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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01 April 2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because each non-patent literature (NPL) citation is not identified properly.
NPL citation no. 1 has been lined through because it lacks a document identifier.
It has been placed in the application file, but all of the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The prior objection to the specification has been overcome by the response filed 29 June 2026.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
CLAIMS 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arksey (US 2018/0288930 A1).
CLAIMS 1 AND 3 Arksey ‘930 (“Arksey”) shows a trench opener (10) comprising:
a row unit comprising a frame (inherently) and a shank (16; or “dedicated scraper mount” [0068]);
a disc (12) rotatingly attached to the frame, wherein the disc has an angle α from vertical;
a wedge (42) attached to the shank, the wedge having a disc facing side (Figs. 1 and 2) that is parallel with the disc, a second side (50) opposite the disc facing side, wherein the second side is perpendicular to a ground surface, and a leading edge (44).
Arksey suggests an acute angle α ([0073]) but fails to teach expressly a value for the same. However, the angle α of the disc opener is a result-effective variable for producing a trench sidewall having a desired slope. Thus, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have set the angle α at a value between 1° and 6°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation for making the modification would have been to have formed a trench sidewall having a slope between about 1° and 6°.
CLAIM 2 Arksey further discloses the leading edge (44) as knife shaped.
Response to Amendment
As present in the response filed 29 June 2021, CLAIM 1 is identified as “Currently Amended” but lacks any markings to indicate added or deleted text (see 37 C.F.R. 1.121). Applicant is advised to use the proper status identifiers and markings in all future correspondence. For the purpose of prosecution on the merits, CLAIM 1 has been treated as “Original.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections
Applicant argues Arksey fails to teach a shank but fails to provide evidence in support thereof. Specifically, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, and in the absence of additional structural limitations, the tube 16 of Arksey qualifies as a shank. Additionally, Applicant fails to address the prior art disclosure for a “dedicated scraper mount” in paragraph 0068. For these reasons, the rejection of the claims is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, Christine M. Mills can be reached at (571)272-8322. 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.
/TARA MAYO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
09 September 2026
Prosecution Insights