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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9, 12, 13, and 18-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 9, line 2, “comprising a different elongated length” is unclear. Applicant appears to mean that at least one segment has a different length that another or other segments, but that is not clear from the claim language. Claim 12, line 2, and claim 18, line 6, include similar unclear language.
In claim 19, line 2, “comprising present locations for mounting rear axle” does not make sense and it is apparent what disclosed feature applicant means to claim.
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) 1, 2, 5, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivinski (USPN 8,960,722).
Regarding claim 1, Sivinski teaches an agricultural trailer, comprising: an elongated frame 12 in Figure 8, said frame comprising a plurality of segments (forward and rearward section of frame 12 on opposite longitudinal sides of a flange connection; the flange connection is shown in Figure 9 immediately to the rear of cantilever arms 19), each segment comprising a lower side 2 and a higher side 18 connected via a crossbar 19 (see Figures 8 and 9); wherein each of the plurality of segments is connected to one another at flanges via mechanical fasteners (the flange connection, unnumbered, is shown in Figure 9, on primary rail 12 immediately behind arms 19, and appears to be held by bolts); and at least one rear axle (supporting wheels 14) operatively connected to one of the plurality of segments appears to be in a variable location relative to the segment such that the at least one rear axle is movable in a longitudinal direction of the segment. The flange connection and variable adjustment of the rear axle are shown in the drawings but not discussed in the specification of Sivinski. However, a variable connection between the saddle assembly 50 and frame 12, involving a bracket 52 and U-bolts 58 that can be repositioned along the frame 12 is taught by Sivinski (Figure 12; col. 3, lines 36-38) and Figure 8 of Sivinski shows the rear wheels 14 connected to the frame using a similar bracket and U-bolt connection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect frame segments of Sivinski using flanges and mechanical fasteners, as appears to be illustrated, and also movably mount the rear axle, using a bracket and U-bolt connection, as illustrated and described with respect to the saddle connection, in order to construct the agricultural trailer as illustrated and having the ability to be conveniently adjusted, assembled and disassembled.
Regarding claim 2, Sivinski teaches a rear axle mounting bracket (equivalent of the bracket 52 taught with respect to the saddle structure) on the at least one segment 12, said rear axle mounting bracket comprising a plurality of mounting locations for the rear axle (the bracket can be located at various locations along the frame 12).
Regarding claim 5, Sivinski is silent regarding the type of mechanical fastener used to connect the flanges, although Figure 5 of Sivinski appears to show nut and bolt fasteners. Also, bolts are a conventional type of mechanical fastener. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the flanges of Sivinski using bolts, as is old and well known and is consistent with Sivinski’s drawings, in order to provide a simple, inexpensive, and readily available mechanical fastener.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Sivinski teaches a variable length agricultural trailer (the trailer is variable in length in as much as applicant’s is, in that a frame segment can be removed), comprising: an elongated frame 12,18, said frame comprising a plurality of segments (front and rear segments, as seen in Figure 8), each segment comprising a lower side 12 and a higher side 18 connected via a crossbar 19; wherein each of the plurality of segments connected to one another at flanges via mechanical fasteners (Figure 9 to the rear of arms 19); wherein at least one of the plurality of segments comprising a different length (the front segment is longer than the rear segment); a rear axle mounting system (wheels 14 shown attached to an axle and bracket structure that is mounted to a rear segment of the frame 12 in Figure 8) to adjust the length of wheelbase between a front axle (wheels 14 mounted near hitch 16, seen in Figure 8) and at least one rear axle, comprising a rear axle mount that appears to mount the at least one rear axle at one or multiple locations on the frame. As discussed above, the flange connection and variable adjustment of the rear axle are shown in the drawings but not discussed in the specification of Sivinski. However, a variable connection between the saddle assembly 50 and frame 12, involving a bracket 52 and U-bolts 58 that can be repositioned along the frame 12 is taught by Sivinski (Figure 12; col. 3, lines 36-38) and Figure 8 of Sivinski shows the rear wheels 14 connected to the frame using a similar bracket and U-bolt connection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect frame segments of Sivinski using flanges and mechanical fasteners, as appears to be illustrated, and also movably mount the rear axle, using a bracket and U-bolt connection, as illustrated and described with respect to the saddle connection, in order to construct the agricultural trailer as illustrated and having the ability to be conveniently adjusted, assembled and disassembled.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivinski as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 18, and 19 above, and further in view of Hart (USPN 4,944,522).
Regarding claim 3, Sivinski lacks a rear axle mounting bracket comprising spaced apertures for aligning with an attachment of the rear axle.
Hart teaches a trailer having an adjustable rear axle (rear wheels 3 mounted to at least one axle 9, which can be slid forward and back to adjust the load on the rear axle; col. 1, lines 15-19) including a mounting bracket (rails 4, 5; see Figure 1; col. 3, lines 26-30), the bracket comprising spaced apertures (circular apertures adapted to receive pins; col. 3, lines 28-30) for aligning with an attachment 2, 6, 7, of the rear axle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the clamed invention, to modify Sivinski to include a mounting bracket with spaced apertures for aligning with an attachment of the rear axle, as taught by Hart, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a secure and reliable, remotely actuable, adjustable axle connection.
Regarding claim 4, Hart teaches the rear axle comprises a mount 2 with portions 6, 7 (see Figure 2) that align with the spaced apertures of the rear axle mounting bracket 4, 5.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9-14, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivinski as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 18, and 19 above, and further in view of Garceau (PGPub 2013/025029).
Regarding claims 6, 10, and 20, Sivinski lacks frame flanges connecting frame segments angled to at least partially arch the segments relative to each other.
Garceau teaches a trailer frame structure having frame segments 20, 22, 24, (Figure 2, para [0021], lines 1-4) connected by ends of the segments that are angled relative to each other so as to arch the segments relative to each other (see para [0022]). Arching the frame allows the frame to remain level when loaded (see para [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the clamed invention, to modify Sivinski to angle the flange connections between the frame sections, in view of Garceau, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to maintain the trailer in a level configuration when subjected to a heavy load.
Regarding claims 7 and 11, Garceau suggests angling the segments at any angle appropriate to the load applied (para [0031])), including between 0 and 2 degrees (para [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the clamed invention, to angle the segments at any small camber angle between 0 and 2 degrees, including about .5 degrees, in view of Garceau, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to accommodate an agricultural implement as taught by Sivinski.
Regarding claims 9, 12, and 13, Sivinski teaches two segments having different lengths, but not a third segment. Garceau teaches a frame having three segments 20, 22, 24, and at least one segment 22 has a different length relative to another segment 20. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the clamed invention, to include a third segment, in view of Garceau, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide more flexibility in determining the overall length of the frame.
Regarding claim 14, Sivinski teaches a rear axle mounting bracket (equivalent of the bracket 52 taught with respect to the saddle structure) on the at least one segment 12, said rear axle mounting bracket comprising a plurality of mounting locations for the rear axle (the bracket can be located at various locations along the frame 12).
Regarding claim 17, Sivinski teaches one or more saddles 50 operatively connected to one or more segments 12 of the frame, said one or more saddles configured to receive a portion of a component stored on the frame (saddles 20, 50, support harvesting head 22; col. 2, lines 49-51).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivinski as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 18, and 19 above, and further in view of Andrews (USPN 11,453,448).
Regarding claim 8, Sivinski lacks a secondary hitch receiver at a rear portion of a rear-end segment.
Andrews teaches a trailer having a secondary hitch receiver 18 at a rear portion of a rear-end frame segment 10 (see Figure 2, col. 9, lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the clamed invention, to modify Sivinski to include a secondary hitch receiver at the rear end of the rear frame segment, as taught by Andrews, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a connection to an additional trailer behind the agricultural trailer shown.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivinski and Garceau as applied to claims 6, 7, 10-14, 17, and 20 above, and further in view of Hart (USPN 4,944,522).
Regarding claim 3, the combination lacks a rear axle mounting bracket comprising spaced apertures for aligning with an attachment of the rear axle.
Hart teaches a trailer having an adjustable rear axle (rear wheels 3 mounted to at least one axle 9, which can be slid forward and back to adjust the load on the rear axle; col. 1, lines 15-19) including a mounting bracket (rails 4, 5; see Figure 1; col. 3, lines 26-30), the bracket comprising spaced apertures (circular apertures adapted to receive pins; col. 3, lines 28-30) for aligning with an attachment 2, 6, 7, of the rear axle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the clamed invention, to modify the combination to include a mounting bracket with spaced apertures for aligning with an attachment of the rear axle, as taught by Hart, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a secure and reliable, remotely actuable, adjustable axle connection.
Regarding claim 4, Hart teaches the rear axle comprises a mount 2 with portions 6, 7 (see Figure 2) that align with the spaced apertures of the rear axle mounting bracket 4, 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ingela and Hwang teach arched trailer frames.
Henderson and Johnson ‘802 teach bolted flange connections.
Johnson ‘806, Lyons, and Kuhns show trailers for a cutterheads with one elevated side of the cutter supporting frame.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at 571-272-6265. 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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ab/