4:3-44).
Re Claim 2, SOBOLIK teaches system of claim 1, wherein the hinge assembly further comprises:
an inner bracket [annotated in “inner bracket” in Image 2, components thereof also annotated in Image 1] operably coupled with the inner boom section (Image 2), the inner bracket further comprising:
a first flange [annotated “A” in Image 1 and in Image 2] (horizontal portion of the inner bracket) configured to retain a first end section (end section of hinge pin that extends through annotated section “C” in Image 1 and Image 2 and out therefrom) of a hinge pin [annotated “hinge pin” in Image 1] (See “hinge pin” in Image 1 and section “C” in Images 1 & 2);
a support [annotated “B” in Image 1 and in Image 2] (vertical portion of the inner bracket) configured to retain a second end section of the hinge pin (adjacent end section of hinge pin that extends along the support vertically between adjacent hinge knuckles, up to section “C” in Image 1 and Image 2, where the first end section of hinge pin beings); and
an outer bracket [annotated in Image 1] operably coupled with the breakaway boom section (Image 1).
Note one of ordinary skill will appreciate the hinge pin extends through all of the cylindrical knuckles of the hinge depicted (including “C”), and thus has sections at each knuckle and that support and retention is provided for the hinge pin along each knuckle shown.
Re Claim 3 (as best understood), SOBOLIK teaches system of claim 1, wherein the inner bracket further comprises:
a retainment section [inner hinge knuckle such as knuckle annotated “C” in Image 2 and support annotated “B” in Image 2] configured to retain a second end section of a hinge pin [annotated “hinge pin” in Image 1] (inner end section of hinge pin);
a wall [annotated “W” in Image 2] extending in a non-parallel direction from the retainment section (See Image 2); and
a second flange [annotated “A” in Image 2],
the wall extending between the retainment section and the second flange (See Image 2 and Image 1).
Re Claim 4, SOBOLIK teaches system of claim 1, wherein a tilt angle defined between the inner boom section and the breakaway boom section is varied as the breakaway boom section rotates relative to the inner boom section (See Figures 1-4).
Re Claim 6, SOBOLIK teaches system of claim 1, wherein the second damper joint is positioned further from a frame of the boom assembly [annotated “FRAME A” or “FRAME C” in Image 3] than the first damper joint in a lateral direction (See Figure 5 and Figure 4).
PNG
media_image6.png
722
945
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 7, SOBOLIK teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the coupling of the linkage with the latch member forms a third damper joint (annotated in Image 3 above).
Re Claim 9, SOBOLIK teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the coupling of the linkage with the second damper bracket forms a fourth damper joint (annotated in Image 3 above).
Re Claim 10, SOBOLIK teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the fourth damper joint is positioned further from a frame of the boom assembly [“FRAME B” annotated in Image 3] than the first damper joint, the second damper joint, and the third damper joint in a lateral direction (see Image 3).
Re Claim 16, SOBOLIK teaches an agricultural system 20 comprising:
a boom assembly 26 including an inner boom section 30 and a breakaway boom section 32;
a hinge assembly [inter alia 34,38, and inner/outer brackets noted below] configured to guide movement of the breakaway boom section 32 relative to the inner boom section 30, the hinge assembly comprising:
an inner bracket [annotated in Image 2] operably coupled with the inner boom section; and
an outer bracket [annotated in Image 1] operably coupled with the breakaway boom section; and
a damper system comprising:
a first damper bracket [mount block 64] operably coupled with the inner boom section (Figure 5);
a second damper bracket [formed by plates 62] operably coupled with the breakaway boom section (Figs. 5-7; 4:32-38);
a latch member [56, 58] rotatably coupled with the first damper bracket at a first damper joint [annotated in Image 1] (4:39-45);
a damper 42 pivotably coupled with the first damper bracket and the latch member at a second damper joint [annotated in Image 2] (9:10-40); and
a linkage [54, 60] operably coupled with the latch member on a first end portion [annotated in Image 1] thereof and the second damper bracket on a second end portion [annotated in Image 1] thereof (Figures 5-7, 4:3-44).
Re Claim 18, SOBOLIK teaches the agricultural system of claim 16, wherein the second damper bracket further comprises:
a base [annotated in Image 1] (vertical member from which plates 62 extend, see also Figs. 5-7);
a first wall extending from the base (first plate 62);
a second wall (second plate 62) spaced from the first wall and extending from the base;
one or more connectors (bolt shaft) operably coupled with the first wall and the second wall (extending between both walls; see Figs. 5-7); and
a linkage connection segment operably coupling linkage to the second damper bracket (nut of and head of bolt extending through plates 62 and the portions of plates 62 respectively in contact therewith).
Re Claim 20, SOBOLIK teaches the agricultural system of claim 16, wherein a tilt angle defined between the inner boom section and the breakaway boom section is varied as the breakaway boom section rotates relative to the inner boom section (See Figures 1-4).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SOBOLIK in view WUBBEN.
Re Claim 5, SOBOLIK teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach the system further comprising: a damper stop operably coupled with the first damper bracket; and a contact member operably coupled with the latch member, wherein the damper stop is configured to prevent movement of the contact member past the damper stop.
WUBBEN teaches a damper stop 48 operably coupled with a first damper bracket; and a contact member (contact point) operably coupled with a latch member, wherein the damper stop is configured to prevent movement of the contact member past the damper stop (Figure 4, ¶¶0019-0020). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system comprising a damper stop operably coupled with the first damper bracket; and a contact member operably coupled with the latch member, wherein the damper stop is configured to prevent movement of the contact member past the damper stop, in order to control range of motion and/or assure constant system pressure and/or avoid looseness (WUBBEN ¶¶0019-0020).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SOBOLIK.
Re Claim 11, SOBOLIK teaches the system of claim 9, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the fourth damper joint is positioned vertically above the first damper joint, the second damper joint, and the third damper joint.
SOBOLIK teaches the fourth damper joint is the closest of the joints to the outer end (Image 3 above) and teaches that contact with an object 35 may raise the outer end of the boom upward when in a breakaway condition (Figure 4 shows front view in breakaway condition; 2:66-67, 3:65 to 4:20), which would raise the fourth damper joint to a higher vertical position to than the other joints which are further from the raised end. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fourth damper joint so it is positioned vertically above the first damper joint, the second damper joint, and the third damper joint, to accommodate a breakaway position which raises the boom above an obstacle (SOBOLIK, 2:66-67, 3:65 to 4:20).
Conclusion
Dependent Claims 8, 17 and 19 have not been rejected over prior art. Claims 8, 17 and 19 are indefinite because they depend from at least one indefinite claim; the indefinite limitations have been considered to the extent understood. MPEP § 2143.03 I and § 2173.06 II.
The following additional prior art is made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US-4400994-A is a hinge and latch mechanism similar to that of Applicant’s disclosure; however, due to differences therein, it would not be obvious to those of ordinary skill to provide ‘994 as part of a system having breakaway boom section because the mechanism firmly locks even when the cylinder has failed (2:35-58), thus making the mechanism inappropriate for a breakaway mechanism, which must not remain locked when forces act the breakaway and hinged segment.
PNG
media_image7.png
1058
886
media_image7.png
Greyscale
US-4288034-A is relevant to breakaway boom sections with damping.
PNG
media_image8.png
556
822
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON H DUGER whose telephone number is (313) 446-6536. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30a to 4:30p EST Monday & Tuesday and 8:00a to 2:00p Wednesday, and is OFF Thursday and Friday.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian, can be reached on (571) 270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JASON H DUGER
PRIMARY EXAMINER, ART UNIT 3741
PHONE (313) 446 6536
FAX (571) 270 9083
DATE
May 16, 2026
/JASON H DUGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights