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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "600" and "800" have both been used to designate ‘turf roller’. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the ‘towing vehicle’ in claims 1, 13; ‘corresponding connector on the towing vehicle’ in claims 1, 13; ‘tow bar of the towing vehicle’ in claims 3, 14, 18; ‘jaw being configured to perform a clamping action on the tow bar’ in claim 4; ‘tow bar’ in claim 8; and “an adjustment structure such that a position of the connector piece on the connecting part can be adjusted to suit towing vehicles having the corresponding connector at different heights above the ground, and wherein the adjustment structure comprises a pair of plates which are fastenable to each other in a plurality of relative positions” in claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 15-20 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 15, line 1 introduces the element “a coupling device”. Claim 15, line 2 then introduces “a coupling device”. It is unclear whether the “coupling device” in line 2 is referring to the “coupling device” in line 1 or is a separate “coupling device”.
Claim 15, line 1 introduces the element “an equipment”. Claim 15, line 5 then introduces “a coupling device”. It is unclear whether the “equipment” in line 5 is referring to the “equipment” in line 1 or is a separate “equipment”.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 13-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hulsey et al. (US 6,648,361), as cited by Applicant.
With respect to claim 1, Hulsey et al. discloses a coupling device (30) configured to connect an equipment (10) to a towing vehicle (through 54), wherein the coupling device comprises: a connecting part (40) configured to releasably connect to the equipment (10); a stabiliser (42 or 50, 52) configured to assist in holding the coupling device (30) in an alignment position prior to (figs. 2-3) releasable connection with the equipment (10); and a connector piece (54) configured to releasably connect to a corresponding connector (‘ball’; col. 1, lines 16-23) on the towing vehicle (‘car or truck’; col. 1, lines 16-23). (Figs. 1-6, col. 2, lines 62-67, cols. 3-4.)
With respect to claim 3, Hulsey et al. discloses the stabiliser comprises a clamping mechanism (42) configured to releasably clamp (figs. 1-2) the coupling device (30) to a tow bar (16) of the towing vehicle. (Figs. 1-6, col. 2, lines 62-67, cols. 3-4.)
With respect to claim 13, Hulsey et al. discloses a method of coupling an equipment (10) to a towing vehicle (through 54), wherein the method comprises: a) providing a coupling device (30) according to claim 1, the coupling device having a connecting part (40) and a connector piece (54); b) providing an equipment; c) providing a towing vehicle (‘car or truck’; col. 1, lines 16-23) having a corresponding connector (‘ball’; col. 1, lines 16-23); d) connecting the connecting part (40) of the coupling device (30) to the equipment (10) and releasably locking the coupling device (30) to the equipment (10); and e) coupling the connector piece (54) of the coupling device (30) to the corresponding connector (‘ball’; col. 1, lines 16-23) of the towing vehicle (‘car or truck’; col. 1, lines 16-23). (Figs. 1-6, col. 2, lines 62-67, cols. 3-4.)
With respect to claim 14, Hulsey et al. discloses step e) includes utilizing a clamping mechanism (42) of the coupling device to clamp (figs. 1-2) the coupling device (30) to a towing bar (16) of the towing vehicle. (Figs. 1-6, col. 2, lines 62-67, cols. 3-4.)
With respect to claim 15, Hulsey et al. discloses a method for coupling an equipment (10) to a coupling device (30), the method comprising: providing a coupling device (30), the coupling device having a connecting part (40); positioning the coupling device (30) such that the connecting part (40) is at a first height above a ground (col. 3, lines 33-45); providing an equipment (10), the equipment having an attachment portion (20, 22), wherein the attachment portion (20, 22) and connecting part (40) are configured to engage with one another (figs. 1-2); and engaging the attachment portion (20, 22) with the connecting part (40). (Figs. 1-6, col. 2, lines 62-67, cols. 3-4.)
With respect to claim 17, Hulsey et al. discloses the coupling device comprises a stabiliser (42 or 50, 52) which positions the connecting part (40) at the first height such that the connecting part (40) and attachment portion (20, 22) are substantially in alignment prior to and during engagement of the connecting part (40) with the attachment portion (20, 22). (Figs. 1-6, col. 2, lines 62-67, cols. 3-4.)
With respect to claim 18, Hulsey et al. discloses the coupling device comprises a connector piece (54) and the method further comprises coupling the connector piece (54) to a towing vehicle (‘car or truck’; col. 1, lines 16-23), and wherein the stabiliser comprises a clamping mechanism (42) which clamps the coupling device (30) to a tow bar (16) of the towing vehicle to hold the connecting part (40) at the first height above the ground. (Figs. 1-6, col. 2, lines 62-67, cols. 3-4.)
With respect to claim 19, Hulsey et al. discloses the stabiliser comprises a leg (50, 52) sized to hold the connecting part (40) at the first height above the ground. (Figs. 1-6, col. 2, lines 62-67, cols. 3-4.)
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.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulsey et al. in view of Dufty (US 6,457,903), as cited by Applicant.
With respect to claims 2 and 10, Hulsey et al. is silent regarding a turf roller. Dufty teaches of a coupling device (33) configured to connect a turf roller (10) and towing vehicle (through hitch 34). (Figs. 1-11, col. 4, lines 6-67, col. 5.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the towing structure as described in Dufty into the invention of Hulsey et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to pull a variety of equipment.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulsey et al. in view of Dufty (US 2019/0047341).
With respect to claims 3-4, Hulsey et al. is silent regarding a clamping mechanism. Dufty teaches of the stabiliser comprises a clamping mechanism (200) configured to releasably clamp the coupling device to a tow bar of the towing vehicle (paragraphs 79-84); wherein the clamping mechanism comprises a lever (223) and a jaw (212), the lever (223) being actuatable by a user, and the jaw being configured to perform a clamping action (fig. 3) on the tow bar (paragraphs 79-84). (Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 71-85.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the clamping structure as described in Dufty into the invention of Hulsey et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a reliable connection between a vehicle and hauled load. (Paragraphs 2-6)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulsey et al. in view of Hensley (US 2009/0033061).
With respect to claim 5, Hulsey et al. is silent regarding a wall tapering. Hensley teaches of one of the connecting part (70) and an attachment portion (35) of the equipment comprises a receiver (92) and the other comprises an engaging member (84), and wherein a termination of the engaging member (84) includes at least one wall (92) tapering towards a central axis (fig. 11) of the engaging member (84). (Figs. 9-13, paragraphs 42-63.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Hensley into the invention of Hulsey et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for easier engagement. (Paragraph 47.)
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulsey et al. in view of Eishen (US 4,813,841).
With respect to claims 6-7, Hulsey et al. is silent regarding a protrusion. Eishen teaches of the connecting part comprises an engaging member (14-16) having at least one protrusion (62) configured to engage with a surface of the equipment (40) when the connecting part is in a locking position (fig. 5); wherein the at least one protrusion (62) includes an angled surface (surface of protrusion 62 is at a zero degree angle to a vertical plane, zero being an angle) to a vertical plane. (Figs. 1-6, col. 2, lines 42-68, col. 3, col. 4, lines 1-25.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Eishen into the invention of Hulsey et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to secure the equipment. (Col. 4, lines 5-25.)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulsey et al. in view of Volin (US 2015/0352917).
With respect to claim 8, Hulsey et al. discloses the connector piece (54) is a coupler configured to receive a tow bar, tow hitch or tow ball but is silent regarding an insert. Jacobs teaches of the coupler includes a size adjustable portion (63) such that it may receive different tow bar, tow hitch or tow ball sizes, and wherein the size adjustable portion includes at least one insert (65). (Figs. 15-22, paragraphs 140-240.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Volin into the invention of Hulsey et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to save materials, space, time, and money. (Paragraph 251.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulsey et al. in view of Svihla (US 2012/0119467).
With respect to claim 9, Hulsey et al. is silent regarding plates. Svihla teaches of an adjustment structure (2) such that a position of the connector piece (8) on the connecting part (4) can be adjusted to suit towing vehicles having the corresponding connector at different heights above the ground, and wherein the adjustment structure comprises a u-shaped plate (14) which are fastenable to each other in a plurality of relative positions (figs. 6-13). (Figs. 1-25, paragraphs 38-61.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Svihla into the invention of Hulsey et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide an improved trailer hitch assembly that is capable for adjustment above or below the receiver in the most common drop and rise stepped configurations. (Paragraph 6.) Hulsey et al., as modified, discloses a u-shaped plate as opposed to a pair of plates. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a pair of plates as opposed to a u-shaped plate, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulsey et al. and Dufty, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Hensley (US 2009/0033061).
With respect to claim 11, Hulsey et al., as modified, is silent regarding a tapered funnel. Hensley teaches of a receiver (92) with an opening to receive an engaging member (84) of the connecting part (70) of the coupling device, and wherein the receiver (92) comprises an opening and a tapered funnel (92) at the opening (fig. 11). (Figs. 9-13, paragraphs 42-63.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Hensley into the invention of Hulsey et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for easier engagement. (Paragraph 47.)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulsey et al. and Dufty, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Pogatchnik, III et al. (US 2024/0090390).
With respect to claim 12, Hulsey et al., as modified, is silent regarding a mechanism to raise and lower the wheels. Pogatchnik, III et al. teaches of the turf roller comprises :at least a pair of wheels (112); and at least one mechanism (108) for moving the wheels towards or away from the ground (figs. 310, paragraph 84). (Figs. 1-40, paragraphs 84-125.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Pogatchnik, III et al. into the invention of Hulsey et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to enables the roller assemblies to contact the ground. (Paragraph 84.)
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulsey et al. in view of Pogatchnik, III et al. (US 2024/0090390).
With respect to claim 16, Hulsey et al. is silent regarding a turf roller. Pogatchnik, III et al. teaches of the equipment is a turf roller (400) comprising a plurality of rollers (416, 420) and moving the equipment towards the connecting part (part 428 is connected to on towing vehicle) comprises driving the turf roller (400) on its rollers (see figs. 26-27, col. 11, lines 35-54). (Figs. 19-40, cols. 11-16.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Pogatchnik, III et al. into the invention of Hulsey et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to enhances its functionality, versatility, and efficiency. These benefits contribute to improved ground preparation, ease of transportation, and the flexibility to adapt to various operational requirements. (Col. 11, lines 35-54.)
With respect to claim 20, Hulsey et al. is silent regarding the equipment having a wheel moving to a lowered position. Pogatchnik, III et al. teaches of the equipment (400)comprises at least one wheel (424), and the wheel is moved to a lowered position (fig. 25), where it engages the ground, after the attachment portion and the connecting part are engaged with one another in order to tow the equipment (400). (Figs. 19-40, cols. 11-16.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Pogatchnik, III et al. into the invention of Hulsey et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to enhances its functionality, versatility, and efficiency. These benefits contribute to improved ground preparation, ease of transportation, and the flexibility to adapt to various operational requirements. (Col. 11, lines 35-54.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kapels (US 2011/0266776) disclose varying the height at the attachment portion to a towing vehicle. The references cited on the PTO-892 form disclose similar features of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-7014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at 571-270-5985. 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.
/JAMES A ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights