DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 102
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gee (US 1432328 A).
Regarding claim 1, Gee teaches “An implement (K; Gee Fig 1) for attachment with a vehicle (A; Gee Fig 1), the implement comprising: at least one rail system (M; Gee Fig 1) operably engaged with the vehicle; and a drop spreader (K; Gee Fig 4) moveably engaged with the at least one rail system between a filling position and an operating position (Gee page 1 lines 69-80); wherein the drop spreader (K; Gee Fig 4) is cantilevered from the vehicle by the at least one rail system (M; Gee Fig 4).”
In reference to claim 2, Gee teaches “The implement of claim 1, wherein the at least one rail system (M; Gee Fig 1) comprises: a first end (N; Gee Fig 1); a second end opposite to the first end (m; Gee Fig 1); and a longitudinal direction defined between the first end and the second end; wherein the drop spreader (K; Gee Fig 4) is moveable along the longitudinal direction between the filling position and the operating position (Gee page 1 lines 69-80); wherein the longitudinal direction of the at least one rail system is nonparallel with a longitudinal direction of the vehicle (M; Gee Fig 5 where rail system is clearly perpendicular to the longitudinal plane of the vehicle) .”
With respect to claim 13, Gee teaches “The implement of claim 1, further comprising: at least another rail system (M; Gee Annotated Fig 2) operably engaged with the vehicle and positioned opposite to the at least rail system; wherein the drop spreader (K; Gee Annotated Fig 2) is moveably engaged with the at least one rail system and the at least another rail system between the filling position and the operating position (Gee page 1 lines 69-80).”
PNG
media_image1.png
408
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Gee teaches “A method of spreading a material along a ground surface, comprising: engaging an implement (K; Gee Fig 1) to a vehicle (A; Gee Fig 1), the implement comprising: at least one rail system (M; Gee Fig 1) operably engaged with the vehicle; and a drop spreader (K; Gee Fig 1) moveably engaged with the at least one rail system between a filling position and an operating position (Gee page 1 lines 69-80), wherein the drop spreader (K; Gee Fig 1) is cantilevered from the vehicle by the at least one rail system (M; Gee Fig 4); moving the drop spreader (K; Gee Fig 1) along the at least one rail system in a first linear direction from the operating position to the filling position (Gee page 1 lines 69-80); filling the drop spreader with the material in the filling position (Gee page 1 lines 96-99); moving the [hopper] along the at least one rail system in a second linear direction from the filling position to the operating position; and spreading the material along the ground surface (Gee page 1 lines 100-109).”
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Gee and Broege, as seen in claim 14, teaches “The method of claim 14, wherein the steps of moving the drop spreader along the at least one rail system in the first (Gee page 1 lines 69-80) and second linear directions further includes that the first and second linear directions (Gee page 1 lines 100-109) are nonparallel with a longitudinal direction of the vehicle (M; Gee Fig 5 where rail system is clearly perpendicular to the longitudinal plane of the vehicle).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 3-4, 8-9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gee (US-1432328-A) in view of VerMehren (US 5752367 A).
Regarding claim 3, Gee, teaches “The implement of claim 1, wherein the at least one rail system (M; Gee Fig 4) further comprises: a roller rail (k; Gee Fig 4) operably engaged with the vehicle; and wherein the drop spreader (K; Gee Fig 4) comprises: a hopper (K; Gee Fig 4) configured to hold material…”
Gee does not teach a set of bearings.
However, VerMehren teaches “…and at least one set of bearings (42; VerMehren Fig 3) rotatably engaged with the hopper and with the roller rail to move the hopper between the filling position and the operating position (VerMehren column 5 lines 44-62).”
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated roller bearings to actuate hoppers between filling and dispensing positions, as taught by VerMehren with the implement of Gee with a reasonable expectation of success for a drop spreader that actuates with less friction.
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Gee and VerMehren as seen in claim 3, teaches “The implement of claim 3, wherein the hopper (K; Gee Annotated Fig 2) further comprises: a front wall (As seen Gee Annotated Fig 2) ; a rear wall (As seen Gee Annotated Fig 2) opposite to the front wall; a pair of side walls (As seen Gee Annotated Fig 2) operably engaged with the front wall and the rear wall and spaced apart from one another; and a chamber collectively defined by the front wall, the rear wall, and the pair of side walls that holds the material (K; Gee Fig 4) ; wherein the set of bearings (42; VerMehren Fig 3) operably engages with at least one of the front wall and the rear wall external to the chamber (k; Gee Fig 1).”
In reference to claim 8, the combination of Gee and VerMehren as seen in claim 3, teaches “The implement of claim 3, wherein the roller rail of the at least one rail system (M; Gee Fig 1) further comprises: at least one mounting bracket (P; Gee Fig 1) configured to operably engage the at least one rail system with a front fender of the vehicle or a rear render of the vehicle (A; Gee Fig 1).”
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Gee and VerMehren as seen in claim 3, teaches “The implement of claim 3, wherein the roller rail of the at least one rail system (M; Gee Fig 1) further comprises: at least one side flange (P; Gee Fig 1) configured to operably engage the at least one rail system with a frame of the vehicle (A; Gee Fig 1).”
With respect to claim 16, Gee teaches “The method of claim 14, wherein the steps of moving the drop spreader (K; Gee Fig 1) along the at least one rail system (M; Gee Fig 4) in the first and second linear directions further comprises (Gee page 1 lines 100-109)…”
Gee does not teach a set of bearings.
However, VerMehren teaches ” …engaging at least one set of bearings (42; VerMehren Fig 3) of the drop spreader with a roller rail (56; VerMehren Fig 3) of the at least one rail system; and sliding the drop spreader along the roller rail (VerMehren column 5 lines 44-62) .”
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated roller bearings to actuate hoppers between filling and dispensing positions, as taught by VerMehren with the implement of Gee with a reasonable expectation of success for a drop spreader that actuates with less friction.
7. Claims 10-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gee (US-1432328-A) in view of Richter et al. (US 20140346801 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Gee teaches a drop spreader and rail system.
Gee does not teach a latch system.
However, Richter et al. teaches “…a latch system (34; Richter et al. Fig 4) operably engaged with the drop spreader and the at least one rail system (30; Richter et al. Fig 4); wherein the latch system is configured to maintain the drop spreader in the operating position relative to the at least one rail system (Richter et al. ¶019).”
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the latch system of Richter et al. with the implement of Gee with a reasonable expectation of success for maintaining the hopper in a desired position, as to not be displaced by vibration.
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Gee and Richter et al. as seen in claim 10, teaches “The implement of claim 10, wherein the latch system (34; Richter et al. Fig 5) comprises: a strike plate (40A; Richter et al. Fig 5) fixedly engaged with the at least one rail system; and a latch (34; Richter et al. Fig 5) fixedly engaged with the drop spreader and operably engaged with the strike plate in the operating position (Richter et al. ¶019).”
In reference to claim 20, Gee teaches a drop spreader and rail system.
Gee does not teach a latch system.
However, Richter et al. teaches “The method of claim 14, further comprising: disengaging a latch of a latch assembly (34; Richter et al. Fig 5) from a strike plate (40A; Richter et al. Fig 5) of the latch assembly; and enabling movement of the drop spreader between the filling position and the operating position relative to the at least one rail system (Richter et al. ¶019).”
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the latch system of Richter et al. with the implement of Gee with a reasonable expectation of success for maintaining the hopper in a desired position, as to not be displaced by vibration.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 5-7,12,17-19 and 21 are 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.
Regarding claim 5, there is no art that can be taken alone or in combination to achieve the limitation of a stop bushing engaged with a roller rail. Therefore, claim 5 and its subsequent dependent claims 6 and 7 contain allowable subject matter, but are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 12, there is no art that can be taken alone or in combination to achieve the limitation of a latch sensor to detect drop spreader position. Therefore, claim 12 contains allowable subject matter, but is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
In reference to claim 17, there is no art that can be taken alone or in combination to achieve the limitation of a stop bushing engaged with a roller rail. Therefore, claim 17 and its subsequent dependent claims 18 and 19 contain allowable subject matter, but are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
With respect to claim 21, there is no art that can be taken alone or in combination to achieve the limitation of a latch sensor to detect drop spreader position. Therefore, claim 21 contains allowable subject matter, but is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Truan et al. (US-20140374515-A1) teaches a drop spreader cantilevered on a rail, but it is not movable along the rail.
Steiner (US 20160145821 A1) teaches a drop spreader cantilevered on a rail, but it is not movable along the rail.
Broege (US-20170114512-A1) teaches a drop spreader cantilevered on a rail, but it is not movable along the rail.
Van Maanen et al. (WO 2019057741 A1) teaches a hopper movable between positions along a rail system, but does not specifically teach a drop spreader.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ROBERT DIGIOVANNANTONIO whose telephone number is (571)272-4526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 a.m. to 5 p.m..
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/D.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights