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.
Claim(s) 17-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brock (GB 2569393) in view of Plannerer (EP 0596486).
Regarding claim 17, Brock discloses a roller (Figure 1) for agricultural soil cultivation, comprising: a support body (3) rotatably mounted about an axis of rotation (via bearings 15); compaction rings (6) arranged side by side and spaced apart from one another on the support body (3) for compacting a ground.
Brock is lacking the claimed limitations of different sized intermediate rings, however, Brock further discloses that the use of other forms of press ring tools are possible (Page 6 paragraph 2).
Plannerer discloses a roller (figure 1) and teaches the use of compaction rings (discs 4) arranged side by side and spaced apart from one another for compacting a ground and intermediate rings (16 and 13) arranged between adjacent compaction rings (discs 4), including at least one first intermediate ring (16) and at least one second intermediate ring (13) with different diameters (Rings 16 and 13 have different diameters and widths) and/or different widths, wherein at least one of the compaction rings and at least one of the intermediate rings (16) form a ring unit , and wherein the at least one of the intermediate rings (16) is connected to the at least one of the compaction rings in a materially bonded manner or integrally formed with the one of the compaction rings (intermediate rings 16 form a portion of the disc’s 4 hub and they are integrally formed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brock by using the disc configuration of Plannerer as a known possible different pressing ring configuration for working soil of different types to create a uniform seedbed.
Regarding claim 18, the combination discloses wherein the at least one first intermediate ring Plannerer 16) has a first diameter and a first width and the at least one second intermediate ring (13) has a second diameter and a second width, wherein the first diameter is smaller than the second diameter and/or the first width is smaller than the second width (rings 16 are both smaller in diameter and width than rings 13).
Regarding claim 19, the combination discloses wherein the at least one second intermediate ring (Plannerer Figure 6) circumferentially comprises a protective ring (toothed ring 24).
Regarding claims 20-21, the combination discloses wherein the compaction rings and/or the intermediate rings each have an inner profile for positive connection to the support body the support body is a square tube and wherein the inner profile is a square profile matched to the support body for an operative connection. (Brock figure 2 shows a square support body and inner profile of the rings).
Regarding claim 22, “wherein the compaction rings are assembled from at least two half shells in a materially bonded manner” does not further define any of the specific structure of the rings that distinguishes it from the prior art. This claim limitation is directed to a product-by-process limitation. It is noted wherein the patentability of a product does not necessarily depend on its method of production. See MPEP section 2113 Product-by-Process, which states, if the product in the claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In the instant case, the combination (Plannerer) discloses a ring with a width (as seen in figure 3) which is considered to be the same claimed ring structure although not necessarily assembled as claimed by forming the rings from two half shells that are bonded together. As such, the claim is considered to be anticipated by the combination (Plannerer) as the same claimed structure has been taught and the rings comprising a width are capable of being made by the same process.
Regarding claims 23, the combination discloses wherein the at least one of the compaction rings has a substantially flat lateral surface on one side for a materially bonded connection to the at least one of the intermediate rings (see annotated figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
530
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, “wherein the ring unit is an injection molded part” does not further define any of the specific structure of the rings that distinguishes it from the prior art. This claim limitation is directed to a product-by-process limitation. It is noted wherein the patentability of a product does not necessarily depend on its method of production. See MPEP section 2113 Product-by-Process, which states, if the product in the claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In the instant case, the combination (Plannerer) discloses a ring unit (4 and 16) which is considered to be the same claimed ring unit although not necessarily assembled as claimed by injection molding. As such, the claim is considered to be anticipated by the combination (Plannerer) as the same claimed structure has been taught and the ring unit is capable of being made by the same process.
Regarding claims 25, the combination discloses wherein the ring unit (Plannerer figure 2) has a rib structure (11) and/or recesses formed on an inside thereof.
Regarding claims 26, the combination discloses wherein the at least one of the intermediate rings (13) has an outer profile (24) along its circumferential side, which extends from a circumferential surface radially outside (Teeth 24 extend from the circumference).
Regarding claim 27, “wherein the at least one of the intermediate rings (Plannerer 16) is connected to the at least one of the compaction rings (4) in the materially bonded manner by gluing or welding.” does not further define any of the specific structure of the rings that distinguishes it from the prior art. This claim limitation is directed to a product-by-process limitation. It is noted wherein the patentability of a product does not necessarily depend on its method of production. See MPEP section 2113 Product-by-Process, which states, if the product in the claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In the instant case, the combination (Plannerer) discloses a ring (16) integral with a compaction ring (4) which is considered to be the same claimed ring structure although not necessarily assembled as claimed by gluing or welding them together. As such, the claim is considered to be anticipated by the combination (Plannerer) as the same claimed structure has been taught and the two rings are are capable of being made by the same process.
Regarding claims 28, the combination discloses wherein the at least one first intermediate ring (16) is assigned a clearer and/or wherein the at least one second intermediate ring (13) is assigned a stripper (The terms “clearer” and stripper” alone without further claimed structure relationships and functions render the terms as merely names. Limitations from the specification are not read into the claim language and the terms are not considered terms of the art).
Regarding claims 29, the combination discloses wherein at least one bearing device (Brock 15) is arranged on the support body end side, wherein the at least one bearing device comprises an adjustable axial preload force (via clamping plate 24 and bolts 20) which makes possible applying an axial force onto the ring unit, the compaction rings, and/or the intermediate rings (Page 5 third paragraph).
Claim(s) 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brock (GB 2569393) in view of Plannerer (EP 0596486) in further view of Thielicke (US 2019/0380253).
Regarding claims 30-32, the combination discloses only a finishing roller assembly for mounted to a work machine, the combination is lacking a specific machine arrangement to which it could be attached.
Thielicke teaches an agricultural unit (100) for soil cultivation and/or application of granular solids in form of fertilizer and/or seeds having at least one roller (finishing roller 108, ¶0030 discloses that any finishing tool would be appropriate), multiple rollers each mounted on a main frame (Figure 8 shows three rollers), and wherein the multiple rollers are connected to one another so as to be foldable (Figure 12 shows a folded configuration), wherein the agricultural unit in a working direction (Figure 2 direction D) in front of the at least one roller comprises a plurality of ground engagement means (150) in form of tires and/or tracks.
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 combination by mounting the rollers to the agricultural unit of Thielicke for the purpose of acting as a finishing roller.
The support bodies of the combination (Brock element 3) would be connected together via the framework of Thielicke to be foldable as taught by Thielicke.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wright (US 2007/0240888)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J BEHRENS whose telephone number is (303)297-4336. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-2pm MST.
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at (571) 272-8971. 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.
/ADAM J BEHRENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights