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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc.
In this case “improved” & purported merit “increase … durability and longevity” should be deleted.
The title of an invention should clearly and comprehensively reflect the subject matter and kind of the invention for which protection is sought, in other words the title should be commiserate with the claimed invention. The word “improved” & “methods” should be deleted (there are no method steps claimed).
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 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) 1-4, 6-10, 12-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van der Lally (3447295).
It should be noted that the recitation “mountable" is considered as merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Since it is the language itself of the claims which must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention, without limitations imported from the specification, whether such language is couched in terms of means plus function or consists of a detailed recitation of the inventive matter. Limitations in the specification not included in the claim may not be relied upon to impart patentability to an otherwise unpatentable claim. In re Lundberg, 113 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1957).
[AltContent: textbox (Extend inward toward the hub)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (a tine mounting passage so the tine abuts the support body)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
466
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Supporting / bushing at a respective hole)][AltContent: textbox (Hoop / ring / felly)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Hub mounting portion mountable to an axle)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
714
794
media_image2.png
Greyscale
1. An improved rake wheel, comprising:
a hub having a mounting portion, the mounting portion being mountable to an axle (marked up);
a hoop disposed about the hub (marked up), the hoop having a plurality of mounting holes formed therein, each mounting hole having a support body associated therewith which extends at a distance inward from the hoop towards the hub (marked up; see embodiment fig 1, “inward”); and
a plurality of spring tooth tines, the tines having a proximal end, a distal end, and a medial portion disposed therebetween (shown above, ref 29, 30),
the proximal end of each of the plurality of tines being mounted to the hub, each of the plurality of tines extending through a mounting hole on the hoop such that the distal end of the tine is outside of the diameter of the hoop and that a part of the medial portion of the tine abuts the support body associated with that mounting hole (intended arrangement is shown/taught above).
2. The rake wheel of claim 1, wherein the hoop is made from a material having a specific thickness and each of the support bodies extends inward from the hoop towards the hub at a distance that is at least twice the thickness of said hoop material (alternate embodiments show choice of distance being at least twice or four times).
3. The rake wheel of claim 1, wherein the hoop is made from a material having a specific thickness and each of the support bodies has an overall length of at least four times the thickness of the hoop material (see cl. 2; shown/taught above, and figs 12-13).
4. The rake wheel of claim 1, wherein the support body associated with each of the plurality of mounting holes is made from material displaced from the hoop to form said mounting hole (both the ring/hoop & the support as shown is made from sheet metal, ref 60, fig 13).
6. The rake wheel of claim 4, wherein the support body has a frustoconical shape (fig 13 embodiment).
7. The rake wheel of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of support bodies is a bushing mounted through each mounting hole (marked up).
The following are already addressed above, unless otherwise noted:
8. A rake wheel for a hay rake, comprising: a hub having an axel mounting portion and a plurality of tine attachment points; a hoop disposed about the hub, the hoop having a plurality of mounting holes formed therethrough and a support body associated with each mounting hole extending inward from the hoop from said mounting hole; and a plurality of tines, the tines each having a proximal end, a distal end, and a medial portion therebetween; wherein the proximal end of each of the plurality of tines is attached to the hub at a tine attachment point; wherein the medial portion of each of the plurality of tines passes through one of the plurality of mounting holes in the hoop such that the tine abuts the support body associated with that mounting hole; wherein the distal end of each of the plurality of tines is disposed outside the diameter of the hoop (see cl. 1).
9. The hay rake wheel of claim 8, wherein the support body associated with each of the plurality of mounting holes is made from material displaced from the hoop to form said mounting hole (cl. 4).
10. The hay rake wheel of claim 9, wherein he support body associated with each of the plurality of mounting holes is frustoconical shaped (cl. 6).
“(27) An element 55 formed from organic elastic material such as rubber, synthetic rubber or synthetic plastics material, surrounds substantially the whole of the portion 51 internally of the holder 56 and is caused to adhere to the portion by vulcanisation. The holders 56 are cylindrical sleeves of circular cross-section and the elements 55 are also caused to adhere to the internal walls of the holders by vulcanisation. Th3 holders 56 are formed from sheet metal or other sheet material and the end of each holder that is remote from the felly 49 tapers radially outwardly of the rake wheel.”
12. The hay rake wheel of claim 8, wherein each of the support bodies comprises material added to said hoop (see quote above).
13. The hay rake wheel of claim 12, wherein the added material is a bushing (fig 12, 13).
14. A rake wheel assembly, comprising: a hub having a plurality of tine attachment points; a hoop disposed about the hub, the hoop having a plurality of tine mounting passages therethrough and a support body associated with each mounting passage extending inward towards the hub; and a plurality of tines, the tines each having a proximal end, a distal end, and a medial portion disposed therebetween, the proximal end being mounted to a tine attachment point on the hub, the medial portion extending through a tine mounting passage so as to abut a support body, the distal end being disposed outside the diameter of the hoop (cl. 1, and fig 1, marked up above).
15. The rake wheel assembly of claim 14, wherein the hoop is made from a material having a specific thickness and each of the support bodies extends inward from the hoop towards the hub (fig 1 marked up) at a distance that is at least twice the thickness of said hoop material (cl. 2).
16. The rake wheel assembly of claim 14, wherein the hoop is made from a material having a specific thickness and each of the support bodies has an overall length of at least four times the thickness of the hoop material (see cl. 3).
17. The rake wheel assembly of claim 14, wherein the support body associated with each of the plurality of mounting passages is made from material displaced from the hoop to form said mounting passage (cl. 4, 9).
19. The rake wheel assembly of claim 17, wherein the support body has a frustoconical shape (cl. 6, 10).
20. The rake wheel assembly of claim 14, wherein each of the plurality of support bodies is a bushing mounted through each mounting passage (cl. 13).
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 12-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bentzinger (9288943).
Prima Facie Case: The patent office has the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of invalidity. A prima facie case is adequately articulated by notifying the applicant of the reasons for its rejections so long as the explanation is not "so uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection." Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990). This requirement comes straight from Section 132 of the Patent Act. 35 U.S.C. §132(a).
There has never been a requirement for an examiner to make an on-the-record claim construction of every term in every rejected claim and to explain every possible difference between the prior art and the claimed invention in order to make out a prima facie rejection. This court declines to create such a burdensome and unnecessary requirement. "[Section 132] does not mandate that in order to establish prima facie anticipation, the PTO must explicitly preempt every possible response to a section 102 rejection. Section 132 merely ensures that an applicant at least be informed of the broad statutory basis for the rejection of his claims, so that he may determine what the issues are on which he can or should produce evidence." Chester, 906 F.2d at 1578
Bentzinger teaches the claimed invention as shown/taught below:
[AltContent: textbox (Hoop / ring)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Support member being frustoconical, at least 4 times the extent as the thickness of the ring / hoop, inwardly extending toward the hub)][AltContent: textbox (Bushing / ferrule )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Tine distal end, followed by medial, proximal as we proceed toward the hub )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (hub)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
459
473
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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) 5, 11, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Lally (3447295) or Bentzinger (9288943), in view of Bright (7073317).
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Van der Lally (3447295) or Bentzinger (9288943) teach(es) the claimed invention, including the obviousness of using the same material for the supporting body as the hoop/ring, especially in particular when the process of “punching” or “thermal lancing” (claimed) is/are used, as claimed:
5. The rake wheel of claim 4, wherein each of the plurality of mounting holes is formed by thermal lancing so as to displace hoop material inward to form said mounting hole.
11. The hay rake wheel of claim 9, wherein each of the plurality of mounting holes is formed by thermal lancing so as to displace hoop material inward to form said mounting hole.
18. The rake wheel assembly of claim 17, wherein each of the plurality of mounting passages is formed by thermal lancing so as to displace hoop material inward to form said mounting passage.
Bright teaches a hole can be punched:
“Such attachment means included punching a receptacle in the mounting plate or tray and further forming a deflectable finger in the punched portion of the receptacle. The tine is fitted into the receptacle and the finger is deflected to prevent disengagement of the tine from the receptacle.”
To adequately traverse a finding of Official Notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 CFR 1.111(b). See also Chevenard, 139 F.2d at 713, 60 USPQ at 241 (“[I]n the absence of any demand by appellant for the examiner to produce authority for his statement, we will not consider this contention.”). A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the examiner’s assertion of official notice would be inadequate. If applicant adequately traverses the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the examiner must provide documentary evidence in the next Office action if the rejection is to be maintained. See 37 CFR 1.104(c)(2). See also Zurko, 258 F.3d at 1386, 59 USPQ2d at 1697 (“[T]he Board [or examiner] must point to some concrete evidence in the record in support of these findings” to satisfy the substantial evidence test). If the examiner is relying on personal knowledge to support the finding of what is known in the art, the examiner must provide an affidavit or declaration setting forth specific factual statements and explanation to support the finding. See 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2).
If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. If the traverse was inadequate, the examiner should include an explanation as to why it was inadequate.
Consequently, the following is deemed to be "well known":
forming a passage by thermal lancing,
esp. since the applicant admits there is no criticality whether punching is used to make the passage or thermal lancing, i.e. “…mounting hole 50 has been formed. The mounting holes may be formed using any suitable means such as thermal lancing, punching, and the like.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Van der Laly (3057145) teaches a plurality of tines with a support mounting (16) including bushings (fig 1, at extension 20).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARPAD FABIAN-KOVACS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6990. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th.
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, Amber R Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-5281. 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.
/ARPAD FABIAN-KOVACS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
