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.
Claims 1-10 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray (Pat. No.: 4,765,639) in view of Carrick (Pat. No.: 5,154,240).
Regarding independent claim 1, Murray discloses a towable implement that is shiftable between a field configuration for operation in a field and an endwise transport configuration for transporting over a road (see Abstract where it specifically discloses shifting from a field position to an endwise transport position), the implement comprising:
a frame (12);
one or more work mechanisms (13) supported by the frame (12) and configured to perform work in the field;
a folding tongue (16) pivotably coupled (via 37 as seen in Fig. 1) to the frame (12) and shiftable between an unfolded position and a folded position, wherein the tongue is in the unfolded position when the implement is in the field configuration and the tongue is in the folded position when the implement is in the endwise transport configuration (See Fig. 1 reproduced below where the tongue is depicted in solid lines in the unfolded position, and in phantom lines in a folded position); and
Although Murray discloses a brace system, wherein the brace system comprises a brace bar (37) mounted to the frame (12) and an alignment bar (38) pivotally coupled (at 36) to the tongue portions (31, 34).
Murray fails to disclose a brace system, wherein the brace system comprises a brace bar pivotally coupled to the frame and an alignment bar pivotally coupled to the tongue, wherein the brace bar and the alignment bar are pivotally coupled to one another.
Carrick, discloses a foldable frame assembly (20) that is pivotally coupled to a tongue frame (12) for movement between a towing position (position in Fig. 1) and an operative position (position in Fig. 7). More specifically, Carrick teaches a brace system for supporting the foldable frame (20) in the operative position (position in Fig. 7), wherein the brace system comprises a brace bar (39) pivotally mounted (at pivot C as depicted in Fig. 5) to the tongue frame (12) and an alignment bar (27) pivotally coupled (at pivot B as depicted in Fig. 5) to the foldable frame assembly (20), wherein the brace bar (39) and the alignment bar (27) are pivotally coupled to one another.
PNG
media_image1.png
709
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bracing system of Murray, with the brace system of Carrick, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide “for a folding implement frame with a rigid pull bar that may be substantially automatically pivoted between outwardly extending operative and inwardly folder transport conditions” (See col. 1, lns. 55-61) that is well within the scope of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, the above combination discloses towable implement of claim 1. Murray, of the combination, also discloses wherein the brace bar (37) extends between the frame (12) and the tongue (16) and fixes the position of the tongue relative to the frame when the tongue is in the unfolded position, wherein the brace bar does not fix the position of the tongue relative to the frame when the tongue is not in the unfolded position (See col. 3, lns. 4-30 for a general disclosure of the operation of the brace bar 37 so that brace bar 37 releasably secures the tongue to the frame in the field position, and the tongue is disconnected from the brace bar 37 to go from the field/unfolded position to the transport/folded position).
Regarding claim 3, the above combination discloses towable implement of claim 2. Murray, of the combination, further discloses a field locking mechanism (62, 63) for releasably coupling the brace bar (37) to the tongue portions (31, 34) when the tongue is in the unfolded position (as disclosed in col. 3, lns. 4-30), further comprising a transport locking mechanism (96) for releasably coupling the tongue portions (31, 34) to the frame (12) when the tongue is in the folded position (as disclosed in cols. 3-4, lns. 53-12).
Regarding claim 4, the above combination discloses towable implement of claim 3. The field locking mechanism (62, 63) of Murray utilizes a removable connector pin (62) that is inserted and locked in place by a bent wire retainer (63) to releasably secure the tongue to the frame (as disclosed in col. 3, lns. 4-30). Accordingly, Murray fails to disclose wherein the field locking mechanism automatically locks the brace bar to the tongue when the tongue is shifted from the folded position to the unfolded position.
However, Murray also discloses that the transport locking mechanism (96) for releasably coupling the tongue portions (31, 34) to the frame (12) when the tongue is in the folded position (as disclosed in cols. 3-4, lns. 53-12), wherein the transport locking mechanism automatically locks the tongue to the frame when the tongue is shifted from the unfolded position to the folded position (the automatic locking function is a result of torsion spring 102 which is disclosed in col. 4, lns. 16-27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the manual field locking mechanism of Murray to incorporate the automatic functionality of the transport locking mechanism also disclosed by Murray, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Regarding claim 5, the above combination discloses towable implement of claim 4. In light of the combination made above with respect to claim 4, Murray, of the combination, further discloses wherein the field locking mechanism is spring loaded (as a result of torsion spring 102 which is disclosed in col. 4, lns. 16-27).
Regarding claim 6, the above combination discloses towable implement of claim 1. Murray fails to disclose the instant claim limitations. However, in light of the modification made in relation to claim 1, Carrick further teaches wherein the alignment bar (27)
(i) pushes the brace bar (39) away from the frame when the tongue shifts from the folded position to the unfolded position (See Fig. 6 which depicts the movement shift from the folded to unfolded position and where when the alignment bar 27 pivots at B, brace bar moves away from 12/14),
(ii) pulls the brace bar toward the frame when the tongue shifts from the unfolded position to the folded position (See interpretation of limitation (i) immediately above), and
(iii) prevents the brace bar (39) from pivoting away from the frame when the tongue is in the folded position (See col. 5, lns. 49-51 where it discloses “the latch assembly thus prevents the strut linkage 39 and the pull bar 27 from swinging outwardly from the towing position”).
Regarding claim 7, the above combination discloses towable implement of claim 6. Murray, of the combination, further teaches a transport locking mechanism (96) for selectively locking the tongue to the frame when the tongue is in the folded position (as disclosed in cols. 3-4, lns. 53-12), wherein the transport locking mechanism automatically locks the tongue to the frame when the tongue is shifted from the unfolded position to the folded position (the automatic locking function is a result of torsion spring 102 which is disclosed in col. 4, lns. 16-27).
Regarding claim 8, the above combination discloses towable implement of claim 1. Murray, of the combination, further teaches a plurality of field wheels (17) for supporting the implement in the field configuration and a plurality of transport wheels (41) for supporting the implement in the endwise transport configuration, wherein the field and transport wheels are oriented for travel in different directions (See Fig. 1 for different orientations of the field and transport wheels).
Regarding claim 9, the above combination discloses towable implement of claim 8. Murray, of the combination, further teaches an actuation system for automatically shifting the implement between the field configuration and the endwise transport configuration, wherein the actuation system comprises a tongue actuator (28) for shifting the tongue between the folded and unfolded positions (as disclosed in col. 2, lns. 43-48) and a transport wheel actuator (42) for raising and lowering the transport wheels (41) relative to the frame (as disclosed in col. 2, lns. 64-68).
Regarding claim 10, the above combination discloses towable implement of claim 1. Murray, of the combination, further teaches wherein the tongue pivots through an angle of at least 100 degrees and not more than 160 degrees when shifted between the unfolded position and the folded position (See col. 5, lns. 15-17 where it discloses “the tongue may be swing 135 degrees in a horizontal plane about the vertical pivot axis 26 from its field position to its transport position”).
Regarding independent claim 20, Murray discloses a method of operating a towable implement having a frame (12), transport wheels (41) attached to the frame, field wheels (17) attached to the frame, and a folding tongue (16) pivotally attached to the frame, the method comprising:
(a) towing the implement over a road while the implement is in an endwise transport configuration where the tongue extends outwardly from a first end of the frame in a folded position and the bottom of the transport wheels (41) are lower than the bottom the field wheels (17, See abstract and Fig. 1 where the tongue extends outwardly from a first end in the folded position depicted in the phantom lines, note that since the transport wheels are utilized in the folded position the bottom of the transport wheels will be lower than the bottom of the field wheels);
(b) shifting the implement from the endwise transport configuration to a field configuration where the tongue extends outwardly from a first side of the frame in an unfolded position and the bottom of the field wheels are lower than the bottom the transport wheels (See Fig. 1 where the tongue extends outwardly from the front side of the frame in the unfolded position depicted in the solid lines, note that since the field wheels are utilized in the unfolded position the bottom of the field wheels will be lower than the bottom of the transport wheels); and
(c) pulling the implement in a field with a prime mover (a towing tractor is disclosed in the Objects and Summary of the Invention found in col. 1) attached to the tongue of the implement while the implement is in the field configuration,
wherein the shifting of step (b) includes -
(i) lowering the transport wheels (41) from a raised position to a lowered position using at least one transport wheel actuator (42, See col. 2, lns. 64-68),
(ii) pivoting the tongue from the folded position to the unfolded position using at least one tongue actuator (28, See col. 2, lns. 43-48),
wherein the lowering, pivoting, moving, and locking are carried out without manual manipulation of the transport wheels, tongue, brace member, alignment bar, or field locking mechanism (i.e., utilizing an actuation or spring-loaded system).
Murray fails to disclose wherein shifting of step (b) includes: (iii) moving a brace member from a collapsed configuration to a supporting configuration using an alignment bar pivotally coupled to the brace bar and tongue, and (iv) locking the brace member in the supporting configuration using a field locking mechanism. However, Applicant should reference the rejection of claim 1 in view of Carrick for step (iii) moving a brace member from a collapsed configuration to a supporting configuration using an alignment bar pivotally coupled to the brace bar and tongue, and the rejection of claim 4 for step (iv) locking the brace member in the supporting configuration using a field locking mechanism that is carried out without manual manipulation (via the spring modification detailed in claim 4).
Regarding claim 21, the above combination discloses the method of claim 20. Murray, of the combination, also discloses prior to step (b), shifting the field locking mechanism into a field locking configuration wherein the locking of step (iv) is accomplished by the field locking mechanism in the field locking configuration (i.e., when the field locking mechanism goes from unlocked/unengaged to locked/engaged).
Regarding claim 22, the above combination discloses the method of claim 21. In light of the modification made in claim 20 for the field locking mechanism, Murray, of the combination, discloses wherein the field locking mechanism is spring loaded (as a result of torsion spring 102 which is disclosed in col. 4, lns. 16-27, further See rejection of claim 5).
Regarding claim 23, the above combination discloses the method of claim 22. In light of the modification made in claim 20 for the field locking mechanism, Murray, of the combination, also discloses wherein the shifting of the field locking mechanism includes manually moving (via rope 103) a locking spring (102) from a field locking position to a field releasing position (See col. 4, lns. 20-27 where it discloses the transport locking mechanism (96) “can be pivoted by the operator on the tractor, not shown, by pulling on a flexible tension member in the form of a rope 103”).
Regarding claim 24, the above combination discloses the method of claim 20. Murray, of the combination, further discloses during the towing of step (a), a transport locking mechanism (96) locks the tongue to the frame in a folded position (as disclosed in cols. 3-4, lns. 53-12), wherein during the pulling of step (c) the field locking mechanism locks the tongue in the unfolded position relative to the frame (as disclosed in col. 3, lns. 4-30).
Claims 11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray (Pat. No.: 4,765,639).
Regarding independent claim 11, Murray discloses a towable implement that is shiftable between a field configuration for operation in a field and an endwise transport configuration for transporting over a road (see Abstract where it specifically discloses shifting from a field position to an endwise transport position), the implement comprising:
a frame (12);
one or more work mechanisms (13) supported by the frame (12) and configured to perform work in the field;
a plurality of field wheels (17) for supporting the implement in the field configuration;
a plurality of transport wheels (41) for supporting the implement in the endwise transport configuration;
a folding tongue (16) pivotably coupled (via 37 as seen in Fig. 1) to the frame (12) and shiftable between an unfolded position and a folded position, wherein the tongue is in the unfolded position when the implement is in the field configuration and the tongue is in the folded position when the implement is in the endwise transport configuration (See Fig. 1 reproduced below where the tongue is depicted in solid lines in the unfolded position, and in phantom lines in a folded position); and
a field locking mechanism (62, 63) for selectively locking the tongue in the unfolded position (as disclosed in col. 3, lns. 4-30).
Murray also discloses that the transport locking mechanism (96) for releasably coupling the tongue portions (31, 34) to the frame (12) when the tongue is in the folded position (as disclosed in cols. 3-4, lns. 53-12), wherein the transport locking mechanism includes a spring (102) that is manually shiftable (via rope 103) between a locking position for maintain the tongue in the unfolded position and a releasing position for permitting shifting of the tongue out of the unfolded position (See col. 4, lns. 20-27 where it discloses the transport locking mechanism (96) “can be pivoted by the operator on the tractor, not shown, by pulling on a flexible tension member in the form of a rope 103”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the field locking mechanism of Murray, to include the spring details of the transport locking mechanism also disclosed by Murray, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Regarding claim 18, the above combination discloses towable implement of claim 4. Murray, of the combination, further discloses further comprising a transport locking mechanism (96) for selectively locking the tongue to the frame (12) when the tongue is in the endwise transport configuration position (as disclosed in cols. 3-4, lns. 53-12).
Regarding claim 19, the above combination discloses towable implement of claim 11. Murray, of the combination, further teaches an actuation system for automatically shifting the implement between the field configuration and the endwise transport configuration, wherein the actuation system comprises at least one tongue actuator (28) for shifting the tongue between the folded and unfolded positions (as disclosed in col. 2, lns. 43-48) and at least one transport wheel actuator (42) for raising and lowering the transport wheels (41) relative to the frame (as disclosed in col. 2, lns. 64-68).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray (Pat. No.: 4,765,639) in view of Stephenson (Pat. No.: 5,642,607).
Regarding claim 12, the above combination discloses towable implement of claim 11. In light of the combination made above with respect to claim 11, Murray, of the combination, further discloses wherein the spring (102) is a tension spring (disclosed in col. 4, lns. 20-23), and therefore fails to disclose wherein the spring is specifically a torsion spring.
Stephenson discloses a similar folding tongue shiftable between an unfolded position and a folded position (abstract). More specifically, Stephenson teaches a locking mechanism including a spring wherein the spring is a torsion spring (48; See col. 3, lns. 38-67 for disclosure of the locking mechanism operation for the folding tongue). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tension spring of Murray, to be the torsion spring of Stephenson, since “a tension spring or other common biasing element could be used in lieu of the torsion spring 48” (See col. 3, lns. 38-67).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-17 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references relate to folding frames for towable implements: Johnson, Sr. (Pat. No.: 4,682,462); Murray (Pat. No.: 4,800,962); and, Karchewski (Pat. No.: 4,944,355). Additional references relevant but not included here can be found in the attached 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Audrey L Lusk whose telephone number is (571)272-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8am-5pm.
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.
/A.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights