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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, snowplows with articulating wings are known in the art. For example, Weihl and Niemela (prior art of record) present snowplows with wings and hinges. Together, these references detail the multi-axis rotary joint between the central blade and lateral blades as well as teach the use of a second hydraulic cylinder between a force transfer element and the lateral blades. However, claim 8 further details the details the connection between the second hydraulic cylinder and the lateral blade having a multi-axis rotary joint. No reference of record, nor any other reference, teaches this specific connection between the second hydraulic cylinder and the lateral blade along with the other claimed structures. Any obvious combination to include the multi-axis rotary joint at that location as currently claimed would require improper hindsight reasoning. For this reason, the claim is allowable.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites a new “hinge” in line 2. It does not appear that this hinge is the same as the hinge recited in claim 1. Therefore, reference to “the hinge having an upper hinge element and a lower hinge element, the lower hinge element ” in lines 2-3 can be confused with the first hinge and upper and lower hinge elements. The examiner suggests amending the language to read –the mount hinge having an upper mount hinge element and a lower mount hinge element, the lower mount hinge element--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-2, 5-6, 12, 15, 17, 21, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weihl (US 11466417).
Regarding claim 1, Weihl discloses a plow blade system adapted for mounting to a vehicle, comprising:
a central blade having two transversally opposite ends and a mount for mounting the blade to the vehicle in a configuration where the central blade is orientable transversally to a longitudinal orientation of movement of the vehicle (central blade 124; opposite ends 122/222; mounted to vehicle in Fig 3 transverse to vehicle movement; Fig also depicts the mount for mounting the blade to the vehicle);
a lateral blade (112 or 212); and
a hinge pivotally coupling a lateral edge of the lateral blade to one of the opposite ends of the central blade about a pivot axis, the hinge having an upper hinge element and a lower hinge element, the upper hinge element interspaced from the lower hinge element, the lower hinge element having a multi-axis rotary joint (hinge 117 and 116 allows movement of the lateral blade about axes 101 and 102; Fig 6 depicts upper hinge includes the uppermost sections of joint 117 to allow movement about axis 101 and pin 102 with 116 as a lower hinge element to allow movement about axis 102 and axis 101; the lower hinge element 102 and 116 can be considered a multi-axis rotary joint).
Regarding claim 2, Weihl discloses the plow blade system wherein the hinge further includes a bracket fastened to a mould board of the lateral blade (there are many brackets fastened to the lateral mould board depicted in Fig 10; see Annotated Fig 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 5, Weihl discloses the plow blade system as defined in claim 1, further comprising:
an additional lateral blade (212 or 112); and
an additional hinge pivotally coupling the additional lateral blade to the other one of the opposite ends of the central blade about an additional pivot axis, the additional hinge having an additional upper hinge element and an additional lower hinge element, the additional upper hinge element interspaced from the additional lower hinge element, the additional lower hinge element having an additional multi- axis rotary joint (the hinge as described in claim 1 is repeated on the other side of the central blade in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 6, Weihl discloses the plow blade system wherein the lower hinge element includes a male hinge element operatively coupled to one of the lateral blade and the central blade, the male hinge element including a pin, and a female hinge element operatively coupled to the other of the lateral blade and the central blade, the female hinge element including the multi-axis rotary joint engaged with the pin (Fig 3; joint 117 is defined by a hinge and pin configuration; col 5, lines 40-43; the male pin, presumably undescribed element 216, is operatively coupled to central blade and the female hinge is operatively coupled to 116 and 102 to allow pivoting about axis 101 and 102; 116 and fastener 102 create a multi-axis rotary joint).
Regarding claim 12, Weihl discloses the plow blade system wherein the central blade is pivotably mounted to the vehicle via the mount (Fig 3 depicts actuators pivotably mounting the central blade to the vehicle via a mount.
Regarding claim 15, Weihl discloses the plow blade system further comprising:
a force transfer element;
a hydraulic cylinder operatively coupling the central blade to the force transfer element; and
a bracket operatively coupling the lateral blade to the force transfer element;
wherein the force transfer element is configured for transferring forces from the hydraulic cylinder to the bracket to pivot the lateral blade about the pivot axis (see Annotated Fig 2; the elements pivot the lateral blade about the pivot axis).
PNG
media_image2.png
472
608
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 17, Weihl discloses the plow blade system further comprising a working portion for engaging a work surface, the working portion including a lower edge displaceable relative to the lateral blade (Figs 9-10; working portion 1119 with lower edge 1131 being displaceable relative to the lateral blade via elements 1118 and 1121).
Regarding claim 21, Weihl discloses a plow blade system adapted for mounting to a vehicle, comprising:
a central blade having two transversally opposite ends and a mount for mounting the blade to the vehicle in a configuration where the central blade is orientable transversally to a longitudinal orientation of movement of the vehicle (central blade 124; opposite ends 122/222; mounted to vehicle in Fig 3 transverse to vehicle movement; Fig also depicts the mount for mounting the blade to the vehicle);
a lateral blade (112 or 212);
a hinge pivotally coupling a lateral edge of the lateral blade to one of the opposite ends of the central blade about a pivot axis (hinge 117 and 116 allows movement of the lateral blade about axes 101 and 102; Fig 6 depicts upper hinge includes the uppermost sections of joint 117 to allow movement about axis 101 and pin 102 with 116 as a lower hinge element to allow movement about axis 102 and axis 101); and
an actuator operatively coupled to the lateral blade and to the central blade, the actuator operatively coupled to the lateral blade via a bracket fastened to a main panel of the lateral blade, the actuator operatively coupled to the central blade via a hydraulic cylinder, the hydraulic cylinder coupled to the central blade at a first end thereof and to the actuator at a second end thereof (see Annotated Figure 2; the force transfer element is considered to be the actuator coupled to the central blade via the hydraulic cylinder connected to the central blade);
wherein the actuator is configured for transferring forces from the hydraulic cylinder to the lateral blade to pivot the lateral blade about the pivot axis (the elements pivot the lateral blade about the pivot axis).
Regarding claim 23, Weihl discloses the plow blade system wherein the hinge includes an upper hinge element and a lower hinge element, the upper hinge element interspaced from the lower hinge element, the lower hinge element having a multi-axis rotary joint (the lower hinge element 102 and 116 can be considered a multi-axis rotary joint).
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 12-13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Desmarais (US 5819444).
Regarding claim 1, Desmarais discloses a plow blade system adapted for mounting to a vehicle, comprising:
a central blade having two transversally opposite ends and a mount for mounting the blade to the vehicle in a configuration where the central blade is orientable transversally to a longitudinal orientation of movement of the vehicle (central blade 2 with vehicle connection 32 to orient the blade transversely to the movement of the vehicle);
a lateral blade (4); and
a hinge pivotally coupling a lateral edge of the lateral blade to one of the opposite ends of the central blade about a pivot axis, the hinge having an upper hinge element and a lower hinge element, the upper hinge element interspaced from the lower hinge element, the lower hinge element having a multi-axis rotary joint (Fig 9; upper hinge element 66 and 70; lower hinge element 76 and 80 allow to lateral blade to pivot about pivot axis of 76 and the axis of pin 80).
Regarding claim 2, Desmarais discloses the plow blade system wherein the hinge further includes a bracket fastened to a mould board of the lateral blade (Fig 4; bracket 5 reinforce the wing blades; col 3, line 65 – col 4, line 1).
Regarding claim 5, Desmarais discloses the plow blade system further comprising:
an additional lateral blade (4’); and
an additional hinge pivotally coupling the additional lateral blade to the other one of the opposite ends of the central blade about an additional pivot axis, the additional hinge having an additional upper hinge element and an additional lower hinge element, the additional upper hinge element interspaced from the additional lower hinge element, the additional lower hinge element having an additional multi-axis rotary joint (the hinge as described in claim 1 is repeated on the other side of the central blade in Figs 10-11).
Regarding claim 12, Desmarais discloses the plow blade system wherein the central blade is pivotably mounted to the vehicle via the mount (col 4, lines 15-22; Fig 7).
Regarding claim 13, Desmarais discloses The plow blade system as defined in claim 12, wherein the central blade is hingedly connected to the mount at a hinge about a pivot axis, the hinge having an upper hinge element and a lower hinge element, the lower hinge element having a multi-axis rotary joint (upper hinge element 24; lower hinge element 22 and 10; Figs 10-11 depict the central blade pivoting about axis of 10; Fig 7 depicts the pivot point 22; the lower hinge element is considered a multi-axis rotary joint).
Regarding claim 15, Desmarais discloses the plow blade system further comprising:
a force transfer element (84);
a hydraulic cylinder operatively coupling the central blade to the force transfer element (hydraulic cylinder 82 is operatively coupled to both the central blade and force transfer element 84); and
a bracket operatively coupling the lateral blade to the force transfer element (back bracket 5 is operatively couples the lateral blade to force transfer element);
wherein the force transfer element is configured for transferring forces from the hydraulic cylinder to the bracket to pivot the lateral blade about the pivot axis (Fig 5 depicts the hydraulic cylinder force being transferred through the force transfer element 5 to pivot the blade 4 about pivot axis 76).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al. (US 1406325).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses a plow blade system adapted for mounting to a vehicle (the grader blade is considered to be a plow blade attached to a vehicle), comprising:
a central blade having two transversally opposite ends and a mount for mounting the blade to the vehicle in a configuration where the central blade is orientable transversally to a longitudinal orientation of movement of the vehicle (central blade 2; it is stated that there may be more than one end of the central blade for the joint; pg 1, lines 39-49; the central blade is transverse to the movement of the vehicle);
a lateral blade (3); and
a hinge pivotally coupling a lateral edge of the lateral blade to one of the opposite ends of the central blade about a pivot axis, the hinge having an upper hinge element and a lower hinge element, the upper hinge element interspaced from the lower hinge element, the lower hinge element having a multi-axis rotary joint (upper hinge elements 8/9/10; lower hinge elements 14/15/10 and 17; the lower hinge elements allow rotation about pivot axis of element 17 and axis of 11a in Fig 1; pg 1, lines 56-61; the lower hinge elements are considered a multi-axis rotary joint).
Regarding claim 2, Anderson discloses the plow blade system wherein the hinge further includes a bracket fastened to a mould board of the lateral blade (Fig 1; bracket 6).
Regarding claim 4, Anderson discloses the plow blade system wherein the upper hinge element has an additional multi-axis rotary joint (upper hinge elements 9 and 8 contain two pins that rotate in a swivel motion; these pins allow for multi-axis rotation of the upper hinge element).
Regarding claim 5, Anderson discloses the plow blade system further comprising:
an additional lateral blade (it is stated that there may be more than one lateral blade; pg 1, lines 39-49); and
an additional hinge pivotally coupling the additional lateral blade to the other one of the opposite ends of the central blade about an additional pivot axis, the additional hinge having an additional upper hinge element and an additional lower hinge element, the additional upper hinge element interspaced from the additional lower hinge element, the additional lower hinge element having an additional multi-axis rotary joint (the hinge as described in claim 1 is repeated on other lateral blades; pg 1, lines 39-49).
Regarding claim 6, Anderson discloses the plow blade system wherein the lower hinge element includes a male hinge element operatively coupled to one of the lateral blade and the central blade, the male hinge element including a pin, and a female hinge element operatively coupled to the other of the lateral blade and the central blade, the female hinge element including the multi-axis rotary joint engaged with the pin (male hinge element includes pin 11a and is coupled to the central blade; female hinge element 15 is operatively coupled to the lateral blade).
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.
Claim(s) 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiehl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Neimela et al. (US 20220064885).
Regarding claim 7, Weihl discloses the plow blade system further comprising:
a force transfer element;
a first hydraulic cylinder operatively coupling the central blade to the force transfer element (see Annotated Figure 2);
wherein the force transfer element is configured for transferring forces from the first hydraulic cylinder to pivot the lateral blade about the pivot axis (the elements pivot the lateral blade about the pivot axis).
Weihl is silent on using a second hydraulic cylinder in the force transfer assembly. However, Niemela discloses a similar snowplow with hinges as depicted in Fig 19A. Niemela discloses a first hydraulic cylinder to connect the central blade to the force transfer element (cylinder 144 connects the central blade 118 to the force transfer element 148). Niemela further teaches the use of a second hydraulic cylinder to operatively couple the lateral blade to the force transfer element (cylinder 146 connects the force transfer element 148 to lateral blade 119).
Weihl and Niemela are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of snowplows with articulating wing blades. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weihl to incorporate the teachings of Niemela and used a second hydraulic cylinder to transfer to the force to the lateral blade. One would have made this combination to yield favorable loading characteristics for retaining the plow wing under a workload (Niemela; para [0095], lines 16-20).
Regarding claim 9, Weihl further discloses the plow blade system wherein the force transfer element is pivotally mounted to one of the lateral blade and the central blade, around a hinge axis coaxial to the upper hinge element and the lower hinge element (claim language is broad; Weihl; Fig 10 and Annotated Figure 2 depict the force transfer element pivotably mounted to both of the blades about a hinge axis coaxial to the upper and lower hinge elements).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weihl as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of May (US 8689897).
Regarding claim 16, Weihl fails to specifically disclose the plow blade system wherein the bracket is bolted to the lateral blade. However, the bracket of the Annotated Figure is clearly connected, merely not disclosing the manner of such a bolted connection to the lateral blade. The bracket must be connected to the lateral blade when assembled in order for the device to function.
May discloses a similar blade assembly (Fig 2) and teaches the use of bolts to connect a bracket to the lateral blade (Fig 4; col 6, lines 24-28).
Weihl and May are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of blade assemblies to move material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weihl to incorporate the teachings of May and used bolts to fasten the bracket to the wing blade. One would have made this combination as mechanically equivalent connection for the bracket to the lateral blade.
Further, bolting a bracket to the back of a lateral snowplow wing blade would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, as Applicant has not disclosed that the bolts themselves solve any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by the prior art by fastening the bracket to the lateral blade by other means including the use of bolts to fasten the bracket to the lateral blade.
Claim(s) 19-20, 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weihl in view of Monarch Metal (NPL reference 1).
Regarding claim 19, Weihl is silent on the plow blade system wherein a main body of the lateral blade is made of a material having a yield strength of at least 75,000 PSI. However, Weihl does disclose the wing and central blades being made from polymer or metal material (Weihl; col 6, lines 2-5).
It is well known to use a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. Monarch Metal discloses several different materials and lists the strengths of each material. Monarch Metal teaches “heat treated” metal to have a yield strength of 105,000 PSI.
Weihl and Monarch Metal are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of using a metal material for particular applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weihl to incorporate the teachings of Monarch Metal and made the lateral blades from a heat-treated metal. One would have made this modification to avoid plastic deformation as a result of applied forces (Monarch Metal).
As currently claimed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the main body of the lateral blade of a material having a yield strength of at least 75,000 PSI, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. Basic quenches and tempered steel can have a yield strength well above 100,000 PSI based on general engineering principles.
Regarding claim 20, Weihl is silent on the plow blade system wherein the main body of the lateral blade is made of a material having a yield strength of at least 100,000 PSI. As stated before, Weihl does disclose the wing and central blades being made from polymer or metal material (Weihl; col 6, lines 2-5).
It is well known to use a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. Monarch Metal discloses several different materials and lists the strengths of each material. Monarch Metal teaches “heat treated” metal to have a yield strength of 105,000 PSI.
Weihl and Monarch Metal are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of using a metal material for particular applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weihl to incorporate the teachings of Monarch Metal and made the lateral blades from a heat-treated metal. One would have made this modification to avoid plastic deformation as a result of applied forces (Monarch Metal).
As currently claimed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the main body of the lateral blade of a material having a yield strength of at least 100,000 PSI, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. Basic quenches and tempered steel can have a yield strength well above 100,000 PSI based on general engineering principles.
Regarding claim 26, Weihl is silent on the plow blade system wherein a main body of the lateral blade is made of a material having a yield strength of at least 75,000 PSI. However, Weihl does disclose the wing and central blades being made from polymer or metal material (Weihl; col 6, lines 2-5).
It is well known to use a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. Monarch Metal discloses several different materials and lists the strengths of each material. Monarch Metal teaches “heat treated” metal to have a yield strength of 105,000 PSI.
Weihl and Monarch Metal are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of using a metal material for particular applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weihl to incorporate the teachings of Monarch Metal and made the lateral blades from a heat-treated metal. One would have made this modification to avoid plastic deformation as a result of applied forces (Monarch Metal).
As currently claimed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the main body of the lateral blade of a material having a yield strength of at least 75,000 PSI, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. Basic quenches and tempered steel can have a yield strength well above 100,000 PSI based on general engineering principles.
Regarding claim 27, Weihl is silent on the plow blade system wherein the main body of the lateral blade is made of a material having a yield strength of at least 100,000 PSI. As stated before, Weihl does disclose the wing and central blades being made from polymer or metal material (Weihl; col 6, lines 2-5).
It is well known to use a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. Monarch Metal discloses several different materials and lists the strengths of each material. Monarch Metal teaches “heat treated” metal to have a yield strength of 105,000 PSI.
Weihl and Monarch Metal are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of using a metal material for particular applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weihl to incorporate the teachings of Monarch Metal and made the lateral blades from a heat-treated metal. One would have made this modification to avoid plastic deformation as a result of applied forces (Monarch Metal).
As currently claimed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the main body of the lateral blade of a material having a yield strength of at least 100,000 PSI, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. Basic quenches and tempered steel can have a yield strength well above 100,000 PSI based on general engineering principles.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weihl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sebulke et al. (EP 0467310).
Regarding claim 14, Weihl fails to specifically disclose the plow blade system wherein the multi-axis rotary joint is a ball joint. However, the claim language is broad. It is clear that Weihl does discloses the multi-axis rotary joint allowing the wing plow blade to rotate around two axes (axis 101 and axis 102). Ball joints are well known in the mechanical arts and allow for articulation in all directions. Ball joints are also known in the art of snowplows. In fact, Sebulke discloses a similar snowplow (Fig 5) and teaches the use of a two-axis ball joint in Fig 8 (col 5, lines 23-25) and describes the joint as rotating about axes of elements 32 and 34 (col 7, lines 49-54).
Weihl and Sebulke are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of snowplows. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weihl to incorporate the teachings of Sebulke and made the multi-axis rotary joint of the lower hinge element a ball joint. One would have made this modification to increase the permissible lateral load capacity alongside the use of lateral plastic disks (Sebulke; col 7, lines 43-48).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Linder et al. (US 9068324) discloses a similar blade design albeit for a bulldozer. A bulldozer blade still meets the claimed preamble, and Linder’s blade has a similar hinge structure to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE SCOVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30-6 (ET).
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 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.
/BLAKE E SCOVILLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights