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 .
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraphs 0009, 0028 and 0031 discloses that the “rearward edge may be opposite the inner edge.” It appears that this should read, ‘’rearward edge may be opposite the forward edge—to remain consistent with the drawings and paragraph 0019.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 12 discloses “ the rearward edge opposite the inner edge”. It appears that this should read, --the rearward edge opposite the forward edge” since the outer edge is opposite the inner edge (line 9) and the drawings depict the rearward edge to be opposite the forward edge. Claim 24 includes a similar error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6-9, 12-17, 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wendler et al. (12,439,842).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 16-17 and 21, Wendler et al. discloses a closing wheel (210) coupled to a trailing arm assembly of a planter (Figure 4), the closing wheel comprising:
A hub (202)/rim support structure having a peripheral edge portion and comprising:
A first portion (208)
A second portion (206) defining a base wall (204) and two sidewalls and defining a recessed circumferential channel, the base wall having a radius of curvature (Figure 2) and coupled to the first portion
An aperture extending through a center of the first and second portions (Figure 2) and configured to receive an extension of an agricultural trailing arm assembly (Figure 4)
A modular rim (106) configured to couple to the hub within the circumferential channel and around the base wall (column 6 lines 55-57), the rim (106) comprising a plurality of modular pieces (108), each of the plurality of modular pieces including:
An inner edge defining a curved surface having the radius of curvature (Figure 3)
An outer edge opposite the inner edge, the outer edge defining repeating radial extensions (unnumbered) (Figure 3)
A forward edge extending between the inner edge and the outer edge (Figure 3)
A rearward edge, the rearward edge opposite the forward edge and configured to abut/couple to a forward edge of an adjacent modular piece (at 112) (Figure 3)
Wherein the opposing sidewalls of the hub limit a movement of the modular rim relative to the hub
Wherein the plurality of modular pieces are positioned around and attached to the peripheral edge portion
Regarding claim 2, Wendler discloses that the hub first portion (208) is configured to couple to the second portion (206) and the two portions define the recessed circumferential channel and the base wall (204).
Regarding claims 6, 12 and 16, Wendler discloses the forward edge defines a first modular coupling feature (302), the rearward edge defines a second modular coupling feature (304) configured to engage the first modular coupling feature of an adjacent piece of the plurality of modular pieces (108) to couple the adjacent pieces together (at joint 112).
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20, the first modular coupling feature (302) defines an extension from the forward edge and the second modular coupling feature (304) defines a recess in the rearward edge (Figure 3).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the repeating radial extensions (unnumbered – Figure 3) are configured to disturb soil to close a seed furrow (column 6 lines 5-12).
Regarding claim 13, the first modular coupling feature and the second modular coupling feature define welds (column 6 lines 50-53).
Regarding claim 22, the modular pieces are attached to the peripheral edge portion and are fixed relative to the hub (column 6 lines 1-4)
Regarding claim 23, the plurality of modular pieces are each engaged with two adjacent modular pieces (figure 3).
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(s) 3-5, 10-11, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendler et al. (12,439,842) in view of Smith et al. (2016/0114623).
Regarding claims 3, 5, 10-11, 18-19, Wendler et al. discloses the invention as described above, but fails to disclose an insert aligned annularly between the inner edge of the rim and the base wall of the hub to limit a movement of the rim relative to the hub wherein the hub includes a first retaining feature and the rim includes a second retaining feature. Like Wendler et la., Smith discloses a multiple part wheel with a hub and a rim for agricultural purposes. Unlike Wendler, Smith discloses an annular belt that is seated in a first retaining feature (78) on the hub and a second retaining feature (36) on the rim/member mounted to the hub. Smith discloses an annular retaining insert (42) that aids in holding the two parts of the wheel together and prevents movement between the elements during instances of axial loading. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an annular insert between the hub and rim of Wendler as taught by Smith to ensure a secure connection between the elements as the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wendler and Smith discloses the invention as described above. Smith further discloses that the annular belt can be made of any suitable material but fails to specifically disclose rubber. The examiner takes Official Notice that rubber is a well known material in the art to allow for movement between parts subjected to forces (axial loading) to prevent damage to the parts under loading. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize rubber for the annular belt in the combination since 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendler et al. (12,439,842) in view of Mariajoseph et al. (2015/0135518).
Regarding claim 24, Wendler discloses a modular rim of an agricultural wheel comprising a set of modular pieces (108) configured to be assembled together to form the modular rim (Figure 3), wherein each modular piece comprises:
An inner edge defining a curved surface
An outer edge opposite the inner edge, the outer edge defining a repeating radial extension
A forward edge extending between the inner edge and the outer edge
A rearward edge, the rearward edge opposite the forward edge and configured to engage a forward edge of an adjacent modular piece (at joint 112)
While Wendler discloses the modular rim as described above, it fails to disclose the method of manufacturing of the modular rim. Like Wendler, Mariajoseph also discloses a plurality of arched elements that join together to form a circular shape/element. Unlike Wendler, Mariajoseph discloses that it is known in the art to cut metal elements from blanks and that the blanks should be arranged to reduce waste (ppgh 0101). Mariajoseph clearly shows (Figure 7), that the arched elements are nested closely together such that the elements required to form the circular shape/element are cut from an area smaller than the area of the assembled circular shape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cut the modular rim elements of Wendler from a single sheet of material and to arrange the multiple modular pieces to minimize waste as taught by Mariajoseph.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sheets et al. (5,071,056) also discloses cutting multiple arched elements from a blank to form a circular shape and minimizing waste. Berg et al. (8,291,998) also discloses a modular closing wheel with interlocking pieces mounted to a hub.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jamie L McGowan whose telephone number is (571)272-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00-5:00 CST.
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, Chris 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.
/JAMIE L MCGOWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671