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
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Admitted Prior Art in view of Sears (2020/0002909) and Pinero et al. (2017/0132960).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, on page 1 of the Specification, Applicant admits that “It is well known that during horse competitions the soil needs to be tilled between competitors with a harrow, otherwise commonly known as an arena drag, to provide an equal playing field for each competitor.”
However, there is no display mounted to the harrow. Sears teaches mounting rotatable (paragraph 0035) displays to a machine that resurfaces an arena during a competition. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount displays to the prior art harrow mentioned in the Specification, as taught by Sears, in order to display advertising to the spectators.
Further, it appears that the displays disclosed by Sears are directly rotatably mounted to the vehicle. Pinero teaches attaching displays to a vehicle via a removable frame to which the displays are removably rotatably attached. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the disclosed by Sears to the vehicle via a removable frame, as taught by Murphy, in order to enable easy removal or replacement of the displays.
Regarding claim 2, Pinero teaches making vehicle-mounted displays weather-resistant. See paragraph 0060.
Regarding claims 4, 6, 8, and 10, it is not known how Sears and Pinero attach the frame to the vehicle and the displays to the frame. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any known attachment means because it is considered obvious to substitute components that are known to be equivalent for the same purpose, as a matter of design choice. See MPEP § 2144.06(II). In this case, all of the recited attachment means are well known.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 “has been amended to clarify that the invention is directed to: a harrow configured for use in an equestrian competition arena.” But that limitation was already accounted for in the rejection because it was based on Applicant’s admission that “It is well known that during horse competitions the soil needs to be tilled between competitors with a harrow, otherwise commonly known as an arena drag, to provide an equal playing field for each competitor.”
Applicant further argues that the claim has been amended to specify that the frame support is “mounted above the harrow and positioned to avoid interference with tilling components.” But the frame disclosed by Pinero is mounted on the roof of the vehicle. It would be impossible to mounted it any higher. Therefore, if mounted on a harrow it would be out of the way of any tilling components.
Applicant further argues that the claim has been amended to specify that the displays are adapted for outdoor use. But the displays disclosed by Pinero are weather-resistant. See paragraph 0060 of Pinero.
Applicant further argues that Sears and Pinero are non-analogous art because they allegedly do not satisfy either prong of the test for analogous art under MPEP § 2141.01(a).
On the contrary, both references satisfy the second prong, “the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).” The problem faced by the inventor was how to mount a display to a vehicle, and both Sears and Pinero are relevant to that problem.
Finally, although Pinero does suggest retracting the display, Pinero also states that “one or more components of the portable display device 105 can be water-proof or weather resistant.” (paragraph 0060).
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 GARY C HOGE whose telephone number is (571)272-6645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/GARY C HOGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631