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 § 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) 1-2, 5-10, 13-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Williamson (US 4574891).
Regarding claim 1, Williamson (‘891) discloses a disc plow weight mounting bracket device comprising:
a base plate comprised of a vertical member and a first opening (base plate 16; vertical member 38; first opening 20);
a secondary base plate comprised of a second opening (secondary base plate 18; second opening 20);
a first fastener (24);
a weight comprised of an opening (36 with opening 40); and
a second fastener (28).
Regarding claim 2, Williamson (‘891) discloses a disc plow weight mounting bracket device wherein the first fastener is comprised of a threaded bolt (24 is threaded).
Regarding claim 5, Williamson (‘891) discloses a disc plow weight mounting bracket device further comprised of a nut or a nut and washer assembly (nut 26).
Regarding claim 6, Williamson (‘891) discloses a disc plow weight mounting bracket device wherein the vertical member is positioned on a top surface of the base plate (claim language is broad; vertical member 38 is considered to be on top of the top surface of the base plate 16; Fig 1).
Regarding claim 7, Williamson (‘891) discloses a disc plow weight mounting bracket device wherein the first fastener is comprised of a clamp, a clip, or a pin (fastener 24 is considered to be a pin).
Regarding claim 8, Williamson (‘891) discloses a disc plow weight mounting bracket device comprising:
a base plate comprised of a vertical member, a first opening, and a first fastener (base plate 16; vertical member 38; first opening 20; first fastener 24);
a secondary base plate comprised of a second opening (secondary base plate 18; second opening 20);
a second fastener received by the vertical member (42; Fig 1); and
a weight comprised of an opening (weight 36 with opening 40).
Regarding claim 9, Williamson (‘891) discloses a disc plow weight mounting bracket device wherein the first fastener is comprised of a clip or a clamp (claim language is broad; first fastener 24 is considered to be a “clip” as it attaches one element to another).
Regarding claim 10, Williamson (‘891) discloses a disc plow weight mounting bracket device wherein the second fastener is comprised of a clip, a clamp, or a pin (42 is considered to be a pin).
Regarding claim 13, Williamson (‘891) discloses a disc plow weight mounting bracket device wherein the vertical member is positioned on a top surface of the base plate (claim language is broad; vertical member 38 is considered to be on top of the top surface of the base plate 16; Fig 1).
Regarding claim 14, Williamson (‘891) discloses a method of using a disc plow weight mounting bracket device, the method comprising the following steps:
providing a disc plow weight mounting bracket device comprised of a base plate comprised of a vertical member, a weight comprised of an opening, and a first fastener (base plate 16; vertical member 38; weight 36 with opening 40; first fastener 42);
securing the base plate to a frame of a disc plow (tightening of fastener 24 secures the base plate to the frame 12);
placing the weight on the vertical member via the opening (Fig 2 depicts the weight 36 being placed on the vertical member 38); and
securing the weight on the vertical member via the first fastener (placement of the first fastener 42 secures the weight on the vertical member).
Regarding claim 15, Williamson (‘891) discloses a method of using a disc plow weight mounting bracket device wherein the first fastener is comprised of a clip, a clamp, or a pin (42 is considered to be a pin).
Regarding claim 16, Williamson (‘891) discloses a method of using a disc plow weight mounting bracket device further comprised of a second mounting bracket (18).
Regarding claim 17, Williamson (‘891) discloses a method of using a disc plow weight mounting bracket device further comprised of attaching the second mounting bracket to the first mounting bracket via a second fastener (28).
Regarding claim 19, Williamson (‘891) discloses a method of using a disc plow weight mounting bracket device wherein the base plate is comprised of a clip, a clamp, or a pin (claim language is broad; nut 26 is considered to be part of the base plate and a clamp when in use with bolt 24).
Claim(s) 3-4, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson (‘891) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Williamson (US 4759411).
Regarding claim 3, Williamson (‘891) fails to specifically disclose a disc plow weight mounting bracket device wherein the first opening is comprised of a threaded opening.
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 first opening a threaded opening, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. Having a fastener thread directly into one of the objects that it is connecting is considered to be a mechanically equivalent fastening mechanism. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by either making the first opening threaded or using a threaded nut so long as the base plates are fastened together.
For the sake of argument, Williamson (‘411) also discloses a similar disc mounting bracket (Fig 1; abstract) and teaches a fastener that is threaded into a threaded opening in a plate (fastener 28; threaded opening in plate 32; col 1, 48-52). 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 Williamson (‘891) to incorporate the teachings of Williamson (‘411) and made the first opening of the base plate threaded to connect the disc mounting bracket to the frame (Williamson (‘411); col 1, 48-52).
Regarding claim 4, Williamson (‘891) fails to specifically disclose a disc plow weight mounting bracket device wherein the second opening is comprised of a threaded opening.
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 second opening a threaded opening, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. Having a fastener thread directly into one of the objects that it is connecting is considered to be a mechanically equivalent fastening mechanism. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by either making the second opening threaded or using a threaded nut so long as the base plates are fastened together.
For the sake of argument, Williamson (‘411) also discloses a similar disc mounting bracket (Fig 1; abstract) and teaches a fastener that is threaded into a threaded opening in a plate (fastener 28; threaded opening in plate 32; col 1, 48-52). 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 Williamson (‘891) to incorporate the teachings of Williamson (‘411) and made the second opening of the base plate threaded to connect the disc mounting bracket to the frame (Williamson (‘411); col 1, 48-52).
Regarding claim 11, Williamson (‘891) fails to specifically disclose a disc plow weight mounting bracket device wherein the first opening is comprised of a threaded opening.
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 first opening a threaded opening, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. Having a fastener thread directly into one of the objects that it is connecting is considered to be a mechanically equivalent fastening mechanism. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by either making the first opening threaded or using a threaded nut so long as the base plates are fastened together.
For the sake of argument, Williamson (‘411) also discloses a similar disc mounting bracket (Fig 1; abstract) and teaches a fastener that is threaded into a threaded opening in a plate (fastener 28; threaded opening in plate 32; col 1, 48-52). 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 Williamson (‘891) to incorporate the teachings of Williamson (‘411) and made the first opening of the base plate threaded to connect the disc mounting bracket to the frame (Williamson (‘411); col 1, 48-52).
Regarding claim 12, Williamson (‘891) fails to specifically disclose a disc plow weight mounting bracket device wherein the second opening is comprised of a threaded opening.
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 second opening a threaded opening, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. Having a fastener thread directly into one of the objects that it is connecting is considered to be a mechanically equivalent fastening mechanism. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by either making the second opening threaded or using a threaded nut so long as the base plates are fastened together.
For the sake of argument, Williamson (‘411) also discloses a similar disc mounting bracket (Fig 1; abstract) and teaches a fastener that is threaded into a threaded opening in a plate (fastener 28; threaded opening in plate 32; col 1, 48-52). 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 Williamson (‘891) to incorporate the teachings of Williamson (‘411) and made the second opening of the base plate threaded to connect the disc mounting bracket to the frame (Williamson (‘411); col 1, 48-52).
Claim(s) 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson as applied to claims 17 and 19 above, and further in view of Hake et al. (US 8746361).
Regarding claim 18, Williamson (‘891) fails to specifically disclose a method of using a disc plow weight mounting bracket device further comprised of positioning the first mounting bracket and the second bracket on the frame of the disc plow above a disc gang of the disc plow.
However, Hake discloses a similar disc mounting bracket (Figs 9-11) and teaches the use of this mounting bracket with a disc gang (36a-d or 38a-d).
Williamson (‘891) and Hake are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of mounting brackets for agricultural discs. 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 Williamson (891) to incorporate the teachings of Hake and used the mounting bracket of Williamson (‘891) with a disc gang of multiple discs. One would have made this combination to carry out the tilling function of the machine with fewer mounting brackets and to reach larger swaths of land (Hake; col 1, lines 15-18).
The combination is considered to disclose the method where the first and second bracket of Williamson (‘891) are assembled on the frame above a disc gang as claimed.
Regarding claim 20, Williamson (‘891) fails to specifically disclose a method of using a disc plow weight mounting bracket device further comprised of attaching the clip, the clamp, or the pin to the frame of the disc plow above a disc gang of the disc plow.
However, Hake discloses a similar disc mounting bracket (Figs 9-11) and teaches the use of this mounting bracket with a disc gang (36a-d or 38a-d).
Williamson (‘891) and Hake are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of mounting brackets for agricultural discs. 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 Williamson (891) to incorporate the teachings of Hake and used the mounting bracket of Williamson (‘891) with a disc gang of multiple discs. One would have made this combination to carry out the tilling function of the machine with fewer mounting brackets and to reach larger swaths of land (Hake; col 1, lines 15-18).
The combination is considered to disclose the method where the clamp 26 of Williamson (‘891) is assembled on the frame above a disc gang as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rozendaal et al. (US 20110056712) discloses a similar mounting bracket for agricultural tools.
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