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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 3, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Note: A duplicate IDS also dated November 3, 2023 was submitted, has been X’d through and a copy enclosed with this action.
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 1 and 3-26 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.
In claim 1, line 17; claim 7, line 8; claim 10, line 2; claim 16, line 3 and claim 18, line 3 applicant employs the term “preferably”. The term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
In claims 11 and 13, lines 1-2, “the connecting member” appears to lack proper antecedent basis in regard to independent claim 2.
In claim 15, line 3; claim 20, line 2 and claim 22, lines 3 and 4, applicant employs the phrase “and/or”. As employed, the phrase is inherently unclear in that it does not allow one to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter (i.e., “feature A and B” is clearly of a differing scope than “feature A or B”) and therein rendering the claimed subject matter indefinite.
In claim 16, line 4 and claim 17, line 3, applicant claims “the slide rod”. However there is a prior mention of several “slide rod(s)” (i.e., claim 15, lines 2 and 3, claim 17, line 2) and it is unclear as to which “slide rod” is being referred to one each occasion and therein rendering the claimed subject matter indefinite.
In claim 22, line 3, “the slide actuator appears to lack proper antecedent basis.
Claims 3-6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 19, 21 and 23-26 are rejected based on their claim dependencies.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, 15-19 and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garner et al. (USPGPub 2023/0232729) in view of DeKam et al. (USPGPub 2021/0127548).
Regarding claim 1: Garner discloses a width-variable tillage device (as seen in figures 3, 4 and 6-8) comprising:
a frame (as seen in figure 1, at 12) to be pulled behind a towing vehicle (page 8, paragraph [0084], line 4);
a first guide mechanism (as seen in figure 3, at 312) which is configured as a leading four-bar guide mechanism (as seen in figure 1, area of 16) and is connected to the frame (as seen in figure 1), and which includes: a depth guide element (as seen in figure 1, “depth” wheel next to disk 22) which travels on the ground in order to regulate a height of the first guide mechanism above the ground and a second guide mechanism (as seen in figure 3, at 318) which is configured as a trailing guide mechanism, is connected to the frame (as seen in figure 3, via 340, 342) and has at least one tool for tillage (as seen in figures 1 and 3, at 22).
Further, Garner discloses a connecting member (as seen in annotated figure 3 below) which connects the first guide mechanism and the second guide mechanism (as seen in figure 3, via members 340,342) such that (i) the second guide mechanism follows the height of the first guide mechanism (as seen in figure 3, ends of 340 and 342, via “pinned” connections) and (ii) the second guide mechanism can be moved in a transverse direction (as seen in figure 3, as denoted by arrow 328) which extends transversely to the direction of travel of the frame; and a width adjustment unit (as seen in figure 3, either of 324 or 326; also, page 4, paragraphs [0047] to [0048]) which can adjust a distance in the transverse direction between the first guide mechanism and the second guide mechanism (as seen between figures 3 and 4) but fails to show an actuator which actuates the height of the first guide mechanism between a working position and an elevated position.
PNG
media_image1.png
177
195
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, DeKam teaches that it is well known to provide such actuators in concert with tillage devices (as seen in figures 1-3). DeKam discloses the state of the art tillage device wherein the tillage device is attached to a frame (as seen in figure 1, at generally 14) to be towed by a towing vehicle and employs a guide mechanism of four-bar construction (as seen in figure 2, area of 70). Further, DeKam discloses an actuator (as seen in figures 2 and 3, area of 62) which actuates the height of the guide mechanism between a working position close to the ground (as seen in figure 2), in which the guide mechanism is guided by the depth guide element, and an elevated position remote from the ground (as seen in figure 3), in which the guide mechanism is not guided by the depth guide element. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Garner with the teachings of DeKam since it would be a simple matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable results of a tillage device capable of being more easily moved over various surfaces because of added tool clearance, absent any showing to the contrary.
Regarding claim 2: Garner discloses a width-variable tillage device (as seen in figures 3, 4 and 6-8) comprising:
a frame (as seen in figure 1, at 12) to be pulled behind a towing vehicle (page 8, paragraph [0084], line 4);
a first guide mechanism (as seen in figure 3, at 312) which is configured as a four-bar guide mechanism (as seen in figure 1, area of 16); and,
a second guide mechanism (as seen in figure 3, at 318) which is configured as a four-bar guide mechanism (as seen in figure 1, area of 16) and has at least one tool for tillage (as seen in figures 1 and 3, at 22); wherein each of the first guide mechanism and the second guide mechanism is connected to the frame and has a depth guide element (as seen in figure 1, “depth” wheel next to disk 22) which travels on the ground in order to regulate a height of the respective guide mechanism above the ground.
Further, Garner discloses the device having a width adjustment unit (as seen in figure 3, either of 324 or 326; also, page 4, paragraphs [0047] to [0048]) which can adjust a distance in a transverse direction which extends transversely to the direction of travel (as seen in figure 3, as denoted by arrow 328) of the frame between the first guide mechanism and the second guide mechanism (as seen between figures 3 and 4) but fails to show an actuator which actuates the height of the guide mechanisms between a working position and an elevated position.
However, DeKam teaches that it is well known to provide such actuators in concert with tillage devices (as seen in figures 1-3). DeKam discloses the state of the art tillage device wherein the tillage device is attached to a frame (as seen in figure 1, at generally 14) to be towed by a towing vehicle and employs a guide mechanism of four-bar construction (as seen in figure 2, area of 70). Further, DeKam discloses an actuator (as seen in figures 2 and 3, area of 62) which actuates the height of the guide mechanism between a working position close to the ground (as seen in figure 2), in which the guide mechanism is guided by the depth guide element, and an elevated position remote from the ground (as seen in figure 3), in which the guide mechanism is not guided by the depth guide element. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Garner with the teachings of DeKam since it would be a simple matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable results of a tillage device capable of being more easily moved over various surfaces because of added tool clearance, absent any showing to the contrary.
Regarding claim 3: Garner as modified by DeKam discloses the width-variable tillage device of claim 1 or 2. Further, Garner discloses wherein the first guide mechanism is connected to the frame such that it is not movable in the transverse direction relative to the frame (as seen in figures 3 and 4, where the “first” guide mechanism is the embodiment at member 312).
Regarding claim 4: Garner as modified by DeKam discloses the width-variable tillage device of claim 1 or 2. Further, Garner discloses wherein the first guide mechanism is connected to the frame such that it is movable in the transverse direction relative to the frame (as seen in figures 3 and 4, where the “first” guide mechanism is the embodiment at member 314).
Regarding claim 5: Garner as modified by DeKam discloses the width-variable tillage device of claim 4. Further, Garner discloses wherein the width adjustment unit changes the distance in the transverse direction between the first guide mechanism and the second guide mechanism uniformly relative to the frame (as seen in figures 3 to 4 and 6 to 7).
Regarding claim 6: Garner as modified by DeKam discloses the width-variable tillage device of claim 1 or 2. Further, as discussed above, the resultant device of Garner as modified by DeKam would obviously have the second guide mechanism of a four-bar guide construction (Garner, as seen in figure 1, area of 16) and have a depth guide element and an actuator which actuates the height of the second guide mechanism between its working position and its elevated position.
Regarding claim 7: Garner as modified by DeKam discloses the width-variable tillage device of claim 2. Further Garner as modified by DeKam would obviously provide wherein the first guide mechanism is a leading guide mechanism which has the actuator (DeKam, as seen in figures 2 and 3, area of 62), and the second guide mechanism is a trailing guide mechanism which is provided with a connecting member (as seen in annotated figure 3 below) which connects the first guide mechanism and the second guide mechanism such that (i) the second guide mechanism follows the height of the first guide mechanism (as seen in figure 3, ends of 340 and 342, via “pinned” connections) and (ii) the second guide mechanism can be moved in a transverse direction which extends transversely to the direction of travel of the frame (as seen in figure 3, as denoted by arrow 328).
.
PNG
media_image1.png
177
195
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8: Garner as modified by DeKam discloses the width-variable tillage device of claim 7. Further Garner discloses wherein the connecting member can interrupt the connection for transmitting forces in the vertical direction between the first guide mechanism and the second guide mechanism (as seen in figure 3, ends of 340 and 342, via “pinned” connections which only have a degree of freedom in a horizontal plane).
Regarding claim 10: Garner as modified by DeKam discloses the width-variable tillage device of claim 1 or 2. Further Garner discloses the device comprising at least one further second guide mechanism or all second guide mechanisms are arranged on one side of the first guide mechanism in the transverse direction (as seen in figures 6-8).
Regarding claim 15: Garner as modified by DeKam discloses the width-variable tillage device of claim 1 or 2. Further Garner discloses wherein the width adjustment unit has a slide rod (as seen in figure 3, at 340 or 342) to which the second guide mechanism is articulated (as seen between figures 3 and 4, via “pins” at either end of 340 or 342).
Regarding claims 16-18: Garner as modified by DeKam discloses the width-variable tillage device of claim 15. Further Garner discloses a plurality of second guide mechanism (as seen in figure 3, at 316, 318) wherein a displacement of the slide rod of each mechanism in the transverse direction results in a movement of the associated guide mechanism in the transverse direction and the slide rod is actuated via a slide actuator (as seen between figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 19: Garner as modified by DeKam discloses the width-variable tillage device of claim 18. Further Garner discloses an embodiment wherein a plurality of second guide mechanisms are actuated by a common slide actuator (page 4, paragraph [0048], lines 1-2).
Regarding claims 22-24 and 26: Garner as modified by DeKam discloses the width-variable tillage device of claim 1 or 2. Further Garner discloses wherein the actuator of the first guide mechanism, the actuator of the second guide mechanism and the slide actuator are actuated hydraulically, electromechanically or manually (page 7, paragraph [0081]) and wherein the first guide mechanism comprises at least one tool for tillage (as seen in figure 1, at 22 tillage “disk”) and wherein the depth guide element is a support wheel (as seen in figure 1).
Regarding claims 25: Garner as modified by DeKam discloses the width-variable tillage device of claim 24. Further DeKam discloses wherein a working angle of the cutting disc is adjustable (as seen between figures 2 and 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11-14, 20 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not show or reasonably suggest in a width-variable tillage device and in combination with other claimed features/limitations a connecting member having the structure make-up as claimed in claims 11-12 or being capable of interrupting transmitted forces in specific directions while allowing for that transmission of force in others based on that structural make-up. Also, the prior art does not show or reasonably suggest in a width-variable tillage device and in combination with other claimed features/limitations guide rods within the device and having the movement as per claim 20 or the reinforcing strut devices of claim 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Quattrini (USPGPub 2023/0041427) discloses a tillage device a variable width and having subsoil type tools.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT ERIC PEZZUTO whose telephone number is (703)756-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at 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 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.
/ROBERT E PEZZUTO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671