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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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) 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Atkinson (US 5,127,175 A).
CLAIM 10 Atkinson ‘175 (“Atkinson”) teaches a plow with a pair of swivel plow feet (20) attached thereto, the plow comprising:
a plow frame (22) supporting a plow blade (12), a lower cutting edge piece (Fig. 1) attached to the plow blade, the lower cutting edge piece defining a lower margin of the plow, the plow frame having a pair of bushings (30, 32) with upright holes for receiving plow feet shafts (unlabeled vertical post, Fig. 3), one of the bushings located on the left side of the plow and the other of the pair of bushings located on the right side of the plow;
each of the pair of swivel feet (20) comprising a shaft (unlabeled vertical post, Fig. 3) that is vertically adjustable (col. 2, ll. 7-11) within one of the respective bushings (30, 32) of the plow frame (22) and that that has a lower end (62) that extends into and is retained in an upwardly facing hub of a foot portion, the foot portion having a downwardly facing convex surface, the foot portion rotatable about the shaft extending therein.
CLAIM 16 Atkinson ‘175 (“Atkinson”) discloses a swivel plow foot (20) comprising a shaft (unlabeled vertical post, Fig. 3) that is vertically adjustable (col. 2, ll. 7-11) within a bushing (30, 32) of a plow and that that has a lower end (62) that extends into and is retained in an upwardly facing hub of a foot portion, the foot portion having a downwardly facing convex surface (52, 54, 56), the foot portion rotatable about the shaft extending therein.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkinson (US 5,127,175 A) in view of Parker (US 2018/0135691 A1).
CLAIMS 11, 15, 19, 20 Atkinson fails to teach a grease fitting. Parker shows a grease fitting (27) providing a grease pathway to an interior of a hub (¶0031). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a grease fitting (Parker, 27) to each swivel plow foot (Atkinson) for providing a grease pathway to the joint (Atkinson, 62 and corresponding socket) defined by the connection of the respective shafts with their respective hubs (Atkinson, Fig. 3). The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for introducing a lubricant to the joint interior during routine maintenance (Parker, ¶0031), and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 12 In the combination of Atkinson and Parker, the shaft of swivel foot (Atkins, 20) has a lower flange (Atkinson, 64, 66) positioned in the respective hub portions (Atkinson, Fig. 3). Parker further shows (Parker, Fig. 4) a bearing (Parker, 38) positioned between a shaft (Parker, 28 or 32) and an interior wall of a hub portion (Parker, 22 and/or 34). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified each swivel plow foot (Atkinson, 20) with the addition of a bearing (Parker, 38), as suggested by Parker. The motivation for making the modification would have been to provide a cover for the working parts of each swivel joint to prevent damage to the same, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 13 In the combination of Atkinson and Parker, the bearing (Parker, 38) is a sleeve extending around the shaft (Atkinson, unlabeled vertical post, Fig. 3) above the flange (Atkinson, 64 and 66).
CLAIM 14 In the combination of Atkinson and Parker, Parker further shows (Parker, Fig. 2) a thrust bearing (Parker, 36) positioned at a lower end of the shaft (Parker, 28 or 32) and seated on a floor of the hub recess. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified each prior art recess (Atkinson, socket, Fig. 3) with the addition of a thrust bearing (Parker, 36). The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for reducing friction withing and supporting axial loads on the joint, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 17 In the combination of Atkinson and Parker, the lower end has a flange (Atkinson, 64, 66). Parker further shows (Parker, Fig. 4) a bearing (Parker, 38) positioned between a shaft (Parker, 28 or 32) and an interior wall of a hub portion (Parker, 22 and/or 34). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified the swivel plow foot (Atkinson, 20) with the addition of a bearing (Parker, 38) engaged with the flange (Atkinson, 64, 66), as suggested by Parker. The motivation for making the modification would have been to provide a cover for the working parts of each swivel joint to prevent damage to the same, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 18 In the combination of Atkinson and Parker, the bearing (Parker, 38) is a bushing positioned on the shaft above the flange (Atkinson, 64, 66). Parker further shows (Parker, Fig. 2) a thrust bearing (Parker, 36) positioned between a flange (Parker, 42) a floor of the hub recess. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified each prior art recess (Atkinson, socket, Fig. 3) with the addition of a thrust bearing (Parker, 36). The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for reducing friction withing and supporting axial loads on the joint, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkinson (US 5,127,175 A) in view of Werner et al. (US 2,711,597 A).
CLAIM 1 Atkinson ‘175 (“Atkinson”) shows a swivel plow foot (Fig. 3) comprising a shaft (unlabeled vertical post, Fig. 3) sized for being received in a bushing (30) of a plow frame (22), the shaft configured for positioning the height of the plow foot with respect to the bushing of the plow frame (col. 2, ll. 7-11), the swivel plow foot further comprising a foot portion (20) swivelably attached to a lower end of the shaft at a swivel joint (62, and the corresponding socket), the foot portion (20) having a convex shaped skid surface.
Atkinson fails to teach a plurality of spaced holes and a pin. Werner et al. ‘597 (“Werner”) shows a plow foot (Fig. 7) comprising a shaft (68) sized for being received in a bushing (67) of a plow frame (64), the shaft having a plurality of spaced through holes (72) transverse to an axis of the shaft for receiving a pin (74) for positioning the height of the plow foot with respect to the bushing of the plow frame (col. 3, ll. 40-5), the plow foot further comprising a foot portion (69) attached to a lower end of the shaft (68) at a joint, the foot portion having a convex shaped skid surface. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the shaft (Atkinson, Fig. 3) with a plurality of spaced through holes (Werner, 72) for receiving a pin (Werner, 74), as suggested by Werner. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for adjusting the elevation of the plow board (Atkinson, col. 2, ll. 7-11) with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 2 In the combination of Atkinson and Werner, the foot portion (Atkinson, 20) comprises a bowl shaped skid portion having the convex skid surface, the foot portion further comprising a hub portion unitary with the skid portion extending centrally upward from the skid portion opposite the convex skid surface, the hub portion having a central recess (Atkinson, socket, Fig. 3) with the lower end (Atkinson, 62) of the shaft retained therein.
CLAIM 3 In the combination of Atkinson and Werner, the lower end (Atkinson, 62) of the shaft has a diametrically enlarged portion (Atkinson, 64, 66) positioned and retained in the hub portion (Atkinson, Fig. 3).
CLAIM 8 In the combination of Atkinson and Werner, the swivel plow foot is in combination with a second swivel plow foot (Atkinson, Fig.1) and in further combination with the plow frame (Atkinson, 22), the plow frame having a pair of fixed bushings (Atkinson, 30 and 32) to receive the plow foot and the second plow foot.
CLAIM 9 In the combination of Atkinson and Werner, the concave surface has a centrally positioned flattened region (Atkinson, 56; and Werner, Fig. 8).
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkinson (US 5,127,175 A) in view of Werner et al. (US 2,711,597 A) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Parker (US 2018/0135691 A1).
CLAIM 4 In the combination of Atkinson and Werner, the diametrically enlarged portion (Atkinson, 64, 66) is configured as a flange. Neither Atkinson nor Werner teaches a bearing. Parker ‘691 (“Parker”) shows a swivel joint comprising a flange (42) engaged with a bearing (34) that is seated in the recess (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a bearing (Parker, 34) to the recess of (Atkinson, socket) of the prior art swivel joint, as suggested by Parker. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for improving the durability of the swivel joint, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 6 Neither Atkinson nor Werner teaches a grease fitting. Parker further shows a grease fitting (27) providing a grease pathway to an interior of a hub (¶0031). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a grease fitting (Parker, 27) to the swivel plow foot taught by the combination of Atkinson and Werner. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for introducing a lubricant to the joint interior during routine maintenance (Parker, ¶0031), and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/tm/
15 November 2025