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 .
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.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “support and displacement means” and “damping means arranged between the support and displacement means”. As the support and displacement means appears to be one element, it is unclear how the damping means can be arranged between that single means.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “an additional hydraulic cylinder” but no hydraulic cylinder is previously claimed. It is unclear if this claim requires one or two hydraulic cylinders.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hering (US Patent No. 4,077,189) in view of Ziembicki (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0305683).
In reference to claim 1, Hering discloses a flotation system for swathing rakes 34 attachable to a baler 14, said system comprising:
a support structure 28 configured to be connected to a baler 14 and to a displacement means 12 (Figs. 1 and 2);
at least one arm 18 comprising a first end connected to a swathing rake 34 and a second end connected, by means of a hinged articulated joint 17, to the support structure 28 (Figs. 1 and 2);
the swathing rake 34 (Fig. 1);
the hinged articulated joint 17 (Fig. 2);
a flotation cylinder 20 joined to the support structure 28 and to the arm 18 configured such that it acts by traction, partially absorbing the weight of the arm 18, and therefore of the swathing rake 34 joined thereto (Fig. 2);
and wherein the system comprises support and displacement means 100 (or a support means 82 and displacement means 102) connected to the swathing rake 34, and comprises a suspension system 112 in the support and displacement means 100 (Fig. 5).
Hering discloses a “shock structure 112” within the support and displacement means 100 but does not make clear if this comprises a damping means.
Ziembicki discloses a shock absorber that also functions as a damping means (pars. 0022 or 0024). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the shock absorber so that it also functions as a damping means with a reasonable expectation of success so that vibrations can be reduced.
In reference to claim 3, Hering discloses that the flotation cylinder 20 comprises a sleeve 22 inside of which a piston joined to a piston rod is displaced and wherein the sleeve 22 is joined to the support structure and the piston rod is joined to the arm 18 (Fig. 2).
In reference to claim 4, Hering discloses that the flotation cylinder 20 is a hydraulic cylinder (col. 2, lines 35-36).
In reference to claim 5, Hering discloses that the support and displacement means 100 includes wheels 82 (Fig. 5).
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hering (US Patent No. 4,077,189) in view of Ziembicki (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0305683) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grywacheski et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0000226).
In reference to claim 2, Hering fails to disclose an accumulator joined to the flotation cylinder.
Grywacheski discloses a hydraulic cylinder system comprising an accumulator (par. 0031). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include an accumulator with the hydraulic cylinder with a reasonable expectation of success so that the hydraulic cylinder will have adequate pressure to operate.
In reference to claim 8, Ziembicki discloses that the suspension system comprising a hydraulic cylinder (par. 0024) but fails to disclose a gas accumulator.
Grywacheski discloses a hydraulic cylinder system comprising an accumulator (par. 0031). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include an accumulator with the hydraulic cylinder with a reasonable expectation of success so that the hydraulic cylinder will have adequate pressure to operate.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hering (US Patent No. 4,077,189) in view of Ziembicki (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0305683) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Klemm (US Patent No. 2,621,465).
In reference to claim 6, Ziembicki discloses an anti-vibration damper (pars. 0022 or 0024) but fails to disclose that the suspension system comprises a rubber anti-vibration damper.
Klemm discloses the use of rubber anti-vibration dampers (col. 1, lines 19-25). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a rubber anti-vibration damper in place of the damper disclosed by Ziembicki with a reasonable expectation of success as it amounts to a substitution of equivalents to perform the same function, which is in this case to dampen vibrations.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hering (US Patent No. 4,077,189) in view of Ziembicki (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0305683) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson (US Patent No. 2,658,324).
In reference to claim 9, Hering fails to disclose that the suspension system comprises a threaded spindle, in correspondence with each support and displacement means, configured to mechanically regulate its position.
Johnson discloses a suspension system comprising a threaded spindle 27, in correspondence with each support and displacement means 20, configured to mechanically regulate its position (Fig. 5, col. 3, lines 19-34). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a threaded spindle in the support and displacement means with a reasonable expectation of success so that the spindle can be used to regulate the position of the rake.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hering (US Patent No. 4,077,189) in view of Ziembicki (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0305683) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Steenhoek et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0104513).
In reference to claim 10, Hering fails to disclose that the suspension system comprises an automatic positioning assembly configured to regulate the position of the support and displacement means, and said assembly comprises an additional hydraulic cylinder and a positioning encoder.
Steenhoek discloses an automatic positioning assembly (par. 0047, “the control system”) configured to regulate the position of the support and displacement means, and said assembly comprises an additional hydraulic cylinder and a positioning encoder (par. 0047, “position sensors 120 (shown in FIG. 11) may be provided to detect the position of the hydraulic cylinders and/or the associated linkages”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include an automatic positioning system with a hydraulic cylinder and positioning encoder with a reasonable expectation of success so that the position of the rake can be controlled.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mortaro et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0137012) discloses a suspension system for a rake (Figs. 1 and 5); Peden (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0090347) discloses a floating rake (par. 0092); and Garrison et al. (US Patent No. 4,166,353) discloses a flotation system 174 for a rake.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAD HARCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-7303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 6pm.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571)272-4137. 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.
/BRAD HARCOURT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
6/22/26
Prosecution Insights