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 § 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 1-20 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 term “gradually” in claims 1 and 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what degree of slope is encompassed by the term "gradually" and what degree of slope is not considered "gradual".
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruckle et al. (USP 7,073,949).
With respect to claim 1, Ruckle et al. disclose a disc mounting assembly for mounting a tillage disc (128) on a tillage implement (10) having a main frame (12) supporting a plurality of tillage units (14, 15, 16) thereon in which each tillage unit includes a disc supporting arm (54) mounted on the main frame, the disc mounting assembly comprising: a shaft (110) extending longitudinally between a first end (left end of figure 2) and an opposing second end in which the second end of the shaft is arranged to support the tillage disc rotatably thereon (right end in figure 2); and a mounting body (66) arranged to be supported on a respective one of the disc supporting arms of the tillage implement, the mounting body including a socket formed therein (inside of 66) in which the socket receives the first end of the shaft mounted therein (see figure 2); wherein the shaft includes a tapered shaft section (see figure 2, section 116 is tapered relative to 120) adjacent the first end of the shaft in which the tapered shaft section is tapered at a slope relative to an axis of the shaft to be gradually reduced in diameter towards the first end of the shaft (see figure 2, wherein the slope reduction is considered gradual as best understood as there is an intermediate diameter between 120 and 116); and wherein the socket includes a tapered socket section (see section 80) which is tapered at a slope to the axis of the shaft (wherein 80 is sloped relative to the axis of 110) and which receives the tapered shaft section matingly therein (see figure 2, wherein the sections mate via 76).
With respect to claim 11, Ruckle et al. disclose a tillage implement comprising: a main frame (12) arranged to be displaced across ground in a forward working direction; a plurality of tillage units (14, 15, 16) supported on the main frame, each tillage unit including a disc supporting arm (54) mounted on the main frame to extend downwardly and rearward to a trailing end of the disc supporting arm; a disc mounting assembly (50)supporting a tillage disc on the trailing end of
each disc supporting arm, the disc mounting assembly comprising: a shaft (110) extending longitudinally between a first end (left end in figure 2) and an opposing second end (right end in figure 2) in which the second end of the shaft supports the tillage disc rotatably thereon; and a mounting body (66) supported on the disc supporting arm, the mounting body including a socket (inside of 66) formed therein in which the socket receives the first end of the shaft mounted therein (see figure 2); wherein the shaft includes a tapered shaft section (116) adjacent the first end
of the shaft in which the tapered shaft section is tapered at a slope relative to an axis of the shaft to be gradually reduced in diameter towards the first end of the shaft (reduced from 120, see figure 2, wherein the slope reduction is considered gradual as best understood as there is an intermediate diameter between 120 and 116); and wherein the socket includes a tapered socket section (80) which is tapered at a slope to the axis of the shaft (wherein 80 is sloped relative to the axis of 110) which receives the tapered shaft section matingly therein (see figure 2, wherein the sections mate via 76).
With respect to claims 2 and 12, Ruckle et al. disclose further comprising a retaining bolt (130) mounted coaxially with the shaft to retain the first end of the shaft mounted within the socket on the mounting body, wherein the retaining bolt extends through an inner end of the mounting body at an inner end of the socket, and wherein the retaining bolt is threadably engaged into the first end of the shaft (via 142).
With respect to claims 3 and 13, Ruckle et al. disclose further comprising an end plate (140) supported on the mounting body to span an inner end of the socket, the end plate receiving the retaining bolt therethrough, and the end plate being removable from the mounting body with removal of the retaining bolt from the shaft (see figure 2).
With respect to claims 4 and 14, Ruckle et al. disclose wherein the mounting body (66) comprises a collar (wherein 66 is considered a collar) arranged to be supported on a trailing end of the disc supporting arm, the collar defining the socket therein such that the shaft is mounted coaxially within the collar of the mounting body (see figure 2).
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(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruckle et al. in view of Schafer et al. (US 2015/0230392).
With respect to claims 9 and 19, Ruckle et al. is silent as to the dimensions of the shaft. Schafer et al. disclose that conventional hubs are 2 inches in size. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Ruckle et al. to include wherein a minimum outer diameter of the tapered shaft section is at least 1.5 inches and wherein a maximum outer diameter of the tapered shaft section is less than 2.5 inches as taught by Schafer et al. as this would be a tapered shape within the parameters of a conventional sized hub.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruckle et al.
With respect to claims 10 and 20, Ruckle et al. does not disclose wherein the tapered shaft section and the tapered socket section each span a length in an axial direction which is greater than a maximum diameter thereof. However, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner vs. TEC Syst, Inc. 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In the instant case, the prior art device in Ruckle et al. would perform the same as the claimed device and therefore the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the device of Ruckle et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 15-18 are 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.
With respect to claims 5 and 15, the prior art does not disclose nor would it be obvious to include “wherein the disc supporting arm comprises an upright mounting plate at the trailing end of the disc supporting arm and a mounting aperture in the upright mounting plate, and wherein the collar of the mounting body includes a first portion having a first diameter arranged to be received within the mounting aperture and a second portion having a dimension transverse to an axial direction of the socket which is greater than a diameter of the mounting aperture” in combination with the limitations of claims 1/11.
With respect to claims 6 and 16, the prior art does not disclose not would it be obvious to include “wherein the trailing end of the disc supporting arm is arranged to support a second body identical in configuration to the mounting body thereon such that the mounting body and the second body extend from the disc supporting arm in opposing lateral directions, whereby the mounting body and the second body receive respective shafts therein such that the shafts are parallel and spaced apart from one another and such that the shafts are arranged to support respective tillage discs thereon at laterally opposing sides of the disc supporting arm” in combination with the limitations of claims 1/11.
With respect to claims 7 and 17, the prior art does not disclose nor would it be obvious to modify the reference to include “wherein the tapered shaft section and the tapered socket section are each tapered at a slope in the range of 2 degrees to 5 degrees from an axis of the shaft” in combination with the limitations of claims 1/11.
With respect to claims 8 and 18, the prior art does not disclose nor would it be obvious to modify the reference to include “wherein the tapered shaft section and the tapered socket section are each tapered at a slope of approximately 3 degrees from an axis of the shaft” in combination with the limitations of claims 1/11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that in the prior art Ruckle that “there is no gradual, sloped reduction in diameter.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it is noted that the metes and bounds of the term “gradual” are unclear. Second, the diameter change from 120 to 116 is considered gradual, as noted above, as it note an immediate change from one diameter to the other, but rather there is an intermediatory diameter 118, thus making the slope change gradual from 120 to 116.
The Applicant argues that “if Ruckle’s spindle innermost section 116 and the corresponding bore section 80 were tapered at a slop to matingly wedge together, the spindle would lock solid inside the housing, completely preventing the required rotation and rending the bearing assembly inoperable.” In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., wedge) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since the claim does not require “wedge” and the shaft and bore section of Ruckle meet the current claim limitation of “mating” as they are mated via the bearing, Ruckle discloses the claimed invention as noted above.
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 NICOLE A COY whose telephone number is (571)272-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-3:30pm.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
