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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6, 8, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinkens et al. (CA 2504073 C) in view of Johnson et al. (US 4638868 A) and Seifried et al. (US 10721852 B2).
Regarding independent claim 6, Reinkens discloses a sweep assembly (Figs. 1-13) for an agricultural tillage implement (page 1, lines 3-5), comprising:
an adapter (38) configured to couple to a shank (72) of the agricultural tillage implement, wherein the adapter comprises a recess (60,62) configured to receive a fastener (66) to couple the adapter to the shank (Fig. 1, page 8 lines 18-21), and the adapter has a left angular protrusion (48) and a right angular protrusion (50) (Figs. 2,13); and
a sweep (10) having a blade (16) and a neck (14) extending from the blade (Fig. 1), wherein the neck has a cavity (28) configured to receive the adapter (Fig. 10, page 7, lines 20-24), the cavity is formed in part by a forward left contact surface (“FL”, designated in annotated image below), a forward right contact surface (“FR”, designated below), a rearward left contact surface (“RL”, designated below), and a rearward right contact surface (“RR”, designated below), and the neck slopes laterally inwardly along a first direction extending from a top opening of the neck toward the blade (Fig. 1, page 7 line 7 neck 14 tapers inwardly toward blade 16); and
wherein a left contact surface angle is formed between the forward left contact surface and the rearward left contact surface, and the forward left contact surface and the rearward left contact surface are configured to engage the left angular protrusion (48) of the adapter (as seen in Fig. 13 below);
wherein a right contact surface angle is formed between the forward right contact surface and the rearward right contact surface, and the forward right contact surface and the rearward right contact surface are configured to engage the right angular protrusion (50) of the adapter (as seen in Fig. 13 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
279
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Fig. 13 of Reinkens
Reinkens fails to disclose wherein the left and right contact surface angles are less than or equal to 60 degrees.
In the same area, Johnson discloses a similar sweep assembly comprising a neck (21) configured to receive an adapter (55) (see Figs. 3 and 9), the neck having contact surfaces as defined in the claim which form left and right contact surface angles less than or equal to 60 degrees (see annotated Image of Fig. 9 of Johnson on page 4 of this office action).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the left and right contact surface angles of Reinkens to be less than or equal to 60 degrees, as taught by Johnson, as a mere simple substitution of a known contact angle for another to yield predictable results, and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Refer to MPEP 2144.05.
Reinkens fails to teach wherein the recess (60,62) for receiving the fastener is threaded.
Seifried discloses a similar cultivator comprising a blade portion (33), a neck portion (32), and a base portion (31) configured to couple to a shank (20) of the agricultural tillage implement, wherein the base comprises a threaded recess (35, 36) configured to receive a fastener (12,13) to couple the base portion to the shank (Fig. 1, col. 6 lines 45-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize threaded screw receiving recesses, as taught by Seifried, as a mere simple substitution of one known fastening receiving means for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Reinkens in view of Johnson and Seifried discloses the sweep assembly of claim 6. Reinkens further discloses a retainer clip (92) configured to couple to the adapter, wherein the retainer clip comprises a detent (106) (Figs. 3-4), the neck of the sweep has a detent opening (30, Fig. 1), and the detent is configured to engage the detent opening to block movement of the sweep in the first direction relative to the adapter (Fig. 12, page 15 lines 23-27);
Regarding claim 12, Reinkens in view of Johnson and Seifried discloses the sweep assembly of claim 6. Reinkens further teaches wherein the neck forms a crown (top of forwardly-convex front wall 22) between the forward left contact surface (“FL”) and the forward right contact surface (“FR”) (Fig. 13), and the crown extends along the first direction (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Reinkens in view of Johnson and Seifried discloses the sweep assembly of claim 12. Reinkens further teaches wherein the crown (top of 22) is configured to form a gap (102) between the sweep (10) and the adapter (38) (Fig. 13, page 11 lines 13-14 “gap 102 between the adaptor 38 and sweep 10”).
Regarding claim 14, Reinkens in view of Johnson and Seifried discloses the sweep assembly of claim 6. Reinkens further teaches wherein the neck comprises a protrusion (92, Fig. 10) extending upwardly beyond the top opening of the neck (14) (when sweep assembly is in the first mounting position of Fig. 10, element 92 protrudes and extends upwardly from top opening of neck portion 14).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinkens in view of Johnson and Seifried as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Buescher et al. (US 5465796 A).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Reinkens discloses the sweep assembly of claim 8. Reinkens further teaches wherein the retainer clip (92) comprises at least one tab (94 + 100), the adapter (38) has at least one corresponding recess (86), and the at least one tab is configured to engage the at least one corresponding recess to establish a connection to couple the retainer clip to the adapter (page 9 lines 26-29).
Reinkens does not explicitly detail wherein the connection is a press-fit connection.
In the same area on knock-on sweeps, Buescher discloses a similar mounting tab (108) configured to form a press-fit connection with a corresponding recess (98).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tab and recess of Reinkens to utilize a press-fit connection, as taught by Buescher, such that a nut or other separate locking member is unnecessary, thereby minimizing the number of required pieces for attachment/removal (Buescher at col. 4 lines 25-27).
Regarding claim 10, combination of Reinkens discloses the sweep assembly of claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one tab comprises two tabs, and the at least one corresponding recess comprises two corresponding recesses.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize an additional tab and recess in the sweep assembly of Reinkens in order to provide a stronger connection/engagement between the retainer and adapter since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
Claims 1-4 and 15-18 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-4, Applicant’s arguments, see page 11 of Applicant’s remarks filed 08-06-2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn and claims 1-4 indicated as allowable in this office action.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 6-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Reinkens et al. (CA 2504073 C) in view of Johnson et al. (US 4638868 A), Applicant’s arguments, see page 12 of Applicant’s remarks filed 08-06-2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made using the previous combination of Reinkens and Johnson, and further in view of Seifried et al. (US 10721852 B2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Christopher Sebesta, can be reached on (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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671 /CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
