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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains implied phraseology; specifically, the abstract recites the phrase, “The invention relates to…”. 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 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)(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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Davis et al as part of US 10694734 B2, hereinafter referred to as Davis.
Regarding Claim 1: Davis teaches of a working tool reciprocation mechanism for an agricultural machine, the mechanism comprising:
a beam with at least three support surfaces (Fig. 3; Col. 8, line 59-64, beam 10 comprises one or more of a top surface, a front side, and a rear side)
and a platform carrying a working tool (Fig. 10, upper carriage 18 supports lower carriages 66, which support row units 63 and 65)
and capable of moving the beam on rollers, which are mounted on the platform and configured to roll along the support surfaces of the beam (Fig. 3, rollers 21 are mounted on frame 14 of upper carriage 18, and are configured to roll on the support surfaces of beam 10);
wherein the beam comprises a tooth rack rigidly attached to the beam, the teeth of the rack are capable of interacting with a cogwheel (Fig. 3, the surface of beam 10 comprises rack teeth 20, which engage with a pinion gear (not shown)),
and wherein at least two support surfaces of the beam are oriented at an angle to the horizontal and perpendicularly to a direction of motion of the rollers (Fig. 3; Col. 8, line 59-64, the faces front side and rear side face at an angle of 90 degrees relative to a horizontal plane, and perpendicular to the rolling direction of the rollers 21),
and wherein at least three rollers are capable of interacting with the support surfaces of the beam (Fig. 3, at least four rollers 21 are demonstrated to interact with the support surfaces of the beam 10).
Regarding Claim 5: Davis teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Davis further teaches wherein one of the support surfaces of the beam supports at least two rollers located on opposite sides of the cogwheel (Davis: Col. 8, line 59-64, at least two rollers 21 may engage the top surface of beam 10, which is positioned on the opposite side of the rack teeth 20 and pinion gear).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Eubanks as part of US 6233912 B1, hereinafter referred to as Eubanks.
Regarding Claim 2: Davis teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Davis does not explicitly teach wherein the beam comprises four inclined support surfaces oriented at an angle to the horizon, nor wherein an upper surface of the beam comprises two support surfaces opposite to each other and a lower surface of the beam comprises two support surfaces opposite to each other.
Eubanks teaches of a working tool reciprocation mechanism for an agricultural machine, the mechanism comprising:
a beam with at least three support surfaces (Eubanks: Fig. 1-2, deck arm 22 comprises V shaped roller tracks 20, each comprising two support surfaces),
the beam being moved by rollers, which are configured to roll along the support surfaces of the beam (Eubanks: Fig. 2, rollers 29 roll along the support surfaces of the roller tracks 20),
and wherein at least two support surfaces of the beam are oriented at an angle to the horizontal and perpendicularly to a direction of motion of the rollers (Eubanks: Fig. 2-4, the faces of the support surfaces of each of the V shaped roller tracks 20 are oriented at an inclined angle to the horizontal and perpendicular to the rolling direction of the rollers 21),
wherein the beam comprises four inclined support surfaces oriented at an angle to the horizon (Eubanks: Fig. 2-4, the faces of the support surfaces of each of the V shaped roller tracks 20 are oriented at an inclined angle to the horizontal),
wherein an upper surface of the beam comprises two support surfaces opposite to each other and a lower surface of the beam comprises two support surfaces opposite to each other (Eubanks: Fig. 2-4, the first and second roller tracks 20 each comprise two support surfaces opposite each other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the flat support surfaces taught by Davis with the V-shaped support surfaces taught by Eubanks to create an apparatus that allows for components dependent on the movement of the rollers to easily move laterally (Eubanks: Col. 3, line 18-21, the V shaped cross section of the roller tracks allows the deck arm to easily move laterally via rollers 29). Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of laterally moving a component of an agricultural machine using rollers against four support surfaces oriented at an angle to a horizontal plane (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding Claim 3: Davis teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Davis does not teach wherein one of the surfaces of the beam has two converging support surfaces oriented at an angle to the horizon and perpendicular to a direction of motion of the rollers, thus forming a depression, the depression holding at least one roller with raked surfaces that are capable of interacting with the support surfaces of the beam set at an angle to each other.
Eubanks teaches of a working tool reciprocation mechanism for an agricultural machine, the mechanism comprising:
a beam with at least three support surfaces (Eubanks: Fig. 1-2, deck arm 22 comprises V shaped roller tracks 20, each comprising two support surfaces),
the beam being moved by rollers, which are configured to roll along the support surfaces of the beam (Eubanks: Fig. 2, rollers 29 roll along the support surfaces of the roller tracks 20),
and wherein at least two support surfaces of the beam are oriented at an angle to the horizontal and perpendicularly to a direction of motion of the rollers (Eubanks: Fig. 2-4, the faces of the support surfaces of each of the V shaped roller tracks 20 are oriented at an inclined angle to the horizontal and perpendicular to the rolling direction of the rollers 21),
wherein one of the surfaces of the beam has two converging support surfaces oriented at an angle to the horizon and perpendicular to a direction of motion of the rollers, thus forming a depression (Eubanks: Fig. 2-4 the inner surface of each V shaped roller track 20 comprises a convergence of two support surfaces whose faces are at an inclined angle to the horizontal and perpendicular to the rolling direction of the rollers 21, thus forming a depression), the depression holding at least one roller with raked surfaces that are capable of interacting with the support surfaces of the beam set at an angle to each other (Eubanks: Fig. 2-4, the defined depression in roller tracks 20 hold at least one roller such that the surfaces of the roller interact with the support surfaces set at an angle to each other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to modify the flat support surfaces taught by Davis with the V shaped cross sectioned support surfaces of Eubanks to create an apparatus that allows for components dependent on the movement of the rollers to easily move laterally (Eubanks: Col. 3, line 18-21, the V shaped cross section of the roller tracks allows the deck arm to easily move laterally via rollers 29). Such a modification would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of allowing the rollers of the apparatus to be captured within a depression formed by the converging support surfaces of the beam.
Regarding Claim 4: Davis in view of Eubanks teaches of the apparatus described in claim 3.
Davis further teaches wherein the beam comprises a horizontal surface enabling motion of a supporting roller rotatably mounted on the platform (Davis: Col. 8, line 59-64, rollers 21 are rotatably mounted to the frame 14, and may engage the horizontal top surface of beam 10).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Van Den Bosch as part of US 5697453 A, hereinafter referred to as Van Den Bosch.
Regarding Claim 6: Davis teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Davis does not teach any specific details regarding the bearings of the cogwheel, nor of a mounting structure of said cogwheel.
Van Den Bosch teaches of a cogwheel assembly, wherein bearings of the cogwheel are mounted on pins (Van Den Bosch: Fig. 3; Col. 6, line 23-32, gear 66 is supported on pivot pin 90; in the center of gear 66 is the circular head of plate 92, which may be provided with ball bearings to better rotatably support gear 66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the unspecified cogwheel mounting structure taught by Davis with the specific cogwheel assembly taught by Van Den Bosch to support rotation of the cogwheel on a pin (Van Den Bosch: Col. 6, line 23-32, pivot pin 90 rotatably supports gear 66). Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of the bearings of the cogwheel being mounted on pins (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Green as part of US 20150230390 A1 teaches of a working tool reciprocation mechanism for an agricultural machine, the mechanism comprising a beam with at least three support surfaces and a platform carrying a working tool and capable of moving the beam on rollers, which are mounted on the platform and configured to roll along the support surfaces of the beam, wherein the beam comprises a tooth rack rigidly attached to the beam, the teeth of the rack are capable of interacting with a cogwheel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN ANTHONY BREGEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0922. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 Eastern, M-F.
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 J 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.
/EVAN A BREGEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3671 /CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights