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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Fanshier 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-19, 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marchesan et al. (US 20220183201).
Regarding claim 1, Marchesan discloses an agricultural toolbar, comprising:
a center section and opposite wing sections (center section 100; wing sections 110; para [0029], lines 11-15); and
each center and wing section including upper and lower transverse bars spaced vertically and horizontally apart, with the upper transverse bar being behind the lower transverse bar (upper transverse bars 10; lower transverse bars 20; Fig 1 and Fig 5), and
the upper and lower transverse bars of each center and wing section being rigidly connected to one another, whereby the upper bar of each section functions as a truss support for the lower bar of each respective section (the upper and lower transverse bars of each section are rigidly connected to one another through supports 30 and 40; the upper bar 10 functions as a truss support for the lower bar in the same way as Applicant’s invention).
Regarding claim 3, Marchesan discloses the agricultural toolbar wherein the upper bar is parallel to the lower tool bar for each center and wing section (Fig 1 and Fig 5 depicts the upper and lower bars as parallel).
Regarding claim 6, Marchesan discloses the agricultural toolbar wherein the upper bar of the center section is adapted to support a tank assembly (the claim is absent any specific details for supporting the tank; therefore, the toolbar of Marchesan is considered adapted to support a tank assembly on the upper bar in the same way as Applicant’s invention).
Regarding claim 7, Marchesan discloses the agricultural toolbar wherein the wing sections fold vertically relative to the center section (see Annotated Figure 1; the pivot points allow the side sections to fold vertically).
PNG
media_image1.png
406
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 8, Marchesan discloses the agricultural toolbar wherein the upper bars have coextensive axes and lower bars have coextensive axes (Fig 4 depicts the bars with coextensive axis).
Regarding claim 9, Marchesan discloses the agricultural toolbar wherein the wing sections have inner ends pivotally connected to outer ends of the center section for vertical folding about a horizontal axis between field and transport positions (see Annotated Figures 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
359
546
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 10, Marchesan discloses the agricultural toolbar wherein the upper bars extend colinearly with one another and the lower bars extend colinearly with one another (the upper bars 10 are colinear with one another and lower bars 20 are colinear with one another).
Regarding claim 11, Marchesan discloses an agricultural toolbar having a center section and opposite left and right wing sections, and further comprising:
front and rear vertically staggered bars on the center section (Fig 1; front bar 20 and rear bar 10 are vertically staggered);
front and rear vertically staggered bars on each wing section (Fig 5; front bar 20 and rear bar 10 are vertically staggered);
the front bars being adapted to support a plurality of wheels and tools (Fig 4; front bars 20 support tools 200 and wheels 500);
the rear bars residing above the wheels and tools, and providing truss support for the front bars (rear bars 10 resides above the tools and wheels and provide truss support for the front bars in the same way as Applicant’s invention); and
the front and rear bars of each section being non-pivotal relative to one another (the front and rear bars of each section are non-pivotal relative to one another through rigid supports 30 and 40).
Regarding claim 12, Marchesan discloses the agricultural toolbar wherein the front bar of the center section and the front bars of the wing sections each have a longitudinal axis which are coextensive with one another (Fig 4 depicts the front bars of the sections having coextensive axes).
Regarding claim 13, Marchesan discloses the agricultural toolbar wherein the rear bar of the center section and the rear bars of the wing sections each have a longitudinal axis which are coextensive with one another (Fig 4 depicts the rear bars of the sections having coextensive axes).
Regarding claim 14, Marchesan discloses the agricultural toolbar wherein the longitudinal axes of the front and rear bars of the center and wing sections are parallel to one another (Fig 1 and Fig 5 depicts the upper and lower bars as parallel).
Regarding claim 15, Marchesan discloses the agricultural toolbar the rear bars are free from tools being mounted thereon (Fig 4 depicts the rear bars free from tools).
Regarding claim 16, Marchesan discloses the agricultural toolbar wherein the wing sections pivot vertically between a field position and a transport position (see Annotated Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 17, Marchesan discloses the agricultural toolbar wherein the rear bars of the center and wing sections reside at a higher elevation than the front bars of the center and wing sections (Fig 4 depicts the rear bars residing at a higher elevation than the front bars).
Regarding claim 18, Marchesan discloses the agricultural toolbar wherein the front and rear bars on the center section are interconnected, the front and rear bars on the left wing section are interconnected, and the front and rear bars on the right wing sections are interconnected (the front and rear bars of each section are interconnected through rigid supports 30 and 40).
Regarding claim 19, Marchesan discloses the agricultural toolbar wherein the rear bar of the center section has plates adapted to support a tank assembly (see Annotated Figure 3; claim language is broad; the toolbar of Marchesan is considered adapted to support a tank assembly on the upper bar in the same way as Applicant’s invention).
PNG
media_image3.png
396
564
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Regarding claim 21, Marchesan discloses the agricultural toolbar wherein the upper transverse bar of each center and wing section is non-pivotal relative to the lower transverse bar of each center and wing section, respectively (the upper and lower bars of each section are non-pivotal relative to one another through rigid supports 30 and 40).
Regarding claim 22, Marchesan discloses the agricultural toolbar wherein the rear bars of the center and wing sections are rigidly connected to the front bars of the center and wing sections, respectively (the front and rear bars of each section are rigidly connected to one another through rigid supports 30 and 40).
Regarding claim 23, Marchesan discloses the agricultural toolbar wherein the rear bar of each center and wing section are fixed relative to the front bar on each center and wing section, respectively (the front and rear bars of each section are fixed together through rigid supports 30 and 40).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchesan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kinzenbaw (US 8733256).
Regarding claim 4, Marchesan is silent on the lower bar having a bigger cross section than the upper bar for each center and wing section.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the lower bar have a bigger cross section than the upper bar, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by adjusting the cross section of the lower bar to be larger than the upper bar.
For the sake of argument, Kinzenbaw discloses a similar agricultural toolbar (Fig 12; 40 and 42) and teaches the lower bar having a bigger cross section than the upper bar (Fig 12 depicts lower bar 40 having a bigger cross section than upper bar 42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Marchesan to incorporate the teachings of Kinzenbaw and made the lower bar have a bigger cross section than the upper bar. One would have made this modification to make the lower bar have more load capacity.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchesan as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Grieshop (US 20070169950).
Regarding claim 20, Marchesan is silent on extensible and retractable cylinders connected to the center section and respective ones of the wing sections to fold the wing sections between field and transport positions relative to the center section.
However, Grieshop discloses a similar agricultural toolbar (Figs 1-2) and teaches the use of extensible and retractable cylinders to fold the sections between a field and transport position (cylinders 138; para [0021], lines 6-9).
Marchesan and Grieshop are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of agricultural toolbars for soil conditioning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Marchesan to incorporate the teachings of Grieshop and combined the use of extensible and retractable cylinders between the center section and each side section. One would have made this combination to properly fold the side sections for storage and transport of the implement (para [0022], lines 4-10).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BLAKE SCOVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30-6 (ET).
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.
/BLAKE E SCOVILLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights