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 .
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 6-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,215 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent 11,326,316. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the current claims and the patented claims disclose a blade with a retainer member and notches in the blade to receive a spring element wherein the springs bias the blade into ground engagement, but the current claims are broader than the patented claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayes et al. (10,458,081).
Regarding claim 1, Hayes et al. discloses a hinge coupling for rotatably fastening a snow plow blade assembly to a moldboard (124) of a snowplow, the hinge coupling comprising:
a spring (172) having a first terminal leg and a second terminal leg;
a plow mount portion including:
a first side plate (176) having a first hinge barrel (bearing, not shown – column 4 lines 58-60) mounted thereon;
a second side plate (176) in spaced parallel relation with the first side plate (Figure 6) and having a second hinge barrel mounted thereon (bearing, not shown - column 4 lines 58-60);
A plow mounting plate (158) extending between the first side plate and the second side plate, wherein the mounting plate is configured to be coupled to the mold board (124);
a spring plate (140) extending between the first side plate (176) and the second side plate (176), wherein the first terminal leg of the spring is coupled with the spring plate (see Figure 6, upper/first terminal leg of spring coupled with spring plate via extension and set screw 190)
a blade mount portion including:
a pin (174) extending between the first side plate (176) and the second side plate (176), wherein the pin (174) includes a first pin end rotatably received within the first hinge barrel (bearing, not shown) and the second pin end rotatably received within the second hinge barrel (bearing, not shown);
a blade mounting plate (144) fixedly secured to the pin (via brackets 178), wherein the second terminal leg of the spring is coupled (via spring load) to the blade mounting plate (144) (Figure 6), wherein the blade mount portion is rotatably moveable relative to the plow mount portion, and wherein the blade mounting plate (144) is configured to be coupled to the snow plow blade assembly
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al. (10,458,081) in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 4, Hayes discloses the invention as described above but fails to disclose a cover plate for the plow mount portion. The examiner takes Official Notice that cover plates for protecting machine elements from the environment (dirt, debris etc) to prevent damage thereto is old and well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a cover plate to prevent ingress of dirt and debris around the mounting mechanism to prevent damage thereto.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al. (10,458,081) in view of Fox et al. (8,984,778).
Regarding claim 5, Hayes et al. discloses the invention as described above but fails to disclose an adapter plate between the moldboard and the plow mounting plate. Like Hayes, Fox also discloses mounting a blade member to a moldboard. Unlike Hayes, Fox disclose the use of an adapter plate with a variety of different fastener openings such that it can be used to attach different moldboards and blades with different configurations (column 2 line 56 through column 3 line 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an adapter blade in Hayes as taught by Fox to enable the use to attach the blade mechanism to multiple different types of moldboards as the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al. (10,458,081) in view of Giletta (2015/0376850).
Regarding claim 6, Hayes discloses a snow plow blade apparatus for connection to a moldboard of a snow plow, the snow plow blade apparatus comprising:
a hinge coupling comprising:
a first spring (172) having a first terminal leg and a second terminal leg
a plow mount portion coupled to the first terminal leg of the first spring therein (at 140,190)
a blade mount portion including a pin (174) and a blade mounting plate (144) coupled to the second terminal leg of the first spring (via spring force) and rotatably moveable relative to the plow mount portion
a blade assembly (132)
wherein the hinge coupling is configured to rotate about a longitudinal axis defined by the first spring
While Hayes discloses the invention as described above, it fails to disclose the claimed blade assembly. Like Hayes, Giletta also discloses a blade assembly for a moldboard with a trip mechanism (Figure 7). Unlike Hayes, Giletta further discloses a blade assembly comprising:
a blade retainer (upper element 37)
a blade (lower element 37) slidably mounted to the blade retainer, the blade having a top edge and a bottom edge, wherein the bottom edge is configured for engaging a road surface during operation of the snow plow
a plurality of second springs (36) disposed between a top plate of the blade retainer and the top edge of the blade, wherein the plurality of second springs are configured to bias the blade toward the road surface so that the bottom edge of the blade maintains contact with the road surface
wherein the blade is configured to translate vertically relative to the blade retainer and moldboard and perpendicular relative to the axis of rotation of the trip mechanism
Giletta discloses that the sliding blade assembly aids in following the contours of the ground surface for uniform clearing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the blade assembly of Giletta in Hayes to improve the Hayes’ blade’s ground contour following ability as a simple substitution of one known blade assembly for another to obtain predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claim 8, the combination discloses a plurality of notches in the blade that receives the second springs (Giletta Figure 4).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al. (10,458,081) in view of Giletta (2015/0376850) as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Fox et al. (8,984,778).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hayes et al. and Giletta discloses the invention as described above but fails to disclose an adapter plate between the moldboard and the plow mounting plate. Like the combination, Fox also discloses mounting a blade member to a moldboard. Unlike the combination, Fox disclose the use of an adapter plate with a variety of different fastener openings such that it can be used to attach different moldboards and blades with different configurations (column 2 line 56 through column 3 line 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an adapter blade in the combination as taught by Fox to enable the use to attach the blade mechanism to multiple different types of moldboards as the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al. (10,458,081) in view of Giletta (2015/0376850) as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Hamel (2007/0245600).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hayes and Giletta discloses the invention as described above but fails to disclose the claimed bore and post of the spring mechanism. Like the combination, Hamel also discloses a ground following blade mechanism that utilizes a spring element and a sliding blade. Unlike the combination, Hamel disclose that the spring can be a vertically oriented compression spring (6) mounted on a post (7) that extends into a bore (5) on the blade (2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize post mounted compression springs in the combination of Hayes and Giletta as taught by Hamel in place of the elastomeric springs taught by Giletta as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Paonessa (8,776,405) and Jones (5,437,113) also disclose trip blade mechanisms with horizontally arranged springs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jamie L McGowan whose telephone number is (571)272-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00-5:00 CST.
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, Chris 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.
/JAMIE L MCGOWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights