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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “64” has been used to designate both the tip of the front nose and the tip of the wings in para. [0019]. The Examiner believes that the wing tips should instead designate a rearmost tip of the wings 14,18 (i.e. the rear tip adjacent portion 70 shown in Fig. 4) based on Applicant’s claims 8 and 9, which recite “the body from wing tip to wing tip is about 8.5 inches wide”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 3, 5-6, 9-11 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.
Claims 3 and 9 recite the limitation "the wide base” in lines 1-2 and 10, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Furthermore, it appears that the width of the wedge-shaped nose plate 30 is actually narrower at “the wide base” 60 (i.e. at the forward tip of the nose plate 30, see Fig. 4). The Examiner believes the Applicant intends to claim that a thicker portion 60 of the wedge-shaped nose plate is disposed at a tip of the nose to improve durability (see Fig. 5, para. [0019]). The Examiner has therefore interpreted “the wide base” in claims 3 and 9 as reading --a thicker portion— for purposes of examination.
Claims 3 and 9 recite the limitation "the tip” (of the nose) in lines 2 and 10, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 5 and 9 recite the limitation "the front nose bottom surface” in lines 2 and 12, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
The term “about” in claims 5-6 and 8-9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is therefore unclear what tolerances apply to “about a 17-degree angle,” “about a 35.5 degree angle,” and “about 8.5 inches wide”.
Claims 6 and 9 recite the limitation “the respective leading edge bottom surface” in lines 2 and 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Furthermore, it is unclear which leading edges are being referred as independent claims 1 and 9 set forth both “left and right wings…with leading edges” and “a pair of leading-edge tungsten carbide edge plates”. For purposes of examination, the Examiner has interpreted this portion of the claims as reading --the respective wing leading edge bottom surface--.
By virtue of their dependence on claim 9, the bases of rejection for claim 9 above also apply to dependent claims 10-11.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baernthaler (US 20190230838 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Baernthaler discloses a sweep (1, Figs. 4-8) for cultivating soil in a field, the sweep comprising:
opposite left and right wings joined at a center line to form a V-shaped symmetrical body (“V-shaped base body 2”) with leading edges (9), the body having a top surface and a bottom surface, with each wing having a wing tip, the wings forming a front nose (wing tips and front nose designated in annotated image 1 below), with the leading edge of each wing being spaced rearwardly from the nose (Fig. 8),
a neck extending upwardly from the center line of the symmetrical body (see annotated image 1 below), the neck being adapted for mounting the sweep to a cultivator (para. [0033]),
a nose plate (5) attached to the body top surface at the front nose (Fig. 6, para. [0036]), and
a pair of leading-edge tungsten carbide edge plates (4, para. [0013] first cutting elements 4 are formed from tungsten carbide), one of each is attached to a top of a respective wing leading edge (Fig. 7, para. [0034], note claim does not require that only one plate be attached to each leading edge, and dependent claim 7 further states that the front edge plates comprise a plurality of smaller plates).
PNG
media_image1.png
371
477
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image 1 of Fig. 4 of Baernthaler
Baernthaler does not explicitly detail wherein the nose plate (i.e. second cutting element 5) is also constructed from tungsten carbide.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the nose plate from the same material as the edge plates, since Baernthaler teaches that tungsten carbide provides advantageous mechanical characteristics in terms of strength, toughness, and abrasive properties for the cutting elements (para. [0013]). Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice, as it is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 4, Baernthaler discloses the sweep according to claim 1 wherein a portion of each of the edge plates (4) extends outwardly from its respective wing tip (see annotated image 2 of Fig. 6 below, circled portions extend laterally outward from wing tips).
PNG
media_image2.png
229
391
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image 2 of Fig. 6 of Baernthaler
Regarding claim 6, Baernthaler discloses the sweep according to claim 1 wherein each of the edge plates (4) has an upper surface that extends at an angle between 20° to 50°, 25° to 35° (para. [0017]), or roughly 30 degrees (para. [0034]) from a respective wing leading edge bottom surface (13) (para. [0017]), but does not explicitly detail 35.5 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the angle of the edges plate to be 35.5 degrees, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside/close to ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. ). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Baernthaler discloses the sweep according to claim 1 wherein each of the front edge plates (4) comprises a plurality of smaller plates (plurality of cutting plates 4) adjacent to each other (Fig. 4,6).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baernthaler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Widmaier et al. (CN 102984932 A).
It is noted that all citations to Widmaier et al. (CN 102984932 A) are in reference to the corresponding English-translated document attached by the Examiner under NPL documents.
Regarding claim 2, Baernthaler discloses the sweep according to claim 1, wherein the plates are attached via a materially bonded connection (para. [0034]) but does not explicitly detail wherein the nose plate is attached by brazing.
In the same field of endeavor, Widmaier discloses a similar sweep comprising a nose plate (20) attached to a front nose (14.1) by brazing (Fig. 1-2, para. [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to attach the nose plate of Baernthaler via brazing, as a mere simple substitution of one known bonding process for another, as Widmaier teaches that brazing was a known effective materially bonded connection for attaching similar nose plates in the art.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baernthaler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scherf et al. (DE 102016104149 A1).
It is noted that all citations to Scherf et al. (DE 102016104149 A1) are in reference to the corresponding English-translated document attached by the Examiner under NPL documents.
Regarding claim 3, Baernthaler discloses sweep according to claim 1, but does not explicitly detail wherein the nose plate (5) is wedge shaped, with a thicker portion of the wedge-shaped nose plate at the tip of the nose.
In the same field of endeavor, Scherf discloses a soil cultivation tool (Figs. 1-11) comprising a similar front nose plate (6), wherein the nose plate is wedge-shaped with a thicker portion of the wedge-shaped nose plate at the tip (5) of the nose (Figs. 4-7, para. [0045] “The hard metal plate 6 has a greater thickness in its area facing the tip 7 than at its upper end”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design a wedge-shaped nose plate for the sweep of Baernthaler with a thicker portion disposed at the tip of the nose, as Scherf teaches that such a design provides improved wear protection and contributes to a long service life of the plate (Scherf at para. [0012]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baernthaler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Parker (US 5499686 A).
Regarding claim 5, Baernthaler discloses the sweep according to claim 1, but does not explicitly detail wherein an upper surface of the nose plate extends at about a 17-degree angle from a bottom surface of the front nose.
In the same field of endeavor, Parker discloses a similar sweep (18, Figs. 2-3) comprising a front nose (forward portion of 138 terminating in tip 148) wherein the nose has an upper surface (“top surface of the member 138”) that extends at angle of around 20 degrees or less from the front nose bottom surface (149) (from col. 5 lines 6-16, bottom surface 149 slopes upwardly at an acute angle of “preferably greater than about 10 degrees”, while top surface of the member 138 extends at an angle of “preferably approximately 30 degrees” relative to the horizontal. Thus, the difference is taken to obtain the angle of the nose upper surface relative to the nose lower surface, i.e. ~ 20 degrees or less).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the nose plate of Baernthaler extending at about a 17-degree angle from the front nose bottom surface, as Parker teaches that such a nose angle provides soil lifting action while also creating a self-sharpening effect for the point tip as it wears with use (col. 5 lines 9-11). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baernthaler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Senchuk (CA 2627095 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Baernthaler discloses the sweep according to claim 1, but does not explicitly detail wherein the body (2) from wing tip to wing tip is about 8.5 inches wide.
In the same field of endeavor, Senchuk discloses a similar sweep wherein the full span of the sweep wings is between 5 and 12 inches (page 29 lines 10-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the Sweep of Baernthaler having a width of 8.5 inches, as Senchuk teaches it known to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a width between 5 and 12 inches on the basis of the desired application of the sweep (Senchuk page 29, lines 9-10). Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baernthaler (US 20190230838 A1) in view of Senchuk (CA 2627095 A1), Scherf et al. (DE 102016104149 A1), and further in view of Parker (US 5499686 A).
Regarding independent claim 9, Baernthaler discloses a sweep (1, Figs. 4-8) for cultivating soil in a field, the sweep comprising:
opposite left and right wings joined at a center line to form a V-shaped symmetrical body (“V-shaped base body 2”) with leading edges (9), the body having a top surface and a bottom surface, with each wing having a wing tip, the wings forming a front nose (wing tips and front nose designated in annotated image 1 above), with the leading edge of each wing being spaced rearwardly from the nose (Fig. 8);
a neck extending upwardly from the center line of the symmetrical body (see annotated image 1 above), the neck being adapted for mounting the sweep to a cultivator (para. [0033]);
a nose plate (5) attached to the body top surface at the front nose (Fig. 6, para. [0036]); and
a pair of leading-edge tungsten carbide edge plates (4, para. [0013] first cutting elements 4 are formed of tungsten carbide), one of each is attached to a top of a respective wing leading edge (Fig. 7, para. [0034]), a portion of each of the edge plates extends outwardly from its respective wing tip (see annotated image 2 of Fig. 6 above, circled portions extend laterally outward from wing tips), and the edge plates each have an upper surface that extends at an angle between about 20° to 50°, preferably 25° to 35° (para. [0017]), or roughly 30 degrees (para. [0034]) from a respective wing leading edge bottom surface (13) (para. [0017]), but does not explicitly detail 35.5 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the angle of the edges plate to be 35.5 degrees, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside/close to ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. ). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Baernthaler does not explicitly detail wherein the nose plate (i.e. second cutting element 5) is also constructed from tungsten carbide.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the nose plate from the same material as the edge plates, since Baernthaler teaches that tungsten carbide provides advantageous mechanical characteristics in terms of strength, toughness, and abrasive properties for the cutting elements (para. [0013]). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice, as it is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Baernthaler does not explicitly detail wherein the body from wing tip to wing tip is about 8.5 inches wide.
In the same field of endeavor, Senchuk discloses a similar sweep wherein the full span of the sweep wings is between 5 and 12 inches (page 29 lines 10-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the Sweep of Baernthaler with a width of 8.5 inches, as Senchuk teaches it known to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a width between 5 and 12 inches on the basis of desired application of the sweep (Senchuk page 29, lines 9-10). Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Baernthaler does not explicitly detail wherein the nose plate (5) is wedge shaped, with a thicker portion of the wedge-shaped nose plate at the tip of the nose.
In the same field of endeavor, Scherf discloses a soil cultivation tool (Figs. 1-11) comprising a similar front nose plate (6), wherein the nose plate is wedge-shaped with a thicker portion of the wedge-shaped nose plate at the tip (5) of the nose (Figs. 4-7, para. [0045] “The hard metal plate 6 has a greater thickness in its area facing the tip 7 than at its upper end”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design a wedge-shaped nose plate for the sweep of Baernthaler with a thicker portion disposed at the tip of the nose, as Scherf teaches that such a design provides improved wear protection and contributes to a long service life of the plate (Scherf at para. [0012]).
Baernthaler does not explicitly detail wherein an upper surface of the nose plate extends at about a 17-degree angle from a bottom surface of the front nose.
In the same field of endeavor, Parker discloses a similar sweep (18, Figs. 2-3) comprising a front nose (forward portion of 138 terminating in tip 148) wherein the nose has an upper surface (“top surface of the member 138”) that extends at angle of around 20 degrees or less from the front nose bottom surface (149) (from col. 5 lines 6-16, bottom surface 149 slopes upwardly at an acute angle of “preferably greater than about 10 degrees”, while top surface of the member 138 extends at an angle of “preferably approximately 30 degrees” relative to the horizontal. Thus, the difference is taken to obtain the angle of the nose upper surface relative to the nose lower surface, i.e. ~ 20 degrees or less).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the nose plate of Baernthaler extending at about a 17-degree angle from the front nose bottom surface, as Parker teaches that such a nose angle provides soil lifting action while also creating a self-sharpening effect for the point tip as it wears with use (col. 5 lines 9-11). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Baernthaler discloses the sweep according to claim 9. Baernthaler further teaches wherein each of the front edge plates (4) comprises a plurality of smaller plates (plurality of cutting plates 4) adjacent to each other (Fig. 4,6).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Baernthaler as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Widmaier et al. (CN 102984932 A).
Regarding claim 10, Baernthaler discloses the sweep according to claim 9 wherein the plates are attached via a materially bonded connection (para. [0034]) but does not explicitly detail wherein the nose plate is attached by brazing.
In the same field of endeavor, Widmaier discloses a similar sweep comprising a nose plate (20) attached to a front nose (14.1) by brazing (Fig. 1-2, para. [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to attach the nose plate of Baernthaler via brazing, as Widmaier teaches that this was a known and effective materially bonded connection for attaching similar nose plates in the art, and since this is a mere simple substitution of one known bonding process for another to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Moyle (US 5172770 A) discloses an agricultural share with tungsten carbide inserts. Bergan et al. (US 5813475 A) discloses a hard-faced agricultural sweep. Beyer (US 6382328 B1) discloses a wear resistant ground working implement. Poutre (US 20040060716 A1) discloses a tillage sweep. Poutre (US 20050252668 A1) discloses a multi-speed sweep. Carson et al. (US 20090090524 A1) discloses a corner wear protection for a seeding tool. Smeets et al. (US 20120145421 A1) discloses a cultivating blade with carbide inserts. Ingersoil (US 20120227993 A1) discloses a tillage point. Balvanz et al. (US 20130252023 A1) discloses an edge wear coating for a sweep. Smeets et al. (US 20160353652 A1) discloses a sweep for cultivating with cutting elements attached by brazing. Carbaugh et al. (US 20170196159 A1) discloses a tillage point. Milatz (US 20190133028 A1) discloses a carbide furrowing tip.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671