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 § 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) 1-5, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivinski (USPN 8,960,722) in view of Rhodes (USPN 4,119,328).
Regarding claims 1, 18, and 19, 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 12 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 the rear 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.
Sivinski does not teach a connection between the rear axle and the segment that comprises a removable fastener connected at one or more preset mounting locations for the rear axle.
Rhodes teaches a trailer 10 for transporting agricultural materials including implements (col. 2, line 27) that includes a rear axle connection (Figures 6 and 7) movable between preset positions along the frame 20. The connection between the rear axle 30 and frame segment 20 includes removable fasteners (locking pin 42, seen in Figure 7; col. 4, lines 10-12) connected at present locations on the frame segment (holes 40 in bracket 34 fixed to frame segment 20 provide preset locations for fasteners 42 that set the position of the rear axle relative to the frame 20; see Figure 7; col. 4, lines 5-28). Rhodes teaches that providing adjustable rear axles on the agricultural trailer allows for a proper proportion of trailer weight to be transferred to the towing vehicle for smooth efficient and safe agricultural operations (col. 1, lines 48-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the position of the rear axles of the Sivinski trailer using an axle connection comprising removable fasteners connected at preset locations on a frame segment, in view of Rhodes, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to adjust the position of the rear axle for proper weight transfer to the towing vehicle using a simple, safe, and efficient structure. It would also 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 is illustrated by Sivinski, in order to construct the agricultural trailer as illustrated and having the ability to be conveniently adjusted, assembled and disassembled.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches a rear axle mounting bracket (Rhodes teaches a bracket 34 on frame segment 20, seen in Figure 7) on the at least one segment, said rear axle mounting bracket comprising a plurality of mounting locations for the rear axle (the bracket 34 includes plural mounting holes 40; Rhodes, col. 4, 10-14).
Regarding claim 3, Rhodes teaches the rear axle mounting bracket 34 comprises spaced apertures 40 for aligning with an attachment of the rear axle.
Regarding claim 4, Rhodes teaches the rear axle 30 comprises a mount 28 with portions that align with the spaced apertures 40 of the rear axle mounting bracket on the at least one segment (Figure 7; col. 4, lines 5-14).
Regarding claim 5, Sivinski is silent regarding the type of mechanical fastener used to connect the flanges, although Figure 5 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 additionally shows, in Figure 8, a rear segment of frame 12, to which the rear wheels 14 are attached, is a different length (shorter length) than the front segment of frame 12.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivinski and Rhodes, as applied to claims 1-5, 18, and 19 above, and further in view of Garceau (PGPub 2013/0257029).
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, 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 10, combination also teaches a rea axle bracket on the frame segment
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 claims 15 and 16, the combination teaches a rear axle mounting bracket comprising spaced apertures for aligning with an attachment to the rear axle (Rhodes teaches, as discussed above, bracket 34 fixed to frame 20 and having apertures 40 aligned with attachment apertures on mount 28 for the rear wheel axle).
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 1-5, 18, and 19 above, and further in view of Andrews (USPN 11,453,448).
Regarding claim 8, the combination 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant has argued that Sivinski in no way teaches a movable rear wheel axle on the trailer frame. The examiner disagrees. Sivinski teaches a movable structure, using a bracket and U-bolts, for attaching and moving the position of the saddles. It also shows essentially the same structure for mounting the rear wheel axle to the frame. Hollond (US3,525,537), cited herewith but not relied upon in the rejection, shows how a bracket and U-bolts are used as a movable connection for wheel axles on agricultural equipment. The examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the axle mounting structure of Sivinski is capable of adjustment. Also, the Rhodes reference is now relied upon in the rejection above to teach a bracket mounted to the trailer frame providing preset positions of the axle relative to the frame, as now claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hollond, cited herewith but not relied upon in the rejection, shows how a bracket and U-bolts are used as a movable connection for wheel axles on agricultural equipment.
Xie teaches a bracket 10, mounted below frame 7, having a series of holes foor adjusting the position of trailer axles.
Duffield shows an adjustable wheel axle on an agricultural trailer.
Patterson teaches a header transport having a adjustable rear wheel axle.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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/
Prosecution Insights