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.
Claims 1-9 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 the limitation "the slide" on page 3, lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There appears to be inconsistency when referring to “the mounting slide”. Examiner suggests amending to be consistent when referring to “the mounting slide”. Claims 2-9 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 9 appears to be dependent from claim 1, but it is unclear if claim 9 further limits the invention as claim 9 appears to contain repeat limitations recited in claim 1. The claim has been examined as best understood.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Talou et al. (US 10407857).
Regarding claim 1, Talou discloses a mounting slide for attaching one or more cutting edge sections to a plow for a snow-clearing vehicle (Figs 1-2; there would have to be some kind of plow and snow-clearing vehicle in order to use the invention),
wherein each of the one or more cutting edge sections has a body, and an engagement end that is disposed proximate to an upper edge of the cutting edge sections, the cutting edge sections having a substantially uniform cross-section, and wherein the cutting edge sections have a cross-sectional profile such that the engagement end has a horizontal width at its widest point that is greater than a width of the body (Fig 26 depicts a cutting edge section with body 303; engagement end 301 proximate upper edge; the cross section is considered to be substantially uniform; the width of engagement end 301 is greater than the width of the body 301),
the mounting slide (501) being elongate and having:
a backing member on a rear face (backing member 503; rear face of mounting slide 501);
a top face (top face of 501; 501b);
an opening on a bottom face (bottom face of 501 with opening for channel 501a);
a first side end;
a second side end, the second end being at an end opposite to the first side end (Fig 2 depicts mounting slides 501 each with a first end and second end); and
a channel extending from the first side end to the second side end, along a length of the mounting slide, the channel being open on the bottom face; wherein the mounting slide is adapted to be mounted and secured, through the backing member, to a front blade of the plow via a securing means (channel 501a is open on the bottom face; Figs 3-4 depict the mounting slide 501 is secured by securing means to a front blade of the plow; col 6, lines 39-46);
wherein the channel of the slide is configured to slidably receive therein, from the first end of the slide, the engagement end of the one or more cutting edge sections, and wherein the opening is configured to be able to accommodate the body of the one or more cutting edge sections, but not the engagement end of the one or more cutting edge sections (Fig 2 depicts the channel of the mounting slide accommodating the engagement end of the cutting edge while the opening accommodates the body 303 but not the engagement edge 301).
Regarding claim 4, Talou discloses the mounting slide wherein the mounting slide additionally comprises retaining means for securing the cutting edge sections in an installed position (locking portion 502 secures the cutting edge in an installed position; col 6, lines 61-65).
Regarding claim 9, Talou discloses a plow blade assembly for a snow-clearing vehicle, comprising:
a plow (see rejection of claim 1);
a mounting slide, wherein the mounting slide is mounted to a front blade of the plow via a securing means; and
one or more cutting edge sections, wherein each of the one or more cutting edge sections has a body, and an engagement end that is disposed proximate to an upper edge of the cutting edge sections, the cutting edge sections having a substantially uniform cross-section, and the cutting edge sections having a cross-sectional profile such that the engagement end has a horizontal width at its widest point that is greater than a width of the body;
wherein a channel of the mounting slide is adapted to slidably receive therein, from a first end of the mounting slide, the engagement end of the one or more cutting
edge sections, and wherein an opening of the mounting slide is adapted to be able to accommodate the body of the one or more cutting edge sections, but not the engagement end of the one or more cutting edge sections (see the rejection of claim 1).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talou.
Regarding claim 2, Talou fails to specifically disclose the mounting slide wherein the mounting slide and plow are unitary.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the mounting slide and plow unitary, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by making the mounting slide and plow unitary as they are fastened together when assembled. The components of Applicant’s invention appear to be separate with some aspects having the mounting slide and plow unitary (Applicant’s Fig 2 depicts the components as separate and fastened together; para [0010] of Applicant’s specification states the components may be unitary).
Note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to make plural parts unitary as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockart, 90 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1951).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talou as applied to claim 1 above, or Talou in further view of Thorlabs (NPL reference).
Regarding claim 5, Talou discloses the mounting slide wherein the retaining means is one or more keeper bolts, insertable through the top face into the channel or into bolt holes in one or more of the cutting edge sections (claim language is broad; Talou depicts retaining means 502 in Figs 15-16 with what is considered a keeper bolt 502a that inserts through the top face into the channel).
For the sake of argument, Thorlabs discloses a similar retaining means as a set screw and teaches the set screw insertable into a top face into a channel to secure the post (see Annotated Figure 1). The set screw of Thorlabs pushes the post towards a recessed area which is analogous to the claimed opening that accommodates the body of the one or more cutting edge sections, but not the engagement end of the one or more cutting edge sections.
PNG
media_image1.png
265
533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Talou and Thorlabs are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of securing a longitudinal engagement portion in a channel. 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 Talou to incorporate the teachings of Thorlabs and modified the retaining means to be a set screw or keeper bolt. One would have made this modification to prevent the post from translating along the longitudinal axis of the post or cutting edge sections with a simpler design (Thorlabs; Figure 1.2).
Claim(s) 3, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lachance et al. (US 7467485).
Regarding claim 3, Talou discloses the mounting slide wherein the securing means comprises a plurality of bolts, inserted into a plurality of corresponding bolt holes in the mounting slide (Fig 3 depicts bolts inserted into a plurality of bolt holes in the mounting slide); however, Talou is silent on the potential use of a plurality of corresponding nuts as Talou appears to employ bolts threaded into threaded holes.
Lachance discloses a similar snowplow blade securement system (Fig 1) and teaches securing the blade to the mounting slide and plow by an “attach” (attach 80, blade 20, mounting slide 107, plow 109/104; col 3, lines 1-5). Lachance further details the attach in Fig 9 which depicts the attach as a plurality of bolts and a plurality of nuts.
Talou and Lachance are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of blade securement for snowplows. 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 Talou to incorporate the teachings of Lachance and modified the securing means to employ a threaded bolt and threaded nut to attach the blade to the mounting slide and plow. One would have made this modification as a simple substitution of a threaded bolt into a threaded hole for a threaded bolt and threaded nut.
Regarding claim 6, Talou is silent on the specifics of the vehicle plow. However, Lachance discloses a similar snowplow blade securement system (Fig 1) and teaches the plow as a front plow (Fig 5).
As stated before, Talou and Lachance are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of blade securement for snowplows. 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 Talou to incorporate the teachings of Lachance and combined the blade of Talou and used it on a vehicle plow similar to the one taught by Lachance. One would have made this combination to utilize the blade and blade securement system of Talou to more easily scrape snow (Lachance; abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Talou is silent on the specifics of the vehicle plow. However, Lachance discloses a similar snowplow blade securement system (Fig 1) and teaches the snow clearing vehicle as a plow truck (Fig 5).
As stated before, Talou and Lachance are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of blade securement for snowplows. 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 Talou to incorporate the teachings of Lachance and combined the blade of Talou and used it on a plow truck similar to the one taught by Lachance. One would have made this combination to utilize the blade and blade securement system of Talou to more easily scrape snow (Lachance; abstract).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Talou.
Regarding claim 8, Talou discloses the mounting slide wherein the cross-sectional profile of the engagement end is selected from any one of: T-shaped, circular, triangular, oval, hexagonal, and diamond shaped (the engagement end is considered to be T-shaped; col 3, lines 12-17).
For the sake of argument, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the engagement end of the cutting section so long as the invention meets its intended purpose of securing an engagement end into the housing of a mounting slide; a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Vanchot (US 4164821) discloses a snow plow attachment system similar to the claimed invention.
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