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 14 objected to because of the following informalities: “second bar second” should read “second bar section”. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “third guiding projection” and the “fourth guiding projection” must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims contain the limitations of a “third guiding projection” and a “fourth guiding projection”; the specification of the instant application contains no mention of a third or fourth guiding projection. The specification merely states that “the supporting cheeks 42, 44 comprise guiding projections 58, 60 formed on the coupling carrier plate 50” (see [0018] and [0034] of Specification – 2/26/2024). Furthermore, the drawings fail to show more than two supporting cheeks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margraf (EP 3549797) in view of Thomas (US 5217242).
Regarding claim 1, Margraf teaches a coupling arrangement for an agricultural tractor (Abstract, Fig. 3), the coupling arrangement comprising: a coupling carrier plate 30 including: an upper supporting cheek 39 extending across the coupling carrier plate 30, a lower supporting cheek 39 (Paragraphs 52-53, Figs. 1 and 3-5; the upper and lower supporting surfaces of the guide grooves 39a/39b are the supporting cheeks), and an insertion opening between the upper supporting cheek 39 and the lower supporting cheek 39 (Fig. 3; the cheeks define an outer boundary of an insertion opening where a drawbar 40 is inserted); a drawbar 40 having: a first bar section, which is mounted in a longitudinally movable manner for attachment to an agricultural tractor 10 (Paragraphs 59 and 61, Figs. 1-5; the first bar section is the end of the drawbar where holes 50a/50b are located), and a second bar section 56, which is situated opposite the first bar section and is guided in a longitudinally movable manner within the insertion opening between upper supporting cheek 39 and the lower supporting cheek 39 (Paragraph 61, Fig. 3); and a securing element 54, wherein the drawbar 40 is movable into a plurality of coupling positions by longitudinal movement and can be locked therein with respect to the coupling carrier plate 30 via the securing element 54 (Paragraphs 57 and 59, Figs. 4-5).
Margraf teaches a lower supporting cheek 39 on the coupling carrier plate 30 (Fig. 3), but does not teach the lower supporting cheek extending across the coupling carrier plate, nor does Margraf teach a holder or the first bar section mounted in a longitudinally movable manner in the holder for attachment to the tractor.
However, Thomas teaches an adjustable length drawbar assembly supported in a coupling carrier plate by upper 14 and lower 52 supporting cheeks extending across the coupling carrier plate (Col. 2, lines 30-53, Fig. 1 of Thomas), and comprising a holder 34 and a drawbar 32 having: a first bar section 44, which is mounted in a longitudinally movable manner in the holder 34 (Col. 2, line 59-Col. 3, line 2 of Thomas) for attachment to an agricultural tractor (Col. 1, lines 5-8 of Thomas).
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 coupling arrangement of Margraf to include the holder and the lower supporting cheek extending across the coupling carrier plate of Thomas in order to advantageously provide an adjustable drawbar assembly which avoids dirt accumulation (Col. 2, lines 30-35 of Thomas).
Regarding claim 7, Margraf as modified teaches the coupling arrangement including left and right runners 34a/34b for reception in a rail system carrier 24a/24b of a tractor coupling system, the left and right runners 34a/34b formed on the coupling carrier plate 30 (Paragraph 51, Figs. 3 and 5-6).
Regarding claim 8, Margraf as modified teaches wherein the second bar section 56 is passed in a drawer-like manner through the insertion opening, the insertion opening having a profile that corresponds to an outer contour of the second bar section 56, which enables the second bar section to fit within the coupling carrier plate 30 in a form-fitting manner (Paragraphs 52-53 and 60-61, Figs. 3-6; the insertion opening has guide grooves which correspond to an outer contour of the second bar section 56 in a form-fitting manner).
Regarding claim 9, Margraf as modified teaches wherein a coupling element 46, is attached to the second bar section 56 (Paragraphs 72-73, Figs. 3 and 5; the end of the tow bar which includes the second bar section 56 is also attached to the hitch 46).
Regarding claim 10, Margraf as modified teaches wherein at least one of the upper supporting cheek or the lower support cheek 39a/39b includes guiding projections formed on the coupling carrier plate 30 (Paragraph 53, Fig. 3; the cheeks project down and towards the center of the coupling carrier plate in a width direction, while having upper and lower supporting surfaces that correspond to the outer contour of the second bar section 56).
Regarding claim 11, Margraf as modified teaches wherein the coupling element 48 is a ball head (Paragraph 58, Figs. 1-6).
Regarding claim 12, Margraf as modified teaches wherein the lower supporting cheek forms a sliding surface extending laterally beneath the second bar section (Col. 2, lines 28-34 and lines 48-49 of Thomas; the lower supporting cheek 52 provides a sliding surface for the drawbar).
While Margraf on its own does not teach “the lower supporting cheek forms a sliding surface extending laterally beneath the second bar section”, the question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be the modified lower supporting cheek (of Thomas) extending laterally beneath the second bar section (of Margraf) and forming a sliding surface (Col. 2, lines 28-34 and lines 48-49 of Thomas).
Regarding claim 13, Margraf as modified teaches wherein the upper supporting cheek includes a first guiding projection and a second guiding projection and the lower supporting cheek includes a third guiding projection and a fourth guiding projection (See annotated Fig. 3 of Margraf and annotated Fig. 1 of Thomas below; the forward extents of the cheeks at the four corners of the insertion opening are the guiding projections).
Regarding claim 14, Margraf as modified teaches wherein the second bar section 56 is to slide between the first guiding projection, the second guiding projection, the third guiding projection, and the fourth guiding projection (Paragraphs 60-61; See annotated Fig. 1 of Thomas and Fig. 3 of Margraf below).
Regarding claim 15, Margraf as modified teaches wherein the first guiding projection, the second guiding projection, the third guiding projection, and the fourth guiding projection extends from respective corners of the insertion opening (See annotated Fig. 1 of Thomas and Fig. 3 of Margraf below).
Regarding claim 16, Margraf as modified teaches wherein the left and right runners 34a/34b are receivable within respective height-adjustable fixing rails 24a/24b of the rail system carrier (Paragraph 51, Figs. 3 and 5-6).
Regarding claim 17, Margraf as modified teaches wherein the holder includes a supporting plate that extends transversely to a longitudinal extent of the drawbar, extending between two mounting blocks (Col. 2, lines 36-46 of Thomas; See annotated Fig. 1 of Thomas below; the holder 34 has a flat support plate as the bottom portion of the U-shape which extends transversely to the drawbar 32 between two mounting blocks).
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margraf in view Thomas, and further in view of Payne (US 9907221).
Regarding claim 2, Margraf as modified teaches a securing element 54 (Paragraph 59), but does not teach the securing element being threadless and passing through the second bar section and coupling carrier plate.
However, Payne teaches a hitch module 1000 wherein a securing element has a threadless securing bolt (Col. 16, lines 36-43 of Payne; the first engagement pin is the threadless bolt), which can be passed through mutually aligned positioning openings (the through-holes), which are formed in the coupling carrier plate 1002 and the second bar section 1008, in order to lock the drawbar, with the result that a longitudinal movement of the drawbar is blocked (Col. 16, lines 43-49, Fig. 10 of Payne).
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 securing element of the modified assembly of Margraf/Thomas to be a pin engaging with a plurality of aligned positioning openings in the carrier plate and the second bar section as Payne teaches in order to advantageously allow the hitch assembly to extend away from the frame while being securely locked relative to the frame (Col. 16, lines 36-49 of Payne).
Regarding claim 5, Margraf as modified does not teach a guide element in a slotted hole in the first bar section.
However, Payne teaches wherein the holder has a guide element 1012, which engages in a slotted hole 1014 in the first bar section, for limiting the extent of the longitudinal movement (Col. 16, lines 19-23, Fig. 10 of Payne).
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 modified coupling arrangement of Margraf/Thomas to have the guide element and slotted hole of Payne in order to advantageously allow the drawbar to be movable along a longitudinal axis (Abstract of Payne).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margraf in view of Thomas and Payne, and further in view of Rasset (US 7909349).
Regarding claim 3, Margraf as modified does not expressly teach the pin having a circumferential collar which rests on the upper side of the coupling carrier plate.
However, Rasset teaches a drawbar retention assembly wherein a collar 26a is formed on the securing bolt 26 and, in the mounted state, rests against an upper side of the coupling carrier plate 20 or an upper fastening eye projecting therefrom (Col. 5, lines 53-59, Figs. 3-6 of Rasset).
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 modified coupling arrangement of Margraf/et.al. so that the securing bolts have a collar that rests on the upper surface of the carrier plate in order to advantageously provide a suitable removing means to the pins (Col. 5, lines 53-59 of Rasset).
Regarding the limitation of the collar being circumferential, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the collar of the pins to be circumferential in order to advantageously provide a simple pin configuration to manufacture.
Regarding claim 4, Margraf as modified does not teach left and right positioning openings.
However, Rasset teaches a drawbar retention assembly wherein left and right positioning openings for receiving a respective securing bolt 26 are provided on an end plate 133 formed on the second bar section 115, wherein the positioning openings correspond to corresponding left and right positioning openings 28 in the coupling carrier plate 20 (Col. 5, lines 42-56, Figs. 2-4 of Rasset).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the left and right positioning openings with securing bolts of Rasset for the modified securing bolt and positioning openings of the modified coupling arrangement of Margraf/et.al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and advantageously provided the ability to selectively adjust the drawbar length and lock it into position (Col. 5, lines 59-66 of Rasset).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margraf in view of Thomas and Payne, and further in view of Joseph (US 1832641).
Regarding claim 6, Margraf as modified does not teach the slotted hole having an open end.
However, Joseph teaches a tractor hitch with a longitudinally extending slot 27 wherein the slotted hole 27 is open toward the free end of a first bar section (Col. 2, lines 1-8, Fig. 4 of Joseph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the open ended longitudinally extending slot of Joseph for the modified longitudinally extending slot of Margraf/et.al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and provided the advantages of allowing the draw bar to be longitudinally adjusted while also being removable from the guide element.
PNG
media_image1.png
629
803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
798
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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 NATHANIEL WILLIAM WATKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -6:00 pm EST; Friday 8:30 am - 2:00 pm EST.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 5712722706. 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.
/N.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/TIMOTHY WILHELM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights