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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 recites “coupled to second upper attachment” should read “coupled to the second upper attachment”.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 23 recites “a knock down blade assembly movable coupled” should read “a known down blade assembly [[moveable]] movably coupled”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Creighton (Pat. No.: 3,450,213).
Regarding independent claim 1, Creighton discloses a grading blade attachment (11) for a work machine (10), comprising:
an attachment frame (21) including an upper attachment frame portion (23) and a rear attachment frame portion (24), the upper attachment frame (23) portion having a frame length coupled to and extending forward from the rear attachment frame portion (24);
a coupler bracket (26) including an attachment interface for coupling the grading blade attachment (11) to the work machine (10; See col. 3, lns. 33-38 for disclosure of the attachment interface for coupling the attachment to the tractor via a connecting pin 20);
a pivot beam (28) extending transversely to the frame length and coupled to the upper attachment frame portion (23);
a left wheel assembly (22) and a right wheel assembly (22) coupled (via 29) to the pivot beam (28) on opposing ends of the upper attachment frame portion (See Fig. 6-7 where the left and right wheel assemblies are depicted coupled to pivot beam 28 via 29 on opposing ends of the upper frame portion);
a grading blade (80) extending transversely to the frame length, the grading blade aft (i.e., near) of the wheel assemblies (22) and coupled (operatively coupled via element 30 as seen in Fig. 1) to the rear attachment frame portion (24); and
a knock down blade assembly (81) coupled to the upper attachment frame portion (23) and movable between an operative position and an inoperative position (See col. 5, lns. 19-21 where it discloses “the hydraulic cylinder and rod assembly 92, 93 operates to raise and lower the entire earth working device 81”), wherein a knock down blade (85) is positioned fore of the wheel assemblies when in the operative position (i.e., in front of the wheel assemblies when in the operative position as depicted in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9, Creighton disclose the grading blade attachment of claim 1, and also discloses wherein the knockdown blade (85) is no greater than a length of the grading blade (80) in a direction transverse to the frame length (i.e., a width of knockdown blade 85 is smaller than a width of the grading blade 80).
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 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creighton in view of Bainter (Pub. No.: 2022/0372728).
Regarding claim 2, Creighton discloses the grading blade attachment of claim 1, and also discloses a lifting mechanism operably connected to the upper attachment frame portion for lifting the knockdown blade assembly (81) into an inoperative position by retraction of a hydraulic actuator (93, See col. 5, lns. 14-21 for general disclosure of the lifting mechanism, also See position of 81 depicted in Fig. 1 where the actuator rod is shortened, i.e., retracted, as compared to Fig. 6 where it is extended and the assembly 81 is in the operative ground-engaging position). However, Creighton fails to disclose the remaining limitations of recited in the instant claim. Like Creighton, Bainter discloses a grading blade assembly (abstract and assembly depicted in Fig. 2) with a blade (42B). More specifically, Bainter teaches wherein the blade assembly comprises:
a left lift arm (left 80) and a right lift arm (right 80) pivotally coupled to the opposite sides of an upper attachment frame portion (72) at a first lift arm ends (pivotally coupled at 76A1 which also corresponds to the first lift arm ends), and coupled (operatively) to the blade (42B) at a second lift arm ends (76A4 generally corresponding to the second lift arm ends);
an upper attachment frame support beam (90) straddling (i.e., between) a left beam (left 78) of the upper attachment frame portion (72) and a right beam (right 78) of the upper attachment frame portion (72);
a lift arm support beam (84) straddling (i.e., between) the left lift arm (left 80) and the right lift arm (right 80), the lift arm support beam (84) traverse to a longitudinal length (as seen in top plan view depicted in Fig. 3) of the upper attachment frame portion (72); and
an actuator (96H) longitudinally oriented and pivotally coupled to the lift arm support beam (84) on a first actuator end and pivotally coupled to the upper attachment frame support beam (90) on a second actuator end (See Fig. 2 where pivotal connections of the actuator to the support beams 90 and 84 are depicted in phantom lines).
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 lifting mechanism of the knockdown blade assembly of Creighton, to include the lift arms, support beams, and beams of the lifting mechanism taught by Bainter as set forth above, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an alternative lifting mechanism for moving the assembly to and from operative and inoperative positions that is well within the skill of one in the art.
Regarding claim 3, the above combination discloses the grading blade attachment of claim 2. Creighton fails to disclose the limitations of recited in the instant claim. However, in light of the modification made in claim 2, Bainter, of the combination, also wherein the left lift arm and the right lift arm (left and right 80) are pivotally coupled about a lift arm pivot axis (defined by pivot point 76A1 as seen in Fig. 2), wherein extension and retraction of the actuator pivots the left lift arm and the right lift arm about the pivot axis (as detailed in para. [0018]).
Regarding claim 4, the above combination discloses the grading blade attachment of claim 2. Creighton, of the combination, also discloses, wherein retraction of the actuator rotates the left lift arm and the right lift arm at least twenty degrees (See Fig. 1 and Fig. 6 where the arm 90 is rotated at least 20 degrees).
Regarding claim 5, the above combination discloses the grading blade attachment of claim 2. Creighton, of the combination, also discloses, wherein the upper attachment frame portion (21) is a single-piece component (as seen in Fig. 1).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creighton in view of Chaston et al. (Pub. No.: 2017/0101762; hereinafter Chaston).
Regarding claim 6, Creighton disclose the grading blade attachment of claim 1, and also discloses a hydraulic actuator (93) and “a control mechanism for operating the tractor and hydraulic systems” (See col. 2, lns. 16-17). However, Creighton fails to specifically disclose the actuator is communicatively coupled to a controller, wherein the controller is configured to selectively activate a portion of a hydraulic system related to movement of the actuator upon receiving a user input request from a user input interface. Chaston discloses a blade control method for a motor grader having a primary blade and a secondary blade (See para. [0007]). More specifically, Chaston teaches “a controller 62 outputs one or more control signals or control commands to the actuators 54, 56 associated with blades 32, 40 based on one or more of the sensor signals received from the sensors 72 and/or input received from the operator interface 60” (See para. [0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the controller with the user interface of Chaston to the control mechanism of Creighton, so that the operator can selectively actuate the actuator blade assembly 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.
Claims 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creighton in view of Chern (Pub. No.: 2017/0328028).
Regarding claim 7, Creighton discloses the grading blade attachment of claim 1, and also discloses a lifting mechanism operably connected to the upper attachment frame portion for lifting the knockdown blade assembly (81) into an inoperative position via a hydraulic actuator (93, See col. 5, lns. 14-21 for general disclosure of the lifting mechanism). However, Creighton fails to disclose the limitations of recited in the instant claim. Like Creighton, Chern, discloses a grading blade attachment (12) comprising an upper attachment frame portion (14).
More specifically, Chern teaches wherein the upper attachment frame portion (14) comprises: a first upper attachment frame portion (16); a second upper attachment frame portion (18) pivotally coupled to the first upper attachment frame portion at an upper attachment frame folding axis (See para. [0079] where it discloses “each wing section is hinged to the respective side beam 22, 24 of the main section for pivoting relative thereto about a respective pivot axis that is parallel to the central longitudinal axis L”, the disclosed pivot axis corresponds to the claimed upper attachment frame folding axis); wherein rotating (via actuator 52) the second upper attachment frame portion (18) about the upper attachment frame folding axis lifts a blade (74) towards the inoperative position (See para. [0079] where it discloses “collapse of the linear hydraulic actuator 52 thus lifts the respective wing section into the raised storage position”, the disclosed raised storage position corresponds to the claimed inoperative position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the lifting arrangement of Creighton, to be the lifting arrangement of Chern, as selecting the lifting arrangement for going between an operative and inoperative position is well within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art, and it appears the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Creighton. Further, such a modification merely constitutes the substitution of a known lifting mechanism for another lifting mechanism to produce the predictable result of raising a ground-engaging tool off the ground (See MPEP 2143, Subsection 1, B).
Regarding claim 8, the above combination discloses the grading blade attachment of claim 7. Creighton fails to disclose the limitations of recited in the instant claim. However, in light of the modification made in claim 7, Chern, of the combination, also discloses wherein an actuator (52) couples the first upper attachment frame portion (16) to the second upper attachment frame portion (18) wherein extension and retraction of the actuator rotates the knock down blade about the upper attachment frame folding axis between the inoperative position and the operative position (as disclosed in para. [0079]).
Regarding claim 10, the above combination discloses the grading blade attachment of claim 7. Creighton fails to disclose the limitations of recited in the instant claim. However, in light of the modification made in claim 7, Chern, of the combination, also discloses wherein the knockdown blade assembly is fixedly coupled (via 78, 80 as seen in Fig. 6) to the second upper attachment portion (18).
Claims 11, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermonson (Pat. No.: 6, 283,225) in view of Creighton.
Regarding independent claim 11, Hermonson discloses a work machine (10) with a grading blade attachment (12), comprising: a frame (16) supported by a plurality of ground-engaging units, the ground-engaging units (24, 28) configured to support the frame on a surface; a boom assembly (22) coupled to the frame, the boom assembly having a pair of boom arms (34, 36) pivotally coupled to the frame and movable relative to the frame by a pair of boom hydraulic actuators; an attachment coupler (43) coupled to a distal portion of the pair of boom arms, the attachment coupler movable relative to the frame by a pair of attachment pitch hydraulic actuators; and an attachment (12, See col. 3, lns. 17-54 for general disclosure of the above elements)
However, Hermonson fails to disclose the details of the grading blade attachment as claimed. Applicant should reference the rejection of claim 1 for the interpretation of the claimed limitations with respect to the attachment in view of Creighton.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute the attachment of Hermonson to be the attachment of Creighton, since such a modification merely constitutes the substitution of a grading attachment for a specific type of grading attachment to produce the predictable result of grading surfaces (See MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding claim 17, the above combination discloses of the machine of claim 11. Creighton, of the combination, also discloses wherein the knockdown blade (85) is coupled (operatively) to a wheel axes on the left wheel assembly and the right wheel assembly (See wheel axes in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 20, the above combination discloses of the machine of claim 11. Creighton, of the combination, also discloses wherein the knockdown blade (85) is no greater than a length of the grading blade (80) in a direction transverse to the frame length (i.e., a width of knockdown blade 85 is smaller than a width of the grading blade 80).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermonson in view of Creighton and further in view of Bainter (Pub. No.: 2022/0372728).
Regarding claim 12, the above combination discloses the machine of claim 11. Creighton, of the combination, also discloses a lifting mechanism operably connected to the upper attachment frame portion for lifting the knockdown blade assembly (81) into an inoperative position by retraction of a hydraulic actuator (93, See col. 5, lns. 14-21 for general disclosure of the lifting mechanism, also See position of 81 depicted in Fig. 1 where the actuator rod is shortened, i.e., retracted, as compared to Fig. 6 where it is extended and the assembly 81 is in the operative ground-engaging position). However, Creighton fails to disclose the remaining limitations of recited in the instant claim. Like Creighton, Bainter discloses a grading blade assembly (abstract and assembly depicted in Fig. 2) with a blade (42B). More specifically, Bainter teaches wherein the blade assembly comprises:
a left lift arm (left 80) and a right lift arm (right 80) pivotally coupled to the opposite sides of an upper attachment frame portion (72) at a first lift arm ends (pivotally coupled at 76A1 which also corresponds to the first lift arm ends), and coupled (operatively) to the blade (42B) at a second lift arm ends (76A4 generally corresponding to the second lift arm ends);
an upper attachment frame support beam (90) straddling (i.e., between) a left beam (left 78) of the upper attachment frame portion (72) and a right beam (right 78) of the upper attachment frame portion (72);
a lift arm support beam (84) straddling (i.e., between) the left lift arm (left 80) and the right lift arm (right 80), the lift arm support beam (84) traverse to a longitudinal length (as seen in top plan view depicted in Fig. 3) of the upper attachment frame portion (72); and
an actuator (96H) longitudinally oriented and pivotally coupled to the lift arm support beam (84) on a first actuator end and pivotally coupled to the upper attachment frame support beam (90) on a second actuator end (See Fig. 2 where pivotal connections of the actuator to the support beams 90 and 84 are depicted in phantom lines).
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 lifting mechanism of the knockdown blade assembly of the combination, to include the lift arms, support beams, and beams of the lifting mechanism taught by Bainter as set forth above, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an alternative lifting mechanism for moving the assembly to and from operative and inoperative positions that is well within the skill of one in the art.
Regarding claim 13, the above combination discloses the machine of claim 12. Creighton, of the combination, fails to disclose the limitations of recited in the instant claim. However, in light of the modification made in claim 12, Bainter, of the combination, also wherein the left lift arm and the right lift arm (left and right 80) are pivotally coupled about a lift arm pivot axis (defined by pivot point 76A1 as seen in Fig. 2), wherein extension and retraction of the actuator pivots the left lift arm and the right lift arm about the pivot axis (as detailed in para. [0018]).
Regarding claim 14, the above combination discloses the machine of claim 13. Creighton, of the combination, also discloses, wherein retraction of the actuator rotates the left lift arm and the right lift arm at least twenty degrees (See Fig. 1 and Fig. 6 where the arm 90 is rotated at least 20 degrees).
Regarding claim 15, the above combination discloses the machine of claim 12. Creighton, of the combination, also discloses, wherein the upper attachment frame portion (21) is a single-piece component (as seen in Fig. 1).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermonson in view of Creighton and further in view of Chaston et al. (Pub. No.: 2017/0101762; hereinafter Chaston).
Regarding claim 16, the above combination discloses the machine of claim 11. Creighton, of the combination, also discloses a hydraulic actuator (93) and “a control mechanism for operating the tractor and hydraulic systems” (See col. 2, lns. 16-17). However, Creighton fails to specifically disclose the actuator is communicatively coupled to a controller, wherein the controller is configured to selectively activate a portion of a hydraulic system related to movement of the actuator upon receiving a user input request from a user input interface. Chaston discloses a blade control method for a motor grader having a primary blade and a secondary blade (See para. [0007]). More specifically, Chaston teaches “a controller 62 outputs one or more control signals or control commands to the actuators 54, 56 associated with blades 32, 40 based on one or more of the sensor signals received from the sensors 72 and/or input received from the operator interface 60” (See para. [0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the controller with the user interface of Chaston to the control mechanism of Creighton, so that the operator can selectively actuate the actuator blade assembly 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.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermonson in view of Creighton and further in view of Chern (Pub. No.: 2017/0328028).
Regarding claim 18, the above combination discloses the machine of claim 17. Creighton, of the combination, also discloses a lifting mechanism operably connected to the upper attachment frame portion for lifting the knockdown blade assembly (81) into an inoperative position via a hydraulic actuator (93, See col. 5, lns. 14-21 for general disclosure of the lifting mechanism). However, Creighton fails to disclose the limitations of recited in the instant claim. Like Creighton, Chern, discloses a grading blade attachment (12) comprising an upper attachment frame portion (14).
More specifically, Chern teaches wherein the upper attachment frame portion (14) comprises: a first upper attachment frame portion (16); a second upper attachment frame portion (18) pivotally coupled to the first upper attachment frame portion at an upper attachment frame folding axis (See para. [0079] where it discloses “each wing section is hinged to the respective side beam 22, 24 of the main section for pivoting relative thereto about a respective pivot axis that is parallel to the central longitudinal axis L”, the disclosed pivot axis corresponds to the claimed upper attachment frame folding axis); wherein rotating (via actuator 52) the second upper attachment frame portion (18) about the upper attachment frame folding axis lifts a blade (74) towards the inoperative position (See para. [0079] where it discloses “collapse of the linear hydraulic actuator 52 thus lifts the respective wing section into the raised storage position”, the disclosed raised storage position corresponds to the claimed inoperative position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the lifting arrangement of Creighton, to be the lifting arrangement of Chern, as selecting the lifting arrangement for going between an operative and inoperative position is well within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art, and it appears the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Creighton. Further, such a modification merely constitutes the substitution of a known lifting mechanism for another lifting mechanism to produce the predictable result of raising a ground-engaging tool off the ground (See MPEP 2143, Subsection 1, B).
Regarding claim 19, the above combination discloses the machine claim 18. Creighton fails to disclose the limitations of recited in the instant claim. However, in light of the modification made in claim 18, Chern, of the combination, also discloses wherein an actuator (52) couples the first upper attachment frame portion (16) to the second upper attachment frame portion (18) wherein extension and retraction of the actuator rotates the knock down blade about the upper attachment frame folding axis between the inoperative position and the operative position (as disclosed in para. [0079]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are generally directed towards grading attachments and are considered reasonably pertinent: Kiser (Pat. No.: 8,944,176); Heckendorf (Pub. No.: 2002/0014341); and Rose (Pub. No.: 2021/0010232).
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
/JAMIE L MCGOWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights