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 Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because it recites "wherein wherein" in lines 1-2. (It appears as though the second "wherein" should be deleted.) Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites "respective brackets, of the one or more brackets," in lines 5-6. Also, claim 1 recites "the respective brackets" in line 10. It is unclear if "one or more brackets" is being further defined to require multiple brackets (as plural "respective brackets" are claimed) or if "respective brackets" can somehow be one bracket. Thus, the metes and bounds of "respective brackets" in claim 1 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Additionally, claims 2-7 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 8 recites "respective brackets, of the one or more brackets," in lines 5-6. Also, claim 8 recites "the respective brackets" in line 10. It is unclear if "one or more brackets" is being further defined to require multiple brackets (as plural "respective brackets" are claimed) or if "respective brackets" can somehow be one bracket. Thus, the metes and bounds of "respective brackets" in claim 8 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 8 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Additionally, claims 9-14 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 8. Further, claim 10 recites "the respective brackets" in line 4.
Claim 15 recites "respective brackets, of the one or more brackets," in lines 14-15. Also, claim 15 recites "the respective brackets" in line 20. It is unclear if "one or more brackets" is being further defined to require multiple brackets (as plural "respective brackets" are claimed) or if "respective brackets" can somehow be one bracket. Thus, the metes and bounds of "respective brackets" in claim 15 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 15 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Additionally, claims 16-20 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 15.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sowell (US 2,194,875).
Regarding claim 1, Sowell discloses a system for retaining a moldboard (such as 6) to an implement frame (such as that including 8 and 9) of a grader machine, the system comprising:
a bracket (including 13, 14, and that for 28) coupled to a backside of the moldboard (see Figs. 1-3), and coupled to the implement frame about an axis (at 11);
an actuator (including 19) coupled to the bracket (at 28), the actuator being configured to tilt the bracket with respect to the implement frame about the axis (at 11) to articulate the moldboard with respect to the implement frame (see p. 1, col. 2, lines 23-27); and
one or more bump stops (including 17) coupled to the implement frame and configured to contact the bracket (along 16) when the moldboard articulates from an intermediate position (between positions shown in Figs. 2 and 3) to one or more deviated positions (as shown by Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 2, Sowell discloses the bracket including a body defining an inner periphery (16 in 13 or 14) with a first surface (top surface) and a second surface (bottom surface), and
wherein a corresponding bump stop, of the one or more bump stops (including 17), contacts the first surface (top surface of 16) at a first deviated position (see Fig. 3), of the one or more deviated positions, and contacts the second surface (bottom surface of 16) at a second deviated position (see Fig. 2), of the one or more deviated positions.
Regarding claim 3, Sowell discloses the inner periphery (16 in 13 or 14) defining at least one peripheral edge surface (at the left end and/or right end of 16) extending between the first surface (top surface) and the second surface (bottom surface), the at least one peripheral edge surface defines an indentation extending into the body (the curved peripheral edge surface or surfaces defining a recess or recesses in the inner periphery, as shown in Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 5, Sowell discloses the bracket also including additional structure (including 22 and 27),
wherein the bracket further includes a first plate (of 22, as shown in annotated Fig. A, below) and a second plate (of 22, as shown in annotated Fig. A) coupled together and spaced apart from each other (see annotated Fig. A) and defining a space therebetween (through which 19 extends; see annotated Fig. A),
wherein the space provides passage (as shown in annotated Fig. A) to the actuator (including 19), and
wherein the actuator (including 19) is coupled to the first plate and/or the second plate at a swivel joint (along a horizontal axis through 19 and 22 in Fig. 1 and annotated Fig. A) and is coupled to the implement frame at a pivot location (on 18).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. Sowell (US 2,194,875) annotated portion of Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 6, Sowell discloses the one or more bump stops (including 17) being resilient (as 17 is able to recover due to its rolling, and/or as 17 is capable of withstanding shock).
Regarding claim 8, Sowell discloses a method for cushioning a movement of a moldboard (including 6) of a grader machine during machine operation, the method comprising:
coupling (as shown, at 11) a bracket (including 13, 14, and that for 28) to an implement frame (such as that including 8 and 9) of the grader machine about an axis (at 11) and to a backside of the moldboard (see Figs. 1-3);
coupling (as shown, at 28) an actuator (including 19) to the bracket (at 28), the actuator being configured to tilt the bracket with respect to the implement frame about the axis (at 11) to articulate the moldboard with respect to the implement frame (see p. 1, col. 2, lines 23-27); and
coupling (as shown, particularly in Fig. 6) one or more bump stops (including 17) to the implement frame such that the one or more bump stops contact the bracket (along 16) when the moldboard articulates from an intermediate position (between positions shown in Figs. 2 and 3) to one or more deviated positions (as shown by Figs. 2 and 3) to limit further deviation of the moldboard at the one or more deviated positions (in at least with respect to 16).
Regarding claim 10, Sowell discloses the bracket also including additional structure (including 22 and 27), wherein the bracket further includes a first plate (of 22, as shown in annotated Fig. A, above) and a second plate (of 22, as shown in annotated Fig. A) coupled together and spaced apart from each other (see annotated Fig. A) and defining a space therebetween (through which 19 extends; see annotated Fig. A), and coupling the actuator (including 19) to the respective brackets includes:
passing the actuator through the space (as shown in annotated Fig. A); and
connecting the actuator to the first plate and/or the second plate at a swivel joint (along a horizontal axis through 19 and 22 in Fig. 1 and annotated Fig. A).
Regarding claim 11, Sowell discloses connecting the actuator (including 19) to the implement frame at a pivot location (on 18).
Regarding claim 12, Sowell discloses the bracket including a body defining an inner periphery (16 in 13 or 14) with a first surface (top surface) and a second surface (bottom surface), and
wherein a corresponding bump stop, of the one or more bump stops (including 17), contacts the first surface (top surface of 16) at a first deviated position (see Fig. 3), of the one or more deviated positions, and contacts the second surface (bottom surface of 16) at a second deviated position (see Fig. 2), of the one or more deviated positions.
Regarding claim 13, Sowell discloses the inner periphery (16 in 13 or 14) defining at least one peripheral edge surface (at the left end and/or right end of 16) extending between the first surface (top surface) and the second surface (bottom surface), the at least one peripheral edge surface defines an indentation extending into the body (the curved peripheral edge surface or surfaces defining a recess or recesses in the inner periphery, as shown in Figs. 2 and 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.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sowell.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Sowell discloses the system of claim 1 and the method with respect to claim 8, as set forth above. Sowell also discloses the one or more bump stops (including 17) being resilient (as 17 is able to recover due to its rolling, and/or as 17 is capable of withstanding shock). Sowell does not explicitly disclose the one or more bump stops being made from one or more of rubber, ebonite, polyurethane, or mild steel. However, 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. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the one or more bump stops from one or more of rubber, ebonite, polyurethane, or mild steel for the expected benefit of preventing damage to a portion of the assembly when the abutment surfaces are engaged if the assembly inadvertently hits an obstruction. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that forming the one or more bump stops from one or more of rubber, ebonite, polyurethane, or mild steel would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Sowell to obtain the invention as specified in claims 7 and 14.
Claims 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 3,677,350) in view of Sowell.
Regarding claim 15, Johnson discloses a grader machine, comprising:
a chassis (including 12);
a drawbar (including 13) extending from the chassis;
a circle (including or of 16) rotatably supported with respect to the drawbar;
an implement frame (arms extending downward from 16 to 17, as shown in Fig. 1), including one or more arms, extending from the circle (also see Figs. 4 and 5);
a moldboard (including 17) defining a backside and a frontside with respect to the grader machine and configured to grade a work surface underlying the grader machine.
Johnson does not explicitly disclose a system for retaining the moldboard to the implement frame as claimed. However, Sowell teaches a system for retaining a moldboard (including 6) to an implement frame (including 8 and 9), the system comprising:
a bracket (including 13, 14, and that for 28) coupled to a backside of the moldboard (see Figs. 1-3), and coupled to the implement frame (including 8 and 9) about an axis (at 11);
an actuator (including 19) coupled to the bracket (at 28), the actuator being configured to tilt the bracket with respect to the implement frame about the axis (at 11) to articulate the moldboard with respect to the implement frame (see p. 1, col. 2, lines 23-27); and
one or more bump stops (including 17) coupled to the implement frame and configured to contact the bracket (along 16) when the moldboard articulates from an intermediate position (between positions shown in Figs. 2 and 3) to one or more deviated positions (as shown by Figs. 2 and 3).
Sowell is analogous because Sowell discloses a system for retaining a moldboard to an implement frame of a grader machine. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the grader machine of Johnson with the retaining means as taught by Sowell in order to tip the moldboard from a remote point without stopping the progress of the grader and/or to relieve strain from the moldboard quickly so as to avoid damage. (See Sowell, p. 1, col. 1, lines 1-19.).
Regarding claim 16, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 15, Sowell discloses the bracket including a body defining an inner periphery (16 in 13 or 14) with a first surface (top surface) and a second surface (bottom surface), and
wherein a corresponding bump stop, of the one or more bump stops (including 17), contacts the first surface (top surface of 16) at a first deviated position (see Fig. 3), of the one or more deviated positions, and contacts the second surface (bottom surface of 16) at a second deviated position (see Fig. 2), of the one or more deviated positions.
Regarding claim 17, in view of the modification made in relation to claims 15 and 16, Sowell discloses the inner periphery (16 in 13 or 14) defining at least one peripheral edge surface (at the left end and/or right end of 16) extending between the first surface (top surface) and the second surface (bottom surface), the at least one peripheral edge surface defines an indentation extending into the body (the curved peripheral edge surface or surfaces defining a recess or recesses in the inner periphery, as shown in Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 19, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 15, Sowell discloses the bracket also including additional structure (including 22 and 27),
wherein the bracket further includes a first plate (of 22, as shown in annotated Fig. A, above) and a second plate (of 22, as shown in annotated Fig. A) coupled together and spaced apart from each other (see annotated Fig. A) and defining a space therebetween (through which 19 extends; see annotated Fig. A),
wherein the space provides passage (as shown in annotated Fig. A) to a corresponding actuator (19), of the one or more actuators, and
wherein the corresponding actuator (19) is coupled to the first plate and/or the second plate at a swivel joint (along a horizontal axis through 19 and 22 in Fig. 1 and annotated Fig. A) and is coupled to the implement frame at a pivot location (on 18).
Regarding claim 20, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 15, Sowell discloses the one or more bump stops (including 17) being resilient (as 17 is able to recover due to its rolling, and/or as 17 is capable of withstanding shock). Neither Johnson nor Sowell explicitly discloses one or more bump stops being made from one or more of rubber, ebonite, polyurethane, or mild steel. However, 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. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the one or more bump stops from one or more of rubber, ebonite, polyurethane, or mild steel for the expected benefit of preventing damage to a portion of the assembly when the abutment surfaces are engaged if the assembly inadvertently hits an obstruction. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that forming the one or more bump stops from one or more of rubber, ebonite, polyurethane, or mild steel would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the above combination to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 9, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Gilbert (US 4,105,078) discloses a system of a grader machine, comprising one or more brackets (25), one or more actuators (30), and at least one bump stop (32), as set forth in at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joel F. Mitchell whose telephone number is (571)272-7689. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00.
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 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.
/JFM/3/14/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671