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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 reads “dub” instead of –hub--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 and 16 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 2 discloses that the rim defines a t-shaped cross sectional area. This is unclear since “t-shaped” is not limited to a single shape (upper case, lower case, varying fonts, etc. (T, t, T, t, T, t). The claims will be examined as best understood, however clarification is required.
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, 3-4, 7-15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berg et al. (8,291,998).
Regarding claims 1 and 8-11 and 15, Berg et al. discloses a closing wheel comprising:
A hub (4) including:
An outer circumferential hub surface (outer surface of element 5 – Figure 5) extending a width between a first hub edge and a second hub edge, the first hub edge defining an outer hub diameter
A channel defined by and recessed into the outer circumferential hub surface
A rim (14) configured to couple to the hub within the circumferential channel, the rim comprising:
A coupling portion configured to extend into the circumferential channel
A contact portion extending outward from the coupling portion between a first contact edge and a second contact edge, the contact portion defining:
An outer circumferential wheel/rim surface extending at least the width and between the first contact edge and the second contact edge (angled front/rear surfaces from surface 46 to surface 48)
An outer rim diameter (at apex 50) greater than the outer hub diameter
Repeating teeth (50) extending radially outward from the outer circumferential rim surface
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Outer circumferential wheel/rim surface)]
Regarding claim 3, Berg disclose that the rim comprises a retaining feature (22,24) configured to interface with the hub (at the outer circumferential hub surface) to resist a movement of the rim relative to the hub.
Regarding claim 4, the contact portion defines an inner surface (30) configured to contact the outer circumferential hub surface.
Regarding claim 7, Berg disclose that the width is a first width (full width), and the channel includes a second width smaller than the first width and the coupling portion includes a third width substantially the same as the second width (Figure 5).
Regarding claims 12 and 15, the coupling portion includes a coupling width less than the width (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 13, the channel includes a channel width substantially the same as the coupling width (Figure 5).
Regarding claims 14 and 19, the repeating teeth are configured to disturb soil to close a seed furrow when the rim is coupled to an agricultural trailing arm assembly.
Regarding claim 17, the contact portion is disposed between the coupling portion and the repeating teeth (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 18, the contact portion extends perpendicular to the coupling portion.
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) 2 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg et al. (8,291,998) in view of Swanson (7,810,580).
Regarding claim 2, Berg discloses the invention as described above including that the rim defines a central longitudinal axis but fails to specifically disclose that the rim defines a t-shaped cross section. Like Berg, Swanson also discloses an agricultural disc/hub with a channel for receiving a rim element. Unlike Berg, Swanson discloses that the rim possesses a t-shaped cross section (Figures 6, 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a t-shaped cross section in Berg as taught by Swanson as it would be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)) since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg et al. (8,291,998) in view of Martindale (6,854,525).
Regarding claims 5-6, Berg discloses the invention as described above including a retaining feature (22,24) that prevents movement of the rim relative to the hub, but fails to disclose that the retaining feature includes elements on both the hub and the rim. Like Berg, Martindale also discloses a disc comprising a hub and rim elements received by the hub. Unlike Berg, Martindale discloses key/keyway type ridges/elements (230, 430) for maintaining the rim elements in the desired place along the hub. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize retaining features on both the hub and the rim to ensure the elements do not move with respect to one another as the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Whalen (10,462,959) also discloses a hub with a rim for a closing wheel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jamie L McGowan whose telephone number is (571)272-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00-5:00 CST.
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, Chris 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.
/JAMIE L MCGOWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
