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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7, 9-15 are 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May (US 10370811) in further view of Harrell (US 5078217).
Regarding claim 1, May discloses a snow wing assembly for a motor grader machine, comprising:
a snow wing moldboard having a material engaging side and a back side (Fig 2 and Fig 9 depicts a snow wing moldboard 50 with a material engaging side and a back side).
May is silent on the inclusion of a wear liner and attachment structures to connect the wear liner to the blade. Harrell discloses a similar plow (Fig 4) and teaches the use of a replaceable liner (60; col 7, line 45) that is attached to a moldboard (45) by a plurality of bolts (Fig 4 depicts bolts 61 to attach the liner to the openings in the moldboard; col 7, lines 48-49). The liner is depicted as having a first surface abutting the material engaging side of the moldboard, a second surface opposite the first surface to engage the plowed material, and openings to align with openings on the moldboard where the plurality of attachment bolts (61) secure the liner to the moldboard. Further, Harrell specifically states the liner may be made of plastic which is considered to be non-metallic (col 7, lines 49-51).
May and Harrell are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of plows and plow blades. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified May to incorporate the teachings of Harrell and combined the use of the non-metallic liner for the plow. One would have made this combination to have the liner act as a wear surface while providing easy shedding of plowed material (Harrell; col 10, lines 44-46).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of May and Harrell discloses the snow wing assembly wherein the moldboard has a bottom side and further includes a cutting edge connected to the material engaging side adjacent the bottom side, the cutting edge being configured to engage material on a work surface during a plowing operation (Fig 8 of May discloses a cutting edge disposed at the bottom side connected to the material engaging side), and
wherein the bottom edge of the non-metallic liner is disposed between a portion of the cutting edge and the moldboard (claim language is broad; Fig 4 of Harrell teaches the bottom edge of the liner being between a portion of the cutting edge 55 and the moldboard 45).
Regarding claim 6, May discloses the snow wing assembly wherein each attachment structure includes a bolt, a boss affixed to the moldboard, and a washer (claim language is broad; Harrell teaches bolts 61 to secure the liner in place and these bolts would have to thread into some kind of boss affixed to the moldboard when assembled; the threaded elements, whether it be a nut or threads of the moldboard or some other threaded boss, are considered to be a boss).
Regarding claim 8, May discloses a motor grader work machine, comprising:
a machine frame (Fig 1);
a pair of front wheels and a pair of back wheels supporting the machine frame (34 and 20);
an operator cab supported by the machine frame (36); and
a snow wing assembly connected to the machine frame between the front wheels and back wheels (snow wing assembly 38), the snow wing assembly having:
a snow wing moldboard having a material engaging side, a back side, a bottom side (Fig 2 and Fig 9 depicts a snow wing moldboard 50 with a material engaging side, a back side, and a bottom side);
a cutting edge connected to the material engaging side adjacent the bottom side and configured to engage material on a work surface during a plowing operation of the motor grader machine (Fig 8 of May discloses a cutting edge disposed at the bottom side connected to the material engaging side);
May is silent on the inclusion of a wear liner and attachment structures including the plurality of openings and bosses to connect the wear liner to the blade. Harrell discloses a similar plow (Fig 4) and teaches the use of a replaceable liner (60; col 7, line 45) that is attached to a moldboard (45) by a plurality of bolts or fasteners (Fig 4 depicts bolts 61 to attach the liner to the openings in the moldboard; col 7, lines 48-49). The liner is depicted as having a first surface abutting the material engaging side of the moldboard, a second surface opposite the first surface to engage the plowed material, a leading side edge, a heel side edge, a top edge, a bottom edge, and openings to align with openings on the moldboard where the plurality of attachment bolts (61) secure the liner to the moldboard. Fig 4 of Harrell depicts a plurality of apertures in the liner 60 for the bolts 61. The apertures of liner 60 of Harrell align with a plurality of openings and threaded bosses on the moldboard. These bolts 61 would have to thread into some kind of boss associated with each opening on the moldboard when assembled. The threaded elements, whether it be a nut or threads of the moldboard or some other threaded boss, are considered to be the boss associated with the openings (Harrell; col 7, lines 48-53). Further, Harrell specifically states the liner may be made of plastic which is considered to be non-metallic (col 7, lines 49-51).
May and Harrell are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of plows and plow blades. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified May to incorporate the teachings of Harrell and combined the use of the non-metallic liner for the plow. One would have made this combination to have the liner act as a wear surface while providing easy shedding of plowed material (Harrell; col 10, lines 44-46).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May and Harrell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Savard (US 6412200).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of May and Harrell fails to specifically disclose the snow wing assembly wherein a length of the heel side edge is greater than a length of the leading side edge.
However, there are various designs of plow blade shapes. For example, Savard discloses a similar side wing assembly (Fig 6) and teaches the length of the free end being greater than the frontward end (Fig 3).
May, Harrell, and Savard are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of plowing material with a plow blade. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of May and Harrell to incorporate the teachings of Savard and made the length of the heel side edge greater than the length of the leading side edge. One would have made this modification to avoid plowed material from flowing over the top of the plow. This modification would have made the plow better equip for its intended use of moving plowed material to the side of the plow blade.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of May, Harrell, and Savard discloses the snow wing assembly wherein the moldboard includes a top side and the top edge of the non-metallic liner extends at least to the top side (Harrell; col 7, lines 52-53; covering “the remaining portion of the moldboard” is interpreted as the top edge of the liner extending to at least the top of the moldboard).
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May in further view of Harrell and Savard.
Regarding claim 16, May discloses a snow wing assembly having a moldboard with a material engaging side (Fig 2 and Fig 9 depicts a snow wing moldboard 50 with a material engaging side).
May is silent on the inclusion of a wear liner and a plurality of openings on the moldboard. Harrell discloses a similar plow (Fig 4) and teaches the use of a replaceable liner (60; col 7, line 45) that is attached to a moldboard (45). The liner is depicted as having a first surface abutting the material engaging side of the moldboard, a second surface opposite the first surface to engage the plowed material, a leading side edge, a heel side edge, a top edge, a bottom edge, and apertures to align with openings on the moldboard where the plurality of attachment bolts (61) secure the liner to the moldboard. Fig 4 of Harrell depicts a plurality of apertures in the liner 60 for the bolts 61. The apertures of liner 60 of Harrell align with a plurality of openings on the moldboard. Further, Harrell specifically states the liner may be made of plastic which is considered to be non-metallic (col 7, lines 49-51). This plastic liner is considered to be generally flexible and sheet-like as the claim language is broad.
May and Harrell are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of plows and plow blades. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified May to incorporate the teachings of Harrell and combined the use of the non-metallic liner for the plow. One would have made this combination to have the liner act as a wear surface while providing easy shedding of plowed material (Harrell; col 10, lines 44-46).
Harrel is silent on the thickness between the first and second surfaces of the liner. Although Harrell does not expressly disclose that the thickness between the first and second surfaces is between 3 and 8 mm, it does disclose that the thickness could be adjusted in order for moldboard to easily shed through the plowed material (Harrell; col 10, lines 44-46) as long as the fasteners can still secure the liner to the moldboard (Fig 4). As a result of the thickness controlling how much wear the liner can take and how easily the moldboard can shed the plowed material, the thickness is considered to be a results effective variable in so far as the thickness may be adjusted in order to change how easily the moldboard can shed plowed material as well as take wear. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the thickness of the liner to be between 3 and 8 mm, as it has been held that the optimization of a results effective variable would have been obvious so as to achieve an optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
The combination of May and Harrell still fail to disclose the length of the heel side edge being greater than the length of the leading side edge. However, there are various designs of plow blade shapes. For example, Savard discloses a similar side wing assembly (Fig 6) and teaches the length of the free end being greater than the frontward end (Fig 3).
May, Harrell, and Savard are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of plowing material with a plow blade. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of May and Harrell to incorporate the teachings of Savard and made the length of the heel side edge greater than the length of the leading side edge. One would have made this modification to avoid plowed material from flowing over the top of the plow. This modification would have made the plow better equip for its intended use of moving plowed material to the side of the plow blade.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of May, Harrell, and Savard discloses the non-metallic liner further comprising a connecting assembly cut-out extending from the leading side edge toward the heel side edge and between but not reaching the top edge and the bottom edge, the cut-out being configured to fit around a connecting assembly that connects the moldboard to the motor grader machine (the connecting assembly protrudes out from the material engaging side of the moldboard so there would have to be some kind of cut-out of the liner in order for the liner to be secured on the material engaging side of the moldboard; see Annotated Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
400
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 18, the combination of May, Harrell, and Savard discloses the non-metallic liner wherein the heel side edge and the top edge intersect at an angle that is less than 90 degrees (Savard is considered to teach the intersection of the heel side edge and the top edge being an angle that is less than 90 degrees as depicted in Savard’s Figs 6-7).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of May, Harrell, and Savard discloses the non-metallic liner wherein each aperture is elongated, having a length distance that is greater than a height distance (claim language is broad; the length is considered to be the width of the aperture and the height is considered to be the depth of the hole; Fig 4 of Harrell depicts the length greater than the height).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of May, Harrell, and Savard discloses the non-metallic liner wherein the apertures are disposed across the non-metallic liner in at least three rows (Harrell teaches the apertures of the liner being disposed in at least 3 rows in Fig 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Vickers (US 6134813) discloses a similar moldboard plow with a non-metallic liner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE SCOVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30-6 (ET).
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.
/BLAKE E SCOVILLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671