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 (IDS) filed 5/22/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. Neither a translation nor an explanation of relevance of JP S5358109 A was included. The IDS has been placed in the application file, but the information related to this reference has not been considered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. Additionally, the abstract is objected to because it recites "and first gripping pin (144)" in line 6 (instead of "and a first gripping pin (144)"). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because:
it recites "attached to chassis" in line 2 (instead of "attached to a chassis"); and
it recites "and first gripping pin" in line 9 (instead of "and a first gripping pin").
Appropriate correction (or explanation) 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 13-15 and 17-22 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. The claims are replete with indefinite language. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and require thorough revision.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the rear axle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites "the first lifting pin is provided with a first bearing and the second lifting pin is provided with a second bearing." It is unclear if the first bearing and the second bearing are part of (i.e., elements of) and required by the claimed device or are merely provided thereto. As such, the metes and bounds of the tractor linkage arrangement in claim 14 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 14 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the tractor lifting arms" in line 1 (twice). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear how limitations seemingly of the tractor (i.e., limitations of "wherein the tractor lifting arms lift ...") further limit the tractor linkage arrangement, which is to be attached to the tractor and is not of the tractor or include the tractor. Thus, the metes and bounds of the tractor linkage arrangement in claim 15 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 15 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the spindle openings of the work equipment" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the tractor lifting arms" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear how limitations seemingly of the tractor (i.e., limitations of "wherein the tractor lifting arms lower ...") further limit the tractor linkage arrangement, which is to be attached to the tractor and is not of the tractor or include the tractor. Thus, the metes and bounds of the tractor linkage arrangement in claim 17 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 17 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 18 sets forth "a first lifting pin" in line 2, "a first gripping pin" in line 2, "a second lifting pin" in line 4, and "a second gripping pin" in lines 4-5. However, these parts were previously set forth in claim 12 (from which claim 18 depends). It is unclear if those set forth in claim 12 are being referred to or if additional pins are being introduced. Thus, the metes and bounds of the pins in claim 18 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 18 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Claim 18 is being further examined as though it reads "A tractor linkage arrangement according to claim 12, wherein the first gripping pin is displaced from the first lifting pin, and further that the second gripping pin is displaced from the second lifting pin."
Claim 19 sets forth "a first lifting pin" in line 2, "a first gripping pin" in line 2, "a second lifting pin" in line 4, and "a second gripping pin" in lines 4-5. However, these parts were previously set forth in claim 12 (from which claim 19 depends). It is unclear if those set forth in claim 12 are being referred to or if additional pins are being introduced. Thus, the metes and bounds of the pins in claim 19 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 19 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Claim 19 is being further examined as though it reads "A tractor linkage arrangement according to claim 12, wherein the first gripping pin is aligned with the first lifting pin, and further that the second gripping pin is aligned with the second lifting pin."
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the second and the fourth spindle" in lines 1-2 and 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 is being further examined as though it depends from claim 16.
Claim 21 recites "wherein different work equipment adapters are to be attached to different work equipment." It is unclear how this recitation further limits or differentiates the structure of the claimed tractor linkage arrangement. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the tractor linkage arrangement in claim 21 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 21 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the spindle opening" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since it is unclear as to which spindle openings (e.g., all or a subset of the four) are being referred to.
The term “essentially” in claim 22 renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for term (particularly with regard to that which would be "non-essentially" or "non-essentially closer"), such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, claim 22 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the rear axle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the outermost ends" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first lower link" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the second lower link" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the top link" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the three-point linkage" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 21 does not appear to further limit the claimed device (i.e., the tractor link arrangement) or any part thereof. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schwalenberg et al. (US 6,062,319)
Regarding claim 12, Schwalenberg discloses a tractor work equipment linkage arrangement comprising:
a subframe (including 38 and 40), which is to be attached to a chassis of a tractor (such as 8), comprising a first fixing point, a second fixing point, a third fixing point and a fourth fixing point (at respective apertures 52), a first support (38) comprising a first and a second spindle opening (including 48 and 46), and a second support (40) comprising a third and a fourth spindle opening (including 48 and 46);
a first lifting arm (including first 20), which is pivotally attached from its first end (via 18) to the first support (38), a second lifting arm (including second 20), which is pivotally attached from its first end (via 18) to the second support (40),
wherein the first lifting arm comprises a first lifting pin (first or first side of 22, or alternatively, extension of first 24 to on the side of first 20 adjacent 18) on one side of the first lifting arm and a first gripping pin (extension of first 24 on the side of first 20 distal 18) on the other side of the first lifting arm, and
wherein the second lifting arm comprises a second lifting pin (second or second side of 22, or alternatively, extension of second 24 to on the side of second 20 adjacent 18) on one side of the second lifting arm and a second gripping pin (extension of second 24 on the side of second 20 distal 18) on the other side of the second lifting arm, and
a work equipment adapter (including 36), which is to be attached to a work equipment (such as 12), the work equipment adapter comprising a first link arm (including first 34) and a second link arm (including second 34), a first, a second, a third and a fourth spindle opening (including 62 and/or openings for 66), wherein the first link arm comprises a first grab (including first 68) and the second link arm comprises a second grab (including second 68),
wherein the first gripping pin (of first 24) is to be fitted to the first grab (including first 68) and the second gripping pin (of second 24) is to be fitted to second grab (including second 68).
Regarding claim 13, Schwalenberg discloses the subframe first fixing point and second fixing point (at respective apertures 52) are to be attached (via 18) to a rear axle (16) of the tractor.
Regarding claim 16, Schwalenberg discloses the work equipment (12) being removably mounted via the work equipment adapter (including 36) to the first support (38) and to the second support (40), and a first, a second, a third and a fourth spindle (including first 66, first 80, second 66, and second 80) being removably inserted to the first, the second, the third and fourth spindle opening (including 48 in 38, 46 in 38, 48 in 40, and 46 in 40) of the first and the second support respectively, and further inserted to the first, the second, the third and the fourth spindle opening (including openings for first 66, 62 in first 54 and 62 in first 56, openings for second 66, and 62 in second 54 and 62 in second 56) of the work equipment adapter, respectively.
Regarding claim 18, Schwalenberg discloses the first gripping pin (extension of first 24 on the side of first 20 distal 18) being displaced from the first lifting pin (first or first side of 22), and further the second gripping pin (extension of second 24 on the side of second 20 distal 18) being displaced from the second lifting pin (second or second side of 22).
Regarding claim 19, Schwalenberg discloses the first gripping pin (extension of first 24 on the side of first 20 distal 18) being aligned with the first lifting pin (extension of first 24 to on the side of first 20 adjacent 18), and further the second gripping pin (extension of second 24 on the side of second 20 distal 18) being aligned with the second lifting pin (extension of second 24 to on the side of second 20 adjacent 18).
Regarding claim 20, Schwalenberg discloses the tractor linkage arrangement with respect to claim 16, wherein the second and the fourth spindle (including first 80 and second 80) are fixed to the subframe (through 46), and the second and the fourth spindle opening of the work equipment adapter are slots (62 in first 54 and 62 in first 56 forming the second spindle opening, and 62 in second 54 and 62 in second 56 forming the fourth spindle opening, wherein such openings are long, narrow apertures) such that they are to be adjusted on top of the second and fourth spindle (including first 80 and second 80), respectively.
Regarding claim 21, Schwalenberg discloses different work equipment adapters (see different embodiments of Figs. 1-8 and 11, Fig. 12, Figs. 13-15, Figs. 16-18 and Figs. 19-21) attached to different work equipment (each showing a different 12).
Regarding claim 22, Schwalenberg discloses the subframe (including 38 and 40) and the spindle openings (including 48 and 46) of the subframe being positioned closer to a rear axle of the tractor (than outer ends of any other links or structures extending from 18).
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Schwalenberg or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Schwalenberg in view of Price et al. (US 4,397,359)
Regarding claim 14, Schwalenberg discloses the tractor linkage arrangement with respect to claim 12, as set forth above. Schwalenberg discloses the first lifting pin (first or first side of 22) and the second lifting pin (second or second side of 22), which are capable of being provided with bearings (as is known in the art, e.g., as taught by Price).
In the alternative, Schwalenberg does not explicitly disclose the first lifting pin including a first bearing and the second lifting pin including a second bearing. However, Price teaches a tractor linkage arrangement comprising a first lifting pin (including first or first extension of 14) including a first bearing (see col. 2, lines 8-48), and a second lifting pin (including second or second extension of 14) including a second bearing (see col. 2, lines 8-48).
Price is analogous because Price discloses a tractor work equipment linkage arrangement for raising and lowering work equipment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the arrangement of Schwalenberg with bearing means as taught by Price in order to pivotally support the lifting pins (i.e., that including or of 14 in Price). (See Price, col. 2, lines 8-48.)
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwalenberg in view of Price.
Regarding claim 15, Schwalenberg discloses the tractor linkage arrangement with respect to claim 12, as set forth above. Schwalenberg also discloses lifting the work equipment (such as 12) via the work equipment adapter (including 36), the respective lifting pins (of 22, or alternatively, of 24), the respective lifting arms (including first and second 20), and the respective gripping pins (of 24) such that the spindle openings are aligned. Schwalenberg does not explicitly disclose that the lifting pins are to be fitted on top of the tractor lifting arms, and wherein the tractor lifting arms lift the work equipment. However, Price teaches a tractor linkage arrangement comprising lifting pins (connecting 50 and 40, and connecting 52 and 42), wherein the lifting pins are to be fitted on top of (at least partially above) tractor lifting arms (including 50 and 52), wherein the tractor lifting arms lift a work equipment (attached to 72) via respective structure (including 72).
Price is analogous because Price discloses a tractor work equipment linkage arrangement for raising and lowering work equipment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the arrangement of Schwalenberg with lifting means as taught by Price in order to power positioning of the arrangement. (See Price, col. 3, line 55 - col. 4, line 6.)
Regarding claim 17, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 15, Price teaches the tractor lifting arms (including 50 and 52) lowering work equipment via respective structure (see col. 3, line 55 - col. 4, line 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. In particular, Ribo et al. (US 9,485,899) teaches a tractor work equipment linkage arrangement having lifting arms 70 and 71.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joel F. Mitchell whose telephone number is (571)272-7689. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00.
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.
/JFM/7/25/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights