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 .
Specification / Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of an apparent omission of a word. On line 3 of the abstract, between “bottom” and “.”, it appears that the word -- member -- should be inserted, which would be consistent with the specification and claims of the application.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 10, on line 2, “tapper” should be replaced with --tapered-- (see specification, paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 14, on line 1, --the -- should be inserted between “of ” (second occurrence) and “laser-welded” (antecedent basis provided in claim 12).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 19 is 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.
Regarding claim 19, on line 1, the recitation, “the second connecting member” lacks clear antecedent basis. Is this recitation intended to refer to the “second connecting plate” introduced in claim 11?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouten, US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0273626.
As to claim 1, Bouten shows truss structure (see Figs. 2 and 3) for a spray boom assembly (see Fig. 1) comprising: a top member (30A); a bottom member (30B); a first truss member (34: which includes portions 46, 42A and 42B) positioned between the top member and the bottom member; a first connecting member (50A) welded to the top member (see the second from last sentence in paragraph [0030]); and a second connecting member (50B) welded to the bottom member (see again, the second from last sentence in paragraph [0030]). However, while Bouten shows (see again, Figs. 2 and 3) and describes (see the first sentence in paragraph [0030]) the first connecting member and the second connecting member each being fixedly connected to the first truss member, Bouten does not expressly state that such connection is achieved by welding, although Bouten does expressly state that such can be achieved “with any means using sound engineering judgement” (see again, paragraph [0030]). Since there does not appear to be any reason, expressed or implied by Bouten, that the first and second connecting members cannot be welded to the first truss member, and since welding is expressly disclosed by Bouten as at least one reliable means for connecting the first truss member to each of the top and bottom members, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use welding in order to reliably connect the first and second connecting members to the first truss member, as such would have been well within the ordinary skill of one in the art, and would certainly be a reasonable connecting means option which one having ordinary skill in the art would deem as falling within the category of sound engineering judgement.
Claim 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouten, in view of Wissler et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0000103.
As to claim 2, modified Bouten shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1, and further, based on how the second connecting member is shown and described to be welded to the bottom member (i.e., 50B has an “enclosed shape that fits around” the bottom member, and is “fastened” thereto “by welding”; see again, paragraph [0030]), then an associated weld in this case implicitly connects the two overlapping materials with a lap joint. However, Bouten is silent as to “laser” welding being the type of welding used for the lap joint, although one having ordinary skill would clearly recognize laser welding was a well-known type of welding process for creating lap joint welds.
Wissler shows a truss structure (see Figs. 1-10) for a spray boom assembly having a similar design as compared to that of Bouten, and Wissler also discloses that the corresponding top and bottom members (8) of the truss structure can be welded to truss members (9) positioned between the top and bottom members using “laser” welding (see paragraph [0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use laser welding, as taught by Wissler, for the more broadly disclosed welding discussed above with respect to the Bouten structure, since laser welding was a well-known type of welding for reliably making connections between a truss member and top and bottom members of a truss structure for a spray boom assembly.
As to claim 5, while neither Bouten nor Wissler expressly state that a filler material is included with the laser-welded lap joint, it should first be noted that Applicant’s own disclosure does not set forth any criticality with respect to inclusion of such a filler material (see paragraph [0039] of the instant application specification). It should also be noted that it was well-known in the art of laser welding to include a filler material when performing a laser welding process, as such additive materials are melted along with the base materials of the weld to create a stronger and more reliable weld joint, which is also more resistant to defects, such as cracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a filler material, as was well-known and common, with the laser-welded lap joint of modified Bouten, thus creating a stronger and more reliable weld joint, which is also more resistant to defects, such as cracking.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouten, in view of Fochtman et al., US Patent Application No. 2008/0264389.
As to claim 6, modified Bouten shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1. However, Bouten is silent as to whether or not the associated weld joint between the second connecting member and the bottom member is inset from an outer edge of the second connecting member. It should be noted, as previously discussed, based on how the second connecting member is shown and described to be welded to the bottom member (i.e., 50B has an “enclosed shape that fits around” the bottom member, and is “fastened” thereto “by welding”; see again, paragraph [0030]), then an associated weld in this case implicitly connects the two overlapping materials with a lap joint. One having ordinary skill would readily understand that the location of at least one lap-type weld joint between the aforementioned parts of Bouten would necessarily be at one of two locations; either at one or both ends of the outer, overlapping connecting member, or inset from an outer edge of one or both ends of the overlapping connecting member. It should also be noted that locating lap joint weld seams/beads in an inset manner was well known prior to the instant application.
Indeed, Fochtman shows (see Fig. 2) a tubular element (210) which is sleeved over another tubular element (208) in a similar manner as compared to that of Bouten (i.e., between the second connecting member and the bottom member), and Fochtman teaches forming an endless lap-type weld joint (281) which is inset from an outer edge of element “210” using a laser welding technique (299) in order to create a reliable welded connection between the two elements (see paragraphs [0035] and [0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the weld seam/bead disclosed by Bouten in a manner whereby it is inset from an outer edge of the second connecting member, as conceptually taught by Fochtman, since there are essentially only two location options (i.e., inset from an outer edge/end of the connecting member, or at an outer edge/end of the connecting member) of the weld joint disclosed by Bouten; and Fochtman shows that locating the weld joint in an inset manner was known to be reliable prior to the filing date of the instant application.
As to claim 7, modified Bouten shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 6, however, Bouten does not expressly state that a filler material is included with the weld joint. It should again be noted that Applicant’s own disclosure does not set forth any criticality with respect to inclusion of such a filler material (see paragraph [0039] of the instant application specification). It should also be noted that it was well-known in the welding arts to include a filler material when performing a welding process, as such additive materials are melted along with the base materials of the weld to create a stronger and more reliable weld joint, which is also more resistant to defects, such as cracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a filler material, as was well-known and common, with the weld joint of modified Bouten, thus creating a stronger and more reliable weld joint, which is also more resistant to defects, such as cracking.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouten, as modified by Wissler et al. and applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Fochtman.
As to claim 3, modified Bouten shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 2, however (modified) Bouten does not expressly disclose that the laser-welded lap joint is an endless weld joint. It should be noted, one having ordinary skill would readily understand that the laser-welded lap joint of modified Bouten would necessarily be one of two types; either endless or not endless; and one of ordinary skill would also understand that both types were well known prior to the instant application.
Indeed, Fochtman shows (see Fig. 2) a tubular element (210) which is sleeved over another tubular element (208) in a similar manner as compared to that of Bouten (i.e., between the second connecting member and the bottom member), and Fochtman teaches forming an endless lap-type weld joint (281) which is inset from an outer edge of element “210” using a laser welding technique (299) in order to create a reliable welded connection between the two elements (see paragraphs [0035] and [0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the laser-welded lap joint of modified Bouten, in an endless manner, as conceptually taught by Fochtman, since there are essentially only two possible weld seam-type options (i.e., either endless or not endless) for the laser-welded lap joint of modified Bouten; and Fochtman shows that forming a laser-welded lap joint in an endless manner was known to be reliable prior to the filing date of the instant application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-18 and 20 are allowed.
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4 and 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, alone or in combination, did not show or teach a boom segment for a spray boom assembly configured to carry a spray system of a work vehicle, with the boom segment comprising: each of the first and second truss panels including a first connecting plate welded to the top member and a first crossmember of the plurality of the truss members, and a second connecting plate welded to the bottom member and the first crossmember, together with the other recited limitations as set forth in claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publications to Wubben et al., Honermann et al., Barker et al., Pilney, Beggs, Hiddema et al., Gautron et al., Lasne et al. and Soliman, are cited as of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752