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 § 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 15-20 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.
Claim 15 recites “a rim rotatable around a first axis of rotation” in line 6 and “an axis of rotation of the wheel” in lines 8-9, however, they appear to refer to the same rotation axis 436 (see Fig. 4B). Therefore, it is unclear if Applicant intends to introduce a separate axis or refer back the same axis. The claims must be amended to make clear that the axes set forth are the same axis if this is the case. For purposes of examination, “an axis of rotation of the wheel” in lines 8-9 has been interpreted as reading –the first axis of rotation--.
By virtue of their dependence on claim 1, this basis of rejection also applies to dependent claims 16 -20.
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, 3-4, 7-10, 14-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlagel (US 5970891 A) in view of Weisz et al. (US 20170208734 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schlagel discloses an agricultural gauge wheel (100, Figs. 11A-11B), comprising:
a hub (101) which rotates about an axis;
a rim (102) extending radially relative to the axis, the rim defining a circumferential portion and a center plane defined as a plane perpendicular to the axis and bisecting the rim;
a tread defined by a plurality of tine portions (103) attached to and extending outward from the rim and away from the center plane to an outer tread edge (i.e. distal tips of fingers 103), wherein the plurality of tine portions define an inside diameter of the tread and are spaced apart about the axis of rotation to define voids (i.e. spaces) between adjacent tine portions of the plurality of tine portions (Fig. 11B).
Schlagel fails to disclose a separately formed liner secured to the rim and spaced radially inward from the plurality of tine portions such that the liner includes an outer diameter less than the inside diameter of the tread.
In the same area, Weisz discloses a gauge wheel liner (26) secured to the rim (22) of a gauge wheel (Fig. 7), wherein the liner is disposed radially inward from a tread (24) and the rim (22) such that an outer diameter of the liner is less than an inner diameter of the tread and rim (as seen in Fig. 3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar liner in the gauge wheel of Schlagel, as taught by Weisz, in order to extend the useful life of the wheel as well as increase the contact area between the wheel and opening disc, thereby improving operating efficiency by minimizing downtime due to poor scraping or required maintenance (see Abstract and para. [0079] of Weisz).
Regarding claim 3, Schlagel in view of Weisz discloses the agricultural gauge wheel of claim 1, the liner having an outer liner edge which defines an outer edge of the agricultural gauge wheel, wherein the outer liner edge is disposed further beyond the outer tread edge relative to the center plane (as seen in Figs. 3B and 7 of Weisz, outer liner edge 68 of the liner 26 defines an axially outermost edge of the gauge wheel as it is disposed further beyond outer edge 62 of the rim and tread portions 22,24).
Regarding claim 4, Schlagel in view of Weisz discloses the agricultural gauge wheel of claim 1. Weisz further teaches wherein the liner (26) includes a closed loop configuration (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Schlagel in view of Weisz discloses the agricultural gauge wheel of claim 1. Schlagel further teaches wherein each of the tine portions (103) are each formed from a tine extending from a radially outermost surface (i.e. peripheral surface) of the rim (102) in a direction that includes a component in one or more of a radial direction, a component in an axial direction, or a component in a tangential direction (see Fig. 11B).
Regarding claim 8, Schlagel in view of Weisz discloses the agricultural gauge wheel of claim 7. Schlagel further teaches wherein the tine (103) and the radially outermost surface (of the rim 102) define a tine plane that forms a chord along the radially outermost surface that intersects no more than two chords of adjacent tine portions within the circumferential portion (it can be seen from Fig. 11B that the chords formed by planes of tines 103 along the face of rim 102 would not intersect).
Regarding claim 21, Schlagel in view of Weisz discloses the agricultural gauge wheel of claim 1. Schlagel further teaches wherein each of the plurality of tine portions (103) are formed separately (Fig. 11B).
Regarding independent claim 9, Schlagel discloses an agricultural gauge wheel (100, Figs. 11A-11B), comprising:
a rim (102);
a plurality of spaced apart tine portions (103) extending axially outward from the rim and defining raised portions of an outer surface of the wheel configured to press against a field surface (Fig. 11A, col. 1 lines 66-67), wherein the plurality of spaced apart tine portions are spaced about an axis of rotation (101) of the wheel to define voids (i.e. spaces) between adjacent tine portions of the plurality of spaced apart tine portions (Fig. 11B).
Schlagel fails to disclose a separately formed cylindrical liner coupled to the rim and disposed radially inward from the plurality of spaced apart tine portions to define a portion of the outer surface of the wheel at the voids between adjacent tine portions.
In the same area, Weisz discloses a gauge wheel liner (26) secured to the rim (22) of a gauge wheel (Fig. 7), wherein the liner is disposed radially inward from a tread (24) and the rim (22) such that an outer diameter of the liner is less than an inner diameter of the tread and rim (as seen in Fig. 3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar liner in the gauge wheel of Schlagel, as taught by Weisz, in order to extend the useful life of the wheel as well as increase the contact area between the wheel and opening disc, thereby improving operating efficiency by minimizing downtime due to poor scraping or required maintenance (see Abstract and para. [0079] of Weisz).
Regarding claim 10, Schlagel in view of Weisz discloses the wheel of claim 9, wherein the cylindrical liner defines an outermost peripheral edge of the wheel disposed in a plane parallel to the rim (as seen in Figs. 3B and 7 of Weisz, outer liner edge 68 of the liner 26 defines an axially outermost edge of the gauge wheel in a plane parallel to the rim 22).
Regarding claim 14, Schlagel in view of Weisz discloses the wheel of claim 9. Weisz further teaches wherein the cylindrical liner (26) is removably attached to the rim (para. [0084]).
Regarding claim 22, Schlagel in view of Weisz discloses the agricultural gauge wheel of claim 9, wherein the plurality of tine portions (103) are connected to an outermost circumferential edge of the rim (102) (as seen in Figs. 11A-11B) and extend over an outer circumferential surface of the liner (inherent from combination, liner is disposed radially inward of rim/tread as taught by Weisz).
Regarding independent claim 15, Schlagel discloses a trailing assembly (10, Fig. 1), comprising:
a furrow opener wheel (11); and
a gauge wheel (100, Figs. 11A-11B) including a peripheral edge adjacent the furrow opener wheel, wherein the peripheral edge is configured to scrape debris off of the furrow opener wheel during use (col. 2 lines 4-9), the gauge wheel comprising:
a rim (102) rotatable around a first axis of rotation (101),
a plurality of tine portions (103) extending outward from the rim in an axial direction, wherein the plurality of tine portions are spaced about the first axis of rotation to define voids (i.e. spaces) between adjacent tine portions of the plurality of tine portions (Fig. 11B).
Schlagel fails to disclose a liner separately coupled to the rim and disposed radially inward from the plurality of tine portions, the liner extending about the first axis of rotation and defining the peripheral edge.
In the same area, Weisz discloses a gauge wheel liner (26) secured to the rim (22) of a gauge wheel, wherein the liner extends radially inward from a tread (24) and the rim (22) about the wheel axis of rotation (as seen in Fig. 3B), wherein the liner defines an outermost peripheral edge (68) for scraping debris off of a furrow opener wheel (18) (Fig. 7, para. [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar liner in the gauge wheel of Schlagel, as taught by Weisz, in order to extend the useful life of the wheel as well as increase the contact area between the wheel and opening disc, thereby improving operating efficiency by minimizing downtime due to poor scraping or required maintenance (see Abstract and para. [0079] of Weisz).
Regarding claim 16, Schlagel in view of Weisz discloses the trailing assembly of claim 15. Weisz further teaches wherein:
the rim (22) defines a first plane intersecting the first axis of rotation;
the peripheral edge (68) defines a second plane parallel to the first plane; and
the second plane is disposed between the furrow opener wheel (18) and the first plane (as seen in annotated image of Fig. 3B of Weisz below).
PNG
media_image1.png
777
675
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Fig. 3B of Weisz
Regarding claim 17, Schlagel in view of Weisz discloses the trailing assembly of claim 16. Schlagel further teaches wherein the plurality of tine portions (103) extend away from the first plane to an outer tread edge (outer tread edge defined by distal tips of tines 103) (se seen in Fig. 11B of Schlagel, tine portions 103 extend away from the center plane defined by rim 102 toward the outer tread edge).
Regarding claim 18, Schlagel in view of Weisz discloses the trailing assembly of claim 17, wherein:
a first distance separates the peripheral edge (i.e. axially outermost edge of liner) from the first plane (i.e. center plane defined by rim);
a second distance separates the outer tread edge (i.e. distal tips of tine portions) from the first plane; and
the second distance is less than or equal to the first distance (inherent from combination, liner 26 of Weisz defines an axially outermost contact edge 68 of the gauge wheel, which therefore extends further from the center plane than the distal tips of the tine portions of Schlagel).
Regarding claim 20, Schlagel in view of Weisz discloses the trailing assembly of claim 15. Weisz further teaches wherein:
the furrow opener wheel (18) defines a first rotational center (38);
the gauge wheel defines a second rotational center (58); and
the second rotational center is disposed above the first rotational center relative to a field surface during use (as seen in Fig. 2 and 3B of Weisz).
Claims 5-6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlagel in view of Weisz as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Oehler (US 2731900 A).
Regarding claims 5-6, Schlagel in view of Weisz discloses the agricultural gauge wheel of claim 1. Weisz further teaches wherein the liner (26) is a first liner, but fails to teach the wheel further comprising a second liner, as per claim 5, and wherein the rim is disposed between the first liner and the second liner, as per claim 6.
In the same area, Oehler discloses an agricultural wheel (10) comprising a rim (21) and a liner (26), wherein the liner comprises a first and second liner disposed on opposing sides of the rim (see Figs. 1-2, two liners 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a second liner opposite the first liner in the agricultural gauge wheel of the combination, as taught by Oehler, in order to provide structural support and ground-contacting surfaces on each side of the wheel.
Regarding claims 12-13, Schlagel in view of Weisz discloses the wheel of claim 9. Weisz further teaches wherein: the cylindrical liner (26) is a first cylindrical liner disposed on a first side of the rim (22) (Weisz at Fig. 3B and 7), but fails to teach the wheel further including a second cylindrical liner disposed on a second side of the rim opposite the first side, as per claim 12, and wherein the first cylindrical liner is secured to the second cylindrical liner via a bracket extending through the rim, as per claim 13.
In the same area, Oehler discloses an agricultural wheel (10) comprising a rim (21) and a cylindrical liner (26), wherein the liner comprises a first and second cylindrical liner disposed on opposing sides of the rim (see Figs. 1-2, two cylindrical liners 26), and wherein the cylindrical liners are secured to each other via a bracket(29 + 34) extending through the rim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a second liner opposite the first liner in the agricultural gauge wheel of the combination, as taught by Oehler, in order to provide structural support and ground-contacting surfaces on each side of the wheel.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlagel in view of Weisz as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Bassett (US 20140216771 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Schlagel in view of Weisz discloses the trailing assembly of claim 16, wherein the furrow opener wheel defines a second axis of rotation, but fails to disclose wherein the second axis of rotation is non-parallel to the first axis.
In the same area, Bassett discloses a gauge wheel (226) defining a first axis of rotation and a furrow opener wheel (218) defining a second axis of rotations which is non-parallel to the first axis of rotation (see Fig. 6A, para. [0049] gauge wheel 226 is rolled at an angle θ3 from vertical 602, while opener disc 218 is rolled at an angle θ1 from vertical 602).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the axes of rotations of the opener wheel and gauge wheel to be non-parallel, as taught by Bassett, in order to provide an alternate orientation capable of cleaning soil and/or other debris from the opener wheel and yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1, 9, and 15, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, these arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights