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 2 objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 states “a second support members” and should be “a second support member”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: lines 3 and 5 state “moveable members” and should be “movable members”. 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.
Claims 5-6 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 5 recites the limitation "a pair of moveable members" in line 3, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether this is the same as the “movable member” in claim 2. In this regard, since we cannot determine how many movable members exist, we cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said actuation member" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “an actuation member” was claimed in claim 3, but claim 6 depends from claims 5 and 2.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6, and 8-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,256. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of claims 1-19 of the current application is fully encompassed by claims 1-4, 6, and 8-16 of the patent. Specifically, claim 1 of the current application is identical to that of claim 1 of the patent except it does not contain the actuation member or wing assemblies of the patent. Furthermore, claim 2 of current application does contain the actuation member clause of claim 1 of the patent and therefore the scope is fully encompassed. Similarly, claim 3 of current application does contain the wing assembly clause of claim 1 of the patent and therefore the scope is fully encompassed. See claim comparison below:
Application 18/671,130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Patent 12,016,256
1
1
1
2
3
4
6
8
13
13
16
14
15
9
9
12
10
11
9
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an
application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sauder (US 2014/0124225).
In re claim 1, Sauder discloses an agricultural toolbar (10) comprising:
a center support (205), said center support defining a first longitudinal axis (defined as extending along top surface and being perpendicular to length defined by first and second ends) and second longitudinal axis (defined by coupling pin 498), said first longitudinal axis perpendicular to said second longitudinal axis;
a first arm member (405-1, 415-1) having a first arm member aperture (hole in end 491-1) and pivotally attached to said center support about said second longitudinal axis;
a second arm member (405-2, 415-2) having a second arm member aperture (hole in end 491-2) and pivotally attached to said center support about said second longitudinal axis;
a latching mechanism (490) having an alignment member (495) having an alignment member aperture in general alignment with each of said first arm member aperture, said second arm member aperture and an alignment pin (493) (as shown in Figure 9A), and said alignment member being mounted to said center support; and
a latching member having a latching pin (498) in general alignment with said alignment member aperture, said first arm member aperture, and said second arm member aperture, and said latching member in slidable engagement with said alignment pin (as shown in Figure 9A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein said alignment member has a pair of plate members being spaced apart and said first and second arm members each having a latching ear, and said latching ear being position between said pair of plates during actuation of said actuation member in said first direction” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that Sauder discloses wherein said alignment member has a pair of plate members (496) being spaced apart and said first and second arm members each having a latching ear (491), however said latching ears are positioned on the outside of said pair of plates not between the pair of plates. Since the arms (405) pivot on the hitch bar (495), it would not be feasible to reverse this arrangement and put the ears between the plates because the arms require the bosses (494) to pivot and the pin boss (493) maintains the distance between the plates.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references cited on the attached PTO-892 teach toolbars/hitches of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on (571) 272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611