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 § 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(s) 1-4, 6-13, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oswald et al. (9,409,589) in view of Koster (5,346,018).
Regarding claim 1, Oswald et al. discloses a power unit comprising:
A powered vehicle (10)
An engine (40)
A plurality of ground engaging elements (32) configured to drive the powered vehicle (10) over a supporting surface
A platform (20) provided on the powered vehicle, wherein the platform is at least partially rearward of the engine (Figure 5), the platform (20) being configured for an operator to stand there and on during operation of the powered vehicle;
a control panel (42,50) adjacent to the top of the body of the power unit forward of the platform (Figure 5);
differential steering provided on the power vehicle that enables the powered vehicle to perform terms with inherent 0° radius (column 5 lines 24-54);
a hitch (70) mounted on a forward end of the power vehicle and configured to removably connect a powered snow removal attachment (90)with the power vehicle such that a portion of the hitch is rotatable about a horizontal axis (column 9 lines 56-65)
While Oswald discloses the invention including that a powered attachment can be mounted to the front of the vehicle (column 10 lines 54-58) but it fails to specifically describe the hitch and how power is transferred to the implement. Like Oswald, Koster also discloses mounting a powered snow removal implement to a vehicle via a hitch that allows for rotation about a horizontal axis. Unlike Oswald, Koster discloses that the hitch (10) includes a first and second side plates (58) spaced from each other with a crossbar (lower, unnumbered crossbar), wherein the hitch is rotatable about a horizontal axis (at 70) and a power transfer system (42) with a PTO for operating the implement engaged with the hitch and extending between the first and second side plates (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the hitch and power transfer system in Oswald as taught by Koster as it would be combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claim 2, the combination discloses that the PTO includes at least one hydraulic cylinder (Koster – Figure 5; column 4 lines 12-30).
Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses that the PTO is a belt (30) driven PTO.
Regarding claim 4, combination discloses that the horizontal pivot axis intersects the foremost ground engaging element (Oswald – upper pivot axis intersects wheel – Figure 5).
Regarding claim 6, the combination discloses that the ground engaging elements are wheels.
Regarding claim 7, the combination discloses that the attachment could be a powered broom (Oswald – column 11 lines 1-2; Koster – column 5 line 22).
Regarding claim 8, the combination discloses that the implement can be a snow blower (Oswald – Fig 5; Koster – Fig 2).
Regarding claim 9, the combination discloses that the implement is a pivotable snow plow and a portion of the snow plow pivots about a vertical axis (the chute pivots about a vertical axis and the blower can be considered a plow).
Regarding claim 10, the combination discloses at least two cross bars (unnumbered lower cross bar – Figure 1 – Koster, element 59) connecting the first and second side plates (58) (via truck frame/hitch).
Regarding claim 11, the combination discloses that the hitch comprises a rear support member (56).
Regarding claims 12-13, the combination discloses that an upper portion of the first side plate (58) terminates at a first hitch tab and au upper portion of the second side plate (58) terminates at a second hitch tab wherein the hitch tabs extend for a distance upwardly beyond the at least one crossbar (lower cross bar) (Koster – Figure 1 – upper portion of both side plates (58) have a tab/end with mounting holes).
Regarding claim 19, the combination discloses a latch handle can be utilized to aid in lifting/lowering the hitch (Oswald – 66).
Regarding claim 20, the combination discloses that a lateral distance measured from an exterior surface of the first side plate and an exterior surface of the second side plate is less than a lateral distance measured from a first interior surface on the snow removal attachment to a second interior surface on the snow removal attachment (Oswald shows brackets/arms on the snow removal attachment (Figure 5) on the outside of the arm brackets of the hitch. Alternate embodiment of a different attachment shows a clearer view of an extension arm located to the outside of the hitch arm sideplates (62 Figure 1) which allows for nesting/compactness).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oswald et al. (9,409,589) in view of Koster (5,346,018) as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Hiller et al. (2019/0216000).
Regarding claim 5, the combination discloses the invention as described above but fails to specifically disclose tracks. Like the combination, Hiller also discloses a vehicle with a front mounted implement capable of a zero turn radius. Unlike the combination, Hiller discloses that an alternate embodiment could include a tracked vehicle (pgph 0066). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a tracked vehicle in place of a wheeled vehicle in the combination as taught by Hiller as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claim(s) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oswald et al. (9,409,589) in view of Koster (5,346,018) as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Hoelscher (2004/0060715).
Regarding claims 14-15 and 17-18, the combination of Oswald and Koster discloses the invention as described above, but fails to disclose a hup on the interior of the side plates. Like the combination, Hoelscher also discloses a hub with a crossbar member between side plates. Unlike the combination, Hoelscher discloses that the cross bar member can be mounted between side plates via a hub and rotatable bolt/shaft member to allow for rotation of the hitch member relative to the powered vehicle. Likewise the combination discloses this rotational ability via tabs (70) and pins (72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a hub and bolt mechanism in the combination as taught by Hoelscher as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claim 16, the combination discloses a hydraulic unit (Koster – 120) for effectuating rotation of the hitch relative to the powered vehicle about the horizontal axis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sewell (2007/0131437) also discloses a stand on implement with either tracks or wheels with a front mounted implement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jamie L McGowan whose telephone number is (571)272-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00-5:00 CST.
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, Chris 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.
/JAMIE L MCGOWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671