DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a final rejection on the merits. Claims 1, 5-14, 21-23, and 33 have been amended, and Claims 2-4, 15-20, and 24-32 remain as previously presented.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/10/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 5-14, 21-23, and 33 have been amended, and Claims 2-4, 15-20, and 24-32 remain as previously presented. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings, the Specification and the Claims have overcome most objections set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 07/11/2025. The unaddressed objections are set forth below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 88.
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Fig. 24, the reference numbers “448” and “540” are not pointing to any particular part.
In Fig. 24, the wheel fork “427” and support wheel assembly “446” are not clearly shown.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 5 Lines 5-6, the limitation “the shaft” should read “the center shaft” to keep the limitation consistent within the claim and with the parent claim 1.
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.
Claim 9 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.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 is indefinite because the limitation “the rotating shaft” in Lines 2-3 of the claim is unclear in light of the parent claim 1. Claim 1 recites “a center shaft” but it doesn’t recite that the center shaft rotates. Instead, Claim 5 does teach that the center shaft rotates; however, Claim 9 does not depend on Claim 5. For the purposes of examination, Lines 2-3 of Claim 9 will be interpreted to read “the center shaft” to keep the limitation consistent with the parent claim 1.
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.
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, 6-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fair (US 4341181 A) in view of Sensenig (US 7810450 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Fair teaches a sweep system (10) for livestock grazing (shown in Fig. 1), comprising:
A frame (12);
Wherein the frame (12) has a front end (14), a rear end (16), and opposing sides (18,20);
One or more wheel assemblies (36) operably connected to the frame (shown in Fig. 1; Wheel assemblies 36 are operatively connected to frame 12.);
A sweep mechanism (82; Fig. 1 shows an assembly 82 which is capable of sweeping through the desired terrain [see also Column 4 Lines 5-25].);
Wherein the sweep mechanism (82) is operably connected to the frame (shown in Fig. 1; Sweep mechanism 82 is operably connected to frame 12.);
Wherein the sweep mechanism facilitates movement of the livestock (Fig. 1 and Column 4 Lines 5-25 show that sweep mechanism 82 allows the system 10 to move through the desired terrain and therefore facilitates the movement of the livestock through said terrain.).
However, the system of Fair fails to explicitly state that the sweep mechanism is configured to rotate with respect to the frame about a center shaft extending along the rear end of the frame.
Sensenig teaches a sweep mechanism (167-169; shown in Figs. 2-3) is configured to rotate with respect to the frame about a center shaft (80) extending along the rear end of the frame (See Fig. 1 and Column 4 Lines 40-50; Gate 40, which comprises sweep mechanism 167-169 and center shaft 80, is meant to replace gates 24, 30, located at the rear end of frame 12.). Therefore, 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 system of Fair to have the sweep mechanism be configured to rotate with respect to the frame about a center shaft extending along the rear end of the frame as taught by Sensenig with reasonable expectation of success to push the livestock in the desired direction (Sensenig, Column 2 Lines 45-65).
The system of Fair as modified by Sensenig further teaches that the sweep mechanism facilitates movement of the livestock away from the rear end of the frame (Due to the modification of Sensenig, the sweep mechanism 82 would be capable of rotating with respect to the frame 12 about center shaft 22. Therefore, the sweep mechanism 82 would be capable of pushing the livestock away from the rear end 16 of frame 12.).
Regarding Claim 3, the system of Fair as modified by Sensenig, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Fair further teaches that the one or more wheel assemblies (36) includes a wheel (42,44); and that the wheel (42,44) facilitates movement of the frame (Stated in the Claims and Column 3 Lines 1-15; The wheels 42 and 44 of assemblies 36 propel the movement of frame 12.).
Regarding Claim 6, the system of Fair as modified by Sensenig, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
The system of Fair as modified by Sensenig further teaches that the center shaft facilitates rotation of the sweep mechanism in a direction opposite to a direction of rotation of one or more wheel assemblies (According to Column 4 Lines 40-50 of Sensenig, gate 40, which comprises sweep mechanism 167-169 and center shaft 80, is meant to replace gates 24, 30 and therefore the sweep mechanism 167-169 would be capable of rotating clockwise. Due to the modification of Sensenig, the sweep mechanism 82 would be capable of rotating clockwise with respect to the frame 12 about center shaft 22. Therefore, as the wheel assemblies 36 rotate forwards and counterclockwise, the push bars 88 of mechanism 82 rotate clockwise, a direction opposite to the rotation of the wheel assemblies 36.).
Regarding Claim 7, the system of Fair as modified by Sensenig, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Fair further teaches that the center shaft (22) includes one or more paddles (88).
Regarding Claim 8, the system of Fair as modified by Sensenig, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Fair further teaches that the center shaft (22) includes one or more paddles (88).
The system of Fair as modified by Sensenig teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the one or more paddles are generally planar and rectangular in shape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the one or more paddles of the system of Fair as modified by Sensenig be generally planar and rectangular in shape to make the paddles easier and less expensive to build, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or shape of a component. A change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 9, the system of Fair as modified by Sensenig, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Fair further teaches that the sweep mechanism includes one or more paddles (88) and that the center shaft (22) is positioned adjacent a bottom edge of the rear end (16) of the frame (See Fig. 1; Center shaft 22 is positioned adjacent a bottom edge of the rear end 16 of the frame 12.).
Regarding Claim 11, the system of Fair as modified by Sensenig, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Fair further teaches that the sweep mechanism is operated manually (See Fig. 4 and Column 4 Lines 5-25; The push bars 88 of sweep mechanism 82 rotate manually due to hinge 92. Therefore, the sweep mechanism 82 is operated manually.).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fair (US 4341181 A) as modified by Sensenig (US 7810450 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Steele (US 4048959 A).
Regarding Claim 2, the system of Fair as modified by Sensenig, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
However, the system of Fair as modified by Sensenig fails to explicitly state that the frame includes a roof, one or more upper side walls, one or more lower side walls, and a back wall.
Steele teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a mobile, portable, and self-propelled corral.), the system of Steele teaches a frame (10) includes a roof (40), one or more upper side walls (48), one or more lower side walls (46), and a back wall (16). Therefore, 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 system of Fair as modified by Sensenig to have the frame include a roof, one or more upper side walls, one or more lower side walls, and a back wall as taught by Steele with reasonable expectation of success to provide shade to the livestock (Steele, Column 2 Line 30).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fair (US 4341181 A) as modified by Sensenig (US 7810450 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wilson (US 20110120384 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, the system of Fair as modified by Sensenig, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
However, the system of Fair as modified by Sensenig fails to explicitly state that the one or more wheel assemblies includes a front member; and that the front member is connected to a wheel of the one or more wheel assemblies.
Wilson teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a portable corral.), the system of Wilson teaches a frame (104) comprises a one or more wheel assemblies (201) which includes a front member (803); wherein the front member (803) is connected to a wheel (202) of the one or more wheel assemblies (shown in Fig. 8). Therefore, 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 system of Fair as modified by Sensenig to have the one or more wheel assemblies include a front member; and to have the front member is connected to a wheel of the one or more wheel assemblies as taught by Wilson with reasonable expectation of success to provide a lighter frame and help the frame traverse uneven terrain (Wilson, ¶25).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fair (US 4341181 A) as modified by Sensenig (US 7810450 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bohnett (US 4026069 A).
Regarding Claim 5, the system of Fair as modified by Sensenig, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Fair further teaches that the center shaft (22) includes a first end and a second end (See Fig. 1; Center shaft 22 has a first [left] end and a second [right] end.).
The system of Fair as modified by Sensenig teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the first end of the shaft is rotatably connected to a first opposing side of the frame and the second end of the shaft is rotatably connected to a second opposing side of the frame. Bohnett teaches a center shaft (19) wherein a first end of the shaft is rotatably connected to a first opposing side of the frame and a second end of the shaft is rotatably connected to a second opposing side of the frame (See Figs. 1-2 and 4; Center shaft 19 has a first [top] end rotatably connected to a first opposing side of a frame and a second [bottom] end rotatably connected to a second opposing side of the frame.). It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to have the center shaft be rotatably connected to a first opposing side of the frame and the second end of the shaft is rotatably connected to a second opposing side of the frame as taught by Bohnett with reasonable expectation of success to provide a more efficient system, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fair (US 4341181 A) as modified by Sensenig (US 7810450 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Filonowicz (US 2502936 A).
Regarding Claim 10, the system of Fair as modified by Sensenig, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Fair further teaches that the sweep mechanism (82) includes one or more paddles (88) and that the one or more paddles (88) are connected to the center shaft (shown in Figs. 1 and 4; Paddles 88 are connected to center shaft 22.).
The system of Fair as modified by Sensenig teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the sweep mechanism includes one or more rotating wheels, that the one or more rotating wheels are located at ends of the center shaft and adjacent the opposing side of a frame, and to have, when the one or more rotating wheels are rotated, the center shaft rotates. Filonowicz teaches a sweep system (shown in Fig. 2) comprising one or more rotating wheels (16; shown in Figs. 1-2) wherein the one or more rotating wheels (16) are located at ends of a center shaft and adjacent the opposing side of a frame (shown in Fig. 1; A center shaft extends between the two rotating wheels 16 and the rotating wheels 16 are adjacent opposing sides of a frame 18.), and when the one or more rotating wheels are rotated, the center shaft rotates (See Claim 1; When the pair of rotating wheels 16 rotate, the center shaft also rotates.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to have the sweep mechanism of the system of Fair as modified by Sensenig include one or more rotating wheels, have the one or more rotating wheels be located at ends of the center shaft and adjacent the opposing side of a frame, and to have, when the one or more rotating wheels are rotated, the center shaft rotate as taught by Filonowicz with reasonable expectation of success to provide a sweep system with more efficient locomotion and stability.
The system of Fair as modified by Sensenig and Filonowicz further teaches that when the one or more rotating wheels are rotated, the center shaft rotates, and the one or more paddles move (Due to the modification of Filonowicz, when the one or more rotating wheels 16 are rotated, the center shaft 22 would rotate, and the one or more paddles 88 would move.).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fair (US 4341181 A) as modified by Sensenig (US 7810450 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thompson et al. (US 3805741 A).
Regarding Claim 12, the system of Fair as modified by Sensenig, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
The system of Fair as modified by Sensenig teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the sweep mechanism is configured to include an autonomous operation option using a drive system. Thompson teaches a sweeping mechanism (shown in Figs. 1-2; See also Column 3 Lines 35-50) is configured to include an autonomous operation option using a drive system (28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to have the sweep mechanism of the system of Fair as modified by Sensenig be configured to include an autonomous operation option using a drive system as taught by Thompson with reasonable expectation of success to provide a more efficient and cost-effective system, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Regarding Claim 13, the system of Fair as modified by Sensenig, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
The system of Fair as modified by Sensenig teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the sweep mechanism is configured to include an autonomous operation option using a drive system, wherein the drive system includes one or more motors with one or more inner members and one or more connection members. Thompson teaches a sweeping mechanism (shown in Figs. 1-2; See also Column 3 Lines 35-50) is configured to include an autonomous operation option using a drive system (28), wherein the drive system (28) includes one or more motors (72) with one or more inner members (68; shown in Fig. 3) and one or more connection members (62; Fig. 3 and Column 4 Lines 15-20 show that members 62 serve to connect the motor 72 to the wheels 64.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to have the sweep mechanism of the system of Fair as modified by Sensenig be configured to include an autonomous operation option using a drive system, wherein the drive system includes one or more motors with one or more inner members and one or more connection members as taught by Thompson with reasonable expectation of success to provide a more efficient and cost-effective system, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fair (US 4341181 A) in view of Bohnett (US 4026069 A).
Regarding Claim 14, Fair teaches a sweep system (10) for livestock grazing (shown in Fig. 1), comprising:
A frame (12);
Wherein the frame (12) has a front end (14), a rear end (16), and opposing sides (18,20);
One or more wheel assemblies (36) operably connected to the frame (shown in Fig. 1; Wheel assemblies 36 are operatively connected to frame 12.);
Wherein the one or more wheel assemblies (36) facilitate movement of the frame (Stated in the Claims and Column 3 Lines 1-15; The wheels 42 and 44 of assemblies 36 propel the movement of frame 12.);
A sweep mechanism (82; Fig. 1 shows an assembly 82 which is capable of sweeping through the desired terrain [see also Column 4 Lines 5-25].);
Wherein the sweep mechanism (82) is operably connected to the frame (shown in Fig. 1; Sweep mechanism 82 is operably connected to frame 12.);
Wherein the sweep mechanism (82) is comprised of one or more paddles (88) and a center shaft (22).
The system of Fair teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the center shaft of the sweep mechanism rotates with respect to the frame. Bohnett teaches a center shaft (19) that rotates with respect to a frame (See Figs. 1-2 and 4; Center shaft 19 has a first [top] end rotatably connected to a first opposing side of a frame and a second [bottom] end rotatably connected to a second opposing side of the frame.). It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to have the center shaft of the sweep mechanism rotate with respect to the frame as taught by Bohnett with reasonable expectation of success to provide a more efficient system, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
The system of Fair as modified by Bohnett further teaches that when the center shaft of the sweep mechanism rotates, the one or more paddles contact the livestock, and the livestock move away from the sweep mechanism (See Fig. 2 of Bohnett and Figs. 1 and 4 of Fair; Due to the modification of Bohnett, center shaft 22 of Fair would rotate, which leads paddles 88 to rotate. Therefore, the paddles 88 are capable of contacting the livestock and allowing the livestock to move away from the sweep mechanism 82 in response.).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fair (US 4341181 A) as modified by Bohnett (US 4026069 A) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Steele (US 4048959 A).
Regarding Claim 15, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 14.
However, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett fails to explicitly state that the frame includes a roof, one or more upper side walls, one or more lower side walls, and a back wall.
Steele teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a mobile, portable, and self-propelled corral.), the system of Steele teaches a frame (10) includes a roof (40), one or more upper side walls (48), one or more lower side walls (46), and a back wall (16). Therefore, 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 system of Fair as modified by Bohnett to have the frame include a roof, one or more upper side walls, one or more lower side walls, and a back wall as taught by Steele with reasonable expectation of success to provide shade to the livestock (Steele, Column 2 Line 30).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fair (US 4341181 A) as modified by Bohnett (US 4026069 A) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Wilson (US 20110120384 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 14.
However, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett fails to explicitly state that the one or more wheel assemblies includes a front member; and that the front member is connected to a wheel of the one or more wheel assemblies.
Wilson teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a portable corral.), the system of Wilson teaches a frame (104) comprises a one or more wheel assemblies (201) which includes a front member (803); wherein the front member (803) is connected to a wheel (202) of the one or more wheel assemblies (shown in Fig. 8). Therefore, 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 system of Fair as modified by Bohnett to have the one or more wheel assemblies include a front member; and to have the front member is connected to a wheel of the one or more wheel assemblies as taught by Wilson with reasonable expectation of success to provide a lighter frame and help the frame traverse uneven terrain (Wilson, ¶25).
Regarding Claim 17, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 14.
However, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett fails to explicitly state that the one or more wheel assemblies includes an upper lever; wherein the upper lever extends between a front member of the one or more wheel assemblies and a frame member of the frame.
Wilson teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a portable corral.), the system of Wilson teaches a frame (104) comprises a one or more wheel assemblies (201) which include an upper lever (shown in Fig. 8; Two horizontal upper levers extend from the rear end of frame 104 to the top of a front member 803.) , wherein the upper lever extends between a front member (803) of the one or more wheel assemblies (201) and a frame member of the frame (shown in Fig. 8; Two horizontal upper levers extend from the rear frame members of frame 104 to the top of front members 803.). Therefore, 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 system of Fair as modified by Bohnett to have the one or more wheel assemblies include an upper lever, wherein the upper lever extends between a front member of the one or more wheel assemblies and a frame member of the frame as taught by Wilson with reasonable expectation of success to provide a lighter frame and help the frame traverse uneven terrain (Wilson, ¶25).
Regarding Claim 18, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 14.
However, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett fails to explicitly state that the one or more wheel assemblies includes a lower lever; wherein the lower lever extends between a front member of the one or more wheel assemblies and a frame member of the frame.
Wilson teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a portable corral.), the system of Wilson teaches a frame (104) comprises a one or more wheel assemblies (201) which include a lower lever (802; Fig. 8 shows two lower levers 802 which include two members.), wherein the lower lever (802) extends between a front member (803) of the one or more wheel assemblies (201) and a frame member of the frame (shown in Fig. 8; The two members of lower levers 802 extend between the lower portion of front member 803 and the rear frame members of frame 104.). Therefore, 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 system of Fair as modified by Bohnett to have the one or more wheel assemblies include a lower lever, wherein the lower lever extends between a front member of the one or more wheel assemblies and a frame member of the frame as taught by Wilson with reasonable expectation of success to provide a lighter frame and help the frame traverse uneven terrain (Wilson, ¶25).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fair (US 4341181 A) as modified by Bohnett (US 4026069 A) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Filonowicz (US 2502936 A).
Regarding Claim 19, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 14.
Fair further teaches that the sweep mechanism (82) includes one or more rotating hinges (92); wherein the one or more rotating hinges (92) facilitate rotation of the sweep mechanism (See Column 4 Lines 5-25; Center shaft 90 comprises a hinge 92 which allows the center shaft 90 and push bars 88 of mechanism 82 to rotate as shown in Fig. 4.).
The system of Fair as modified by Bohnett teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the sweep mechanism includes one or more rotating wheels. Filonowicz teaches a sweep system (shown in Fig. 2) comprising one or more rotating wheels (16; shown in Figs. 1-2). It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the rotating hinges of the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett with the rotating wheels as taught by Filonowicz to provide a sweep system with more efficient locomotion and stability, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding Claim 20, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 14.
Fair further teaches that the sweep mechanism (82) includes the center shaft (22) and the one or more paddles (88); wherein the one or more paddles (88) are connected to the center shaft (shown in Figs. 1 and 4; Paddles 88 are connected to center shaft 22.).
The system of Fair as modified by Bohnett teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the sweep mechanism includes one or more rotating wheels; and that the one or more rotating wheels are located at ends of the center shaft, and to have, when the one or more rotating wheels are rotated, the center shaft rotates. Filonowicz teaches a sweep system (shown in Fig. 2) comprising one or more rotating wheels (16; shown in Figs. 1-2) wherein the one or more rotating wheels (16) are located at ends of a center shaft (shown in Fig. 1; A center shaft extends between the two rotating wheels 16.), and when the one or more rotating wheels are rotated, the center shaft rotates (See Claim 1; When the pair of rotating wheels 16 rotate, the center shaft also rotates.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to have the sweep mechanism of the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett include one or more rotating wheels, have the one or more rotating wheels be located at ends of the center shaft, and to have, when the one or more rotating wheels are rotated, the center shaft rotate as taught by Filonowicz with reasonable expectation of success to provide a sweep system with more efficient locomotion and stability.
The system of Fair as modified by Bohnett and Filonowicz further teaches that when the one or more rotating wheels are rotated, the center shaft rotates, and the one or more paddles move in a rotational direction opposite to the one or more wheel assemblies (Due to the modification of Filonowicz, when the one or more rotating wheels 16 are rotated, the center shaft 22 would rotate, and the one or more paddles 88 would move. Furthermore, according to Column 2 Lines 30-55 state that the rotating wheels 16 allow the center shaft to rotate clockwise. Therefore, as the wheel assemblies 36 rotate forwards and counterclockwise, the rotating wheels 16 are capable of rotating clockwise and thereby allowing paddles 88 to rotate clockwise, a direction opposite to the rotation of the wheel assemblies 36.).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fair (US 4341181 A) as modified by Bohnett (US 4026069 A) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Thompson et al. (US 3805741 A).
Regarding Claim 21, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 14.
The system of Fair as modified by Bohnett teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the sweep mechanism is configured to include an autonomous operation option using a drive system. Thompson teaches a sweeping mechanism (shown in Figs. 1-2; See also Column 3 Lines 35-50) is configured to include an autonomous operation option using a drive system (28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to have the sweep mechanism of the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett be configured to include an autonomous operation option using a drive system as taught by Thompson with reasonable expectation of success to provide a more efficient and cost-effective system, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Regarding Claim 22, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 14.
The system of Fair as modified by Sensenig teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the sweep mechanism is configured to include an autonomous operation option using a drive system, wherein the drive system includes one or more motors with one or more inner members and one or more connection members. Thompson teaches a sweeping mechanism (shown in Figs. 1-2; See also Column 3 Lines 35-50) is configured to include an autonomous operation option using a drive system (28), wherein the drive system (28) includes one or more motors (72) with one or more inner members (68; shown in Fig. 3) and one or more connection members (62; Fig. 3 and Column 4 Lines 15-20 show that members 62 serve to connect the motor 72 to the wheels 64.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to have the sweep mechanism of the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett be configured to include an autonomous operation option using a drive system, wherein the drive system includes one or more motors with one or more inner members and one or more connection members as taught by Thompson with reasonable expectation of success to provide a more efficient and cost-effective system, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Claims 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fair (US 4341181 A) in view of Bohnett (US 4026069 A) and Thomsen (EP 3248458 A1).
Regarding Claim 23, Fair teaches a sweep system (10) for livestock grazing (shown in Fig. 1), comprising:
A frame (12);
Wherein the frame (12) has a front end (14), a rear end (16), and opposing sides (18,20);
A sweep mechanism (82; Fig. 1 shows an assembly 82 which is capable of sweeping through the desired terrain [see also Column 4 Lines 5-25].);
Wherein the sweep mechanism (82) is operably connected to the frame (shown in Fig. 1; Sweep mechanism 82 is operably connected to frame 12.); and
Wherein the sweep mechanism (82) is comprised of one or more paddles (88) and a center shaft (22).
The system of Fair teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the center shaft of the sweep mechanism rotates with respect to the frame. Bohnett teaches a center shaft (19) that rotates with respect to a frame (See Figs. 1-2 and 4; Center shaft 19 has a first [top] end rotatably connected to a first opposing side of a frame and a second [bottom] end rotatably connected to a second opposing side of the frame.). It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to have the center shaft of the sweep mechanism rotate with respect to the frame as taught by Bohnett with reasonable expectation of success to provide a more efficient system, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
The system of Fair as modified by Bohnett further teaches that when the center shaft of the sweep mechanism rotates, the one or more paddles contact the livestock, and the livestock move away from the sweep mechanism (See Fig. 2 of Bohnett and Figs. 1 and 4 of Fair; Due to the modification of Bohnett, center shaft 22 of Fair would rotate, which leads paddles 88 to rotate. Therefore, the paddles 88 are capable of contacting the livestock and allowing the livestock to move away from the sweep mechanism 82 in response.).
The system of Fair as modified by Bohnett fails to explicitly state that the sweep system comprises a mobile farm, wherein the mobile barn has a frame.
Thomsen teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a portable piggery.), the system of Thomsen teaches a mobile barn (2), wherein the mobile barn (2) has a frame (shown in the Figs.). Therefore, 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 system of Fair as modified by Bohnett to include a mobile farm, wherein the mobile barn has a frame as taught by Thomsen with reasonable expectation of success to provide both sheltered and free-range areas for the grazing livestock.
Regarding Claim 24, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett and Thomsen, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 23.
Fair further teaches that the system has one or more wheel assemblies (36) operably connected to the frame (shown in Fig. 1; Wheel assemblies 36 are operatively connected to frame 12.).
Regarding Claim 25, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett and Thomsen, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 23.
However, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett and Thomsen fails to explicitly state that the frame includes a roof, one or more upper side walls, one or more lower side walls, and a back wall.
Thomsen further teaches a mobile barn (2) comprising a frame (shown in the Figs.) that includes a roof (5), one or more upper side walls (Fig. 5 shows that the frame of mobile barn 2 comprises upper side walls that include windows 15.), one or more lower side walls (14), and a back wall (6). Therefore, 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 system of Fair as modified by Bohnett and Thomsen to have the frame include a roof, one or more upper side walls, one or more lower side walls, and a back wall as taught by Thomsen with reasonable expectation of success to provide both sheltered and free-range areas for the grazing livestock.
Regarding Claim 26, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett and Thomsen, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 23.
Fair further teaches that the system has one or more wheel assemblies (36) connected to the frame by a frame member (38; Fig. 2 and Column 3 Lines 1-10 show that the one or more wheel assemblies 36 are connected to frame 12 by a frame member 38.).
Regarding Claim 27, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett and Thomsen, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 23.
Fair further teaches that the system has one or more wheel assemblies (36); that the one or more wheel assemblies (36) includes a wheel (42,44); and that the wheel (42,44) facilitates movement of the frame (Stated in the Claims and Column 3 Lines 1-15; The wheels 42 and 44 of assemblies 36 propel the movement of frame 12.).
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fair (US 4341181 A) as modified by Bohnett (US 4026069 A) and Thomsen (EP 3248458 A1) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Wilson (US 20110120384 A1).
Regarding Claim 28, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett and Thomsen, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 23.
Fair further teaches that the system has one or more wheel assemblies (36).
However, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett and Thomsen fails to explicitly state that the one or more wheel assemblies includes a front member; and that the front member is connected to a wheel of the one or more wheel assemblies.
Wilson teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a portable corral.), the system of Wilson teaches a frame (104) comprises a one or more wheel assemblies (201) which includes a front member (803); wherein the front member (803) is connected to a wheel (202) of the one or more wheel assemblies (shown in Fig. 8). Therefore, 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 system of Fair as modified by Bohnett and Thomsen to have the one or more wheel assemblies include a front member; and to have the front member is connected to a wheel of the one or more wheel assemblies as taught by Wilson with reasonable expectation of success to provide a lighter frame and help the frame traverse uneven terrain (Wilson, ¶25).
Regarding Claim 29, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett and Thomsen, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 23.
Fair further teaches that the system has one or more wheel assemblies (36).
However, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett and Thomsen fails to explicitly state that the one or more wheel assemblies includes an upper lever; wherein the upper lever extends between a front member of the one or more wheel assemblies and a frame member of the frame.
Wilson teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a portable corral.), the system of Wilson teaches a frame (104) comprises a one or more wheel assemblies (201) which include an upper lever (shown in Fig. 8; Two horizontal upper levers extend from the rear end of frame 104 to the top of a front member 803.) , wherein the upper lever extends between a front member (803) of the one or more wheel assemblies (201) and a frame member of the frame (shown in Fig. 8; Two horizontal upper levers extend from the rear frame members of frame 104 to the top of front members 803.). Therefore, 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 system of Fair as modified by Bohnett and Thomsen to have the one or more wheel assemblies include an upper lever, wherein the upper lever extends between a front member of the one or more wheel assemblies and a frame member of the frame as taught by Wilson with reasonable expectation of success to provide a lighter frame and help the frame traverse uneven terrain (Wilson, ¶25).
Regarding Claim 30, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett and Thomsen, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 23.
Fair further teaches that the system has one or more wheel assemblies (36).
However, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett and Thomsen fails to explicitly state that the one or more wheel assemblies includes a lower lever; wherein the lower lever extends between a front member of the one or more wheel assemblies and a frame member of the frame.
Wilson teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a portable corral.), the system of Wilson teaches a frame (104) comprises a one or more wheel assemblies (201) which include a lower lever (802; Fig. 8 shows two lower levers 802 which include two members.), wherein the lower lever (802) extends between a front member (803) of the one or more wheel assemblies (201) and a frame member of the frame (shown in Fig. 8; The two members of lower levers 802 extend between the lower portion of front member 803 and the rear frame members of frame 104.). Therefore, 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 system of Fair as modified by Bohnett and Thomsen to have the one or more wheel assemblies include a lower lever, wherein the lower lever extends between a front member of the one or more wheel assemblies and a frame member of the frame as taught by Wilson with reasonable expectation of success to provide a lighter frame and help the frame traverse uneven terrain (Wilson, ¶25).
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fair (US 4341181 A) as modified by Bohnett (US 4026069 A) and Thomsen (EP 3248458 A1) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Filonowicz (US 2502936 A).
Regarding Claim 31, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett and Thomsen, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 23.
The system of Fair as modified by Bohnett and Thomsen teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the sweep mechanism includes one or more rotating wheels; and that the one or more rotating wheels facilitate rotation of the sweep mechanism. Filonowicz teaches a sweep system (shown in Fig. 2) comprising one or more rotating wheels (16; shown in Figs. 1-2), wherein the one or more rotating wheels facilitate rotation of the sweep mechanism (stated in Claim 1). It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to have the sweep mechanism include one or more rotating wheels and to have the one or more rotating wheels facilitate rotation of the sweep mechanism as taught by Filonowicz to provide a sweep system with more efficient locomotion and stability, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding Claim 32, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett and Thomsen, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 23.
Fair further teaches that the sweep mechanism (82) includes the center shaft (22) and the one or more paddles (88) and that the one or more paddles (88) are connected to the center shaft (shown in Figs. 1 and 4; Paddles 88 are connected to center shaft 22.).
The system of Fair as modified by Bohnett and Thomsen teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the sweep mechanism includes one or more rotating wheels, that the one or more rotating wheels are located at ends of the center shaft, and to have, when the one or more rotating wheels are rotated, the center shaft rotates. Filonowicz teaches a sweep system (shown in Fig. 2) comprising one or more rotating wheels (16; shown in Figs. 1-2) wherein the one or more rotating wheels (16) are located at ends of a center shaft (shown in Fig. 1; A center shaft extends between the two rotating wheels 16.), and when the one or more rotating wheels are rotated, the center shaft rotates (See Claim 1; When the pair of rotating wheels 16 rotate, the center shaft also rotates.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to have the sweep mechanism of the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett and Thomsen include one or more rotating wheels, have the one or more rotating wheels be located at ends of the center shaft, and to have, when the one or more rotating wheels are rotated, the center shaft rotate as taught by Filonowicz with reasonable expectation of success to provide a sweep system with more efficient locomotion and stability.
The system of Fair as modified by Bohnett, Thomsen, and Filonowicz further teaches that when the one or more rotating wheels are rotated, the center shaft rotates, and the one or more paddles move (Due to the modification of Filonowicz, when the one or more rotating wheels 16 are rotated, the center shaft 22 would rotate, and the one or more paddles 88 would move.).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fair (US 4341181 A) as modified by Bohnett (US 4026069 A) and Thomsen (EP 3248458 A1) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Thompson et al. (US 3805741 A).
Regarding Claim 33, the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett and Thomsen, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 23.
The system of Fair as modified by Bohnett and Thomsen teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the sweep mechanism is configured to include an autonomous operation option using a drive system, wherein the drive system includes one or more motors with one or more inner members and one or more connection members. Thompson teaches a sweeping mechanism (shown in Figs. 1-2; See also Column 3 Lines 35-50) is configured to include an autonomous operation option using a drive system (28), wherein the drive system (28) includes one or more motors (72) with one or more inner members (68; shown in Fig. 3) and one or more connection members (62; Fig. 3 and Column 4 Lines 15-20 show that members 62 serve to connect the motor 72 to the wheels 64.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to have the sweep mechanism of the system of Fair as modified by Bohnett and Thomsen be configured to include an autonomous operation option using a drive system, wherein the drive system includes one or more motors with one or more inner members and one or more connection members as taught by Thompson with reasonable expectation of success to provide a more efficient and cost-effective system, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wei (CN 111316931 A) teaches a livestock with a mild cleaning system.
Bens (US 6000364 A) teaches a training installation.
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 ANGELICA A ALMEIDA BONNIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/A.A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643