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 37 recites the limitation "the angle control arm". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, examiner will assume that the correct dependency for claim 37 is that of claim 36, which establishes proper antecedent basis for “an angle control arm” as is required of claim 37.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 18-21, 23-28, 30-34, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim as part of KR 20130083629 A, hereinafter referred to as Lim, in view of Schultz et al. as part of US 7171770 B2, hereinafter referred to as Schultz.
Regarding Claim 18: Lim teaches of a mount for a snow plow, wherein the mount is configured to attach to a vehicle and to a snow plow blade, the mount comprising:
a frame comprising a pivot positioned on a plow side of the mount, wherein the frame is configured to attach to the vehicle on a vehicle side of the mount (Lim: Fig. 3, blade support frame 10 comprises pivot arm 12, which connects to blade 30, wherein the frame 10 connects to the plowing vehicle via boom 2);
and a pivot assembly comprising an upper plate, a forward plate, and a lower plate, wherein the pivot assembly is rotatably coupled to the pivot with the upper plate positioned on an upper side of the pivot, the lower plate positioned on a lower side of the pivot, and the forward plate positioned opposite the frame (Lim: Annotated Fig. 3, pivot bracket 40 comprises upper plate A, forward plate B, and lower plate C, rotatably coupled to the pivot arm 12 via pivot pin 60),
and wherein the pivot assembly is configured to rotatably mount the snow plow blade (Lim: Fig. 2, pivot bracket 40 rotatably mounts the blade 30 to the plowing vehicle).
Lim does not explicitly teach of the construction methodology of the pivot bracket 40.
Schultz teaches of a snow plow mount that comprises a pivot assembly comprising a top plate, a bottom plate, and a forward plate (Schultz: Fig. 3, top plate 52, bottom plate 54, and rectangular plate 66 which form a box like structure to accommodate a pivot within the plates), wherein the pivot assembly is welded together (Schultz: Col. 9, line 3-8. rectangular plate 66 is welded to top plate 52 and bottom plate 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to form the pivot bracket taught by Lim via welding, as is taught in the disclosure of Schultz (Schultz: Col. 9, line 3-8. rectangular plate 66 is welded to top plate 52 and bottom plate 54). Such a modification would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of creating a single contiguous structure as part of forming the pivot assembly (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, D).
PNG
media_image1.png
818
1096
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lim, annotated Fig. 3
Regarding Claim 19: Lim in view of Schultz teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 18.
Lim further teaches wherein the upper and lower plates are parallel to each other (Lim: Annotated Fig. 3, upper plate A and lower plate C are parallel).
Regarding Claim 20: Lim in view of Schultz teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 18.
Lim further teaches of a bracket extending away from the upper plate at an angle (Lim: Annotated Fig. 3, plate D extends away from upper plate A at an angle).
Regarding Claim 21: Lim in view of Schultz teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 18.
In light of the modifications described as part of claim 18, Lim further teaches wherein the bracket and the upper plate are a monolithic structure formed from a single piece of material or formed from a plurality of pieces welded together (Lim: Annotated Fig. 3, plate D is a part of pivot bracket 40; Schultz, it is known to weld the components of a pivot bracket together).
Regarding Claim 23: Lim in view of Schultz teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 18.
Lim further teaches wherein the upper plate defines a first opening and the lower plate defines a second opening aligned with the first opening (Lim: Fig. 4, upper plate A and lower plate C are shown to have aligned openings to receive pivot pin 60).
Regarding Claim 24: Lim in view of Schultz teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 23.
Lim further teaches of a pin that extends through the first and second openings and the pivot, wherein the pin rotatably couples the pivot assembly to the frame (Lim: Fig. 4, pivot pin 60 is disposed through the openings in upper plate A and lower plate C to pivotally couple the pivot bracket 40 to the frame 10).
Regarding Claim 25: Lim in view of Schultz teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 18.
Lim further teaches of first and second flanges that extend above the upper plate, below the lower plate and forward of the forward plate, where the first flange is positioned on one side of the pivot assembly and the second flange is positioned on the other side of the pivot assembly, opposite the first flange (Lim: Annotated Fig. 3, stoppers 39 extend above the upper plate A, below the upper plate C, and forward from forward plate B, wherein the stoppers 39 are positioned on opposite sides of the pivot bracket 40).
Regarding Claim 26: Lim in view of Schultz teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 25.
Lim further teaches wherein the first and second flanges each define an opening that receives the upper plate, the forward plate and the lower plate (Lim: Fig. 3, stoppers 39 comprise an opening to receive shaft 36, which is coupled to pivot bracket 40).
Regarding Claim 27: Lim in view of Schultz teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 26.
Lim further teaches wherein the first and second flanges are C- shaped (Lim: Fig. 3, stoppers 39 are C-shaped).
Regarding Claim 28: Lim in view of Schultz teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 25.
Lim further teaches wherein the first and second flanges each define a blade opening configured to rotatably mount the snow plow blade (Lim: Fig. 3, stoppers 39 comprise an opening to receive shaft 36, which is coupled to pivot bracket 40, which is configured to rotatably mount the blade 30 on the frame 10).
Regarding Claim 30: Lim in view of Schultz teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 25.
Lim further teaches wherein the first and second flanges are oriented perpendicular to the upper plate (Lim: Fig 3, stoppers 39 are oriented perpendicularly to blade 30).
Regarding Claim 31: Lim in view of Schultz teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 25.
In light of the modifications described as part of claim 18, Lim in view of Schultz further teaches wherein the first and second flanges are fixedly connected to the upper plate, the lower plate and the forward plate (Paragraph 24, stoppers 39 are fixedly installed on both ends of the hollow shaft 36, which is in rigid connection to pivot bracket 40; Schultz: it is known to fixedly attach components of the pivot assembly together via welding).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to fixedly attach the components of the assembly taught by Lim with the known method of welding as taught by Schultz. Applying a technique such as welding to fixedly connect the multiple pieces of the apparatus would be within the technical grasp of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was originally filed, with a reasonable expectation of success of maintaining such a fixed connection during operation (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, D).
Regarding Claim 32: Lim in view of Schultz teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 25.
Lim further teaches wherein the first and second flanges defines a pivot assembly height that is greater than a height of the pivot (Lim: Fig. 3, stoppers 39 define a height that is greater than the head of pivot arm 12).
Regarding Claim 33: Lim in view of Schultz teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 32.
Lim further teaches wherein the pivot assembly height is at least twice the height of the pivot (Lim: Fig. 8, the pivot assembly defined by pivot bracket 40 and stoppers 39 are shown to be at least twice the height of the pivot arm 12).
Regarding Claim 34: Lim in view of Schultz teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 32.
While Lim does not explicitly teach of any ratio or size relationship of the pivot height to the pivot assembly height, it is shown as necessary for the pivot structure taught by Lim to have a physically shorter profile than that of the pivot assembly to allow for vertical displacement during operation of the plow (Fig. 7, the displacement of the pivot head 12 along pivot pin 60 is demonstrated as the height of the plow surface changes). As such, the relationship between the height of the pivot and the pivot assembly would be a results-effective variable. In light of such a determination, the specific ratio of the height of the pivot to the pivot assembly to allow for vertical displacement during operation, such as in the disclosure of Lim, would be characterized by routine experimentation and obvious to try, such that the ratio of heights would fall between 1:4 and 1:2 in the interest of said vertical displacement during operation (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Regarding Claim 35: Lim in view of Schultz teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 25.
Lim further teaches wherein the first and second flanges define a blade surface on the plow side, and wherein the blade surface mirrors a surface on the snow plow blade (Lim: Annotated Fig. 3, surface E couples the stopper 39 to the snow plow blade on a curved surface of the snow plow blade, mirroring the shape).
Regarding Claim 36: Lim in view of Schultz teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 25.
Lim further teaches wherein the mount further comprises an angle control arm, and wherein changing a length of the angle control arm changes an angle of the pivot assembly relative to the frame (Lim: Fig. 2, cylinders 20 are pivotally connected to the shaft 36, wherein changing the angle of the control arms via extension and retraction changes the angle of the pivot assembly relative to the frame).
Regarding Claim 37: Lim in view of Schultz teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 36.
Lim further teaches wherein the frame further comprises a frame arm mount configured to rotatably couple to a first end of the angle control arm and wherein the pivot assembly further comprises a pivot assembly arm mount configured to rotatably couple to a second end of the angle control arm (Lim: Fig. 2, cylinders 20 attach on one end to the frame 10 on the sides of pivot arm 12, and at the opposite end to brackets secured to shaft 36 as part of the pivot assembly).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Schultz further in view of Chalmers as part of US 20220034056 A1, hereinafter referred to as Chalmers.
Regarding Claim 22: Lim in view of Schultz teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 20.
Lim in view of Schultz does not teach of the bracket defining spring openings, nor of springs that act to rotate the plow blade towards the pivot assembly.
Chalmers teaches of a pivot assembly and frame designed to pivotally couple a plow blade to a vehicle, comprising a pivot bracket (Chalmers: Fig. 3, the structure surrounding pivot rod 50 comprises a top plate, a forward plate, and a bottom plate as part of pinch bar 90), wherein the bracket defines a first and second spring opening on opposing sides of the bracket, wherein the first and second spring openings are configured to receive springs that bias the snow plow blade to rotate toward the pivot assembly (Chalmers: the pivot assembly comprises pinch bar 90, which comprises two brackets extending off the sides of pinch bar 90, both of which comprise a spring opening which receive springs 62 to rotate the blade 40 forward and back).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to modify the pivot bracket of Lim in view of Schultz with the spring openings and springs taught by Chalmers to allow the plow blade to pivot in response to forces placed upon the plow blade (Chalmers: paragraph 37, springs such as springs 62 are used in trip mechanisms, which are common in plow assemblies to protect the vehicle from forces encountered by the plow). Such a modification would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of allowing the blade to pivot towards the pivot assembly in the interest of protecting the vehicle during operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 29 is 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.
Regarding claim 29, while examples of stepwise adjustment blocks were found in prior art, no such examples were found that coupled multiple stepwise angle adjustment blocks to the flange to alter the blade angle relative to the pivot assembly of the apparatus. To modify references such as Lim to include such adjustment structures would fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions and would rely on an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Warchola et al. as part of US 20130248211 A1 teaches of a snow plow mount comprising a frame, a pivot coupled to the frame, a pivot assembly coupled to the moldboard comprising an upper plate, a lower plate, and a forward plate, which form a monolithic structure, which is configured to rotatably mount the snow plow blade, wherein the upper and lower plates are parallel to one another, which define aligned openings for a pin to extend through to facilitate pivotal motion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN ANTHONY BREGEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0922. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 Eastern, M-F.
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, Christopher J 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.
/EVAN A BREGEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671