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 .
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 1, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barber (US 4,967,851).
Regarding claim 1, Barber discloses an agricultural machine, comprising:
a frame (including 16, 18, 20);
a control system having a plurality of hydraulic cylinders (including 42, 44, 58, and 60, wherein 42 and 44, the respective left and right inner cylinders in Fig. 3, are not labeled in Fig. 3); and
a plurality of functional elements (including those of "a field cultivator or chisel plow" in col. 2, and/or including 82, 84, 88, and 90, and/or including the arms connecting the frame to 82, 84, 88, and 90) provided on the frame and movable in working positions by the plurality of hydraulic cylinders;
wherein the control system comprises a synchronization circuit comprising fluid lines (including 102, 104) connecting to each hydraulic cylinder of the plurality of hydraulic cylinders (see Fig. 3), the synchronization circuit arranged as a serial connection between the hydraulic cylinders (102 arranged a serial connection between 42 and 60, and 104 arranged as a serial connection between 44 and 58) and configured to synchronize movement of all of the plurality of hydraulic cylinders (as 42 and 60 are synchronized by 102, and 44 and 58 are synchronized by 104; further, 42 and 44 are synchronized by other structure including 65 and rockshaft 46),
wherein sub-chambers of the hydraulic cylinders being connected to a hydraulic fluid source (via 66; see col. 3, lines 29-36) through one or more supply lines (including 62, 64, 65, 68, 70, 75),
wherein the one or more supply lines are directly connected to the sub-chambers of all of the hydraulic cylinders so as to retract and extend the hydraulic cylinders and are provided separately from the fluid lines of the synchronization circuit (see Fig. 3).
Barber does not explicitly disclose the hydraulic cylinders being connected to a hydraulic fluid pump device. However, Examiner has taken Official Notice that connecting hydraulic cylinders of an agricultural implement to a hydraulic fluid pump device is old and well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Barber with a hydraulic fluid pump device to power the system.
Regarding claim 4, Barber discloses the plurality of functional elements including working tools (including those of "a field cultivator or chisel plow" in col. 2, and/or including 82, 84, 88, and 90).
Regarding claim 6, Barber discloses the agricultural machine alternatively comprising at least one of:
a transport chassis having transport wheels (including 82, 84, 88, and/or 90) and being adjustable in height by means of the control system;
a depth control element (including 82, 84, 88, and/or 90) provided on a front part of the frame and being adjustable by means of the control system; and
a ground roller wheel (including 82, 84, 88, and/or 90) which is adjustable in height by means of the control system. It is noted that claim 6 does not require all of the recited elements (rather "at least one of"), and each of these elements can be alternatively considered to be taught by the prior art elements as set forth above. Additionally, if each was required, the elements could be assigned individually.
Regarding claim 7, Barber discloses the plurality of hydraulic cylinder comprising first hydraulic cylinders (including 42, 44, wherein 42 and 44, the respective left and right inner cylinders in Fig. 3, are not labeled in Fig. 3) and second hydraulic cylinders (including 58, 60).
Regarding claim 11, Barber discloses the agricultural machine (as set forth regarding claim 7, above), wherein the frame (including 16, 18, 20) has at least two frame sections (including the left half and the right half as seen in Fig. 3) provided adjacent to each other in a direction transverse to a driving direction (see Fig. 3); and each of the at least two frame sections is provided with working tools (including those of "a field cultivator or chisel plow" in col. 2, and/or including 82, 84, 88, and 90, and/or including the arms connecting the frame to 82, 84, 88, and 90), at least one of the first hydraulic cylinders (including 42, 44, wherein 42 and 44, the respective left and right inner cylinders in Fig. 3, are not labeled in Fig. 3), and at least one of the second hydraulic cylinders (including 58, 60).
Regarding claim 12, Barber discloses a user control terminal (including 66) functionally connected to the control system, the user control terminal configured to receive user input for user setting of control parameters to be applied by the control system (see col. 3, lines 29-36).
Regarding claim 15, Barber discloses a method for operating an agricultural machine, the method comprising:
providing the agricultural machine (as shown) having:
a frame (including 16, 18, 20);
a control system comprising a plurality of hydraulic cylinders (including 42, 44, 58, and 60, wherein 42 and 44, the respective left and right inner cylinders in Fig. 3, are not labeled in Fig. 3), and a synchronization circuit (including 102, 104) arranged as a serial connection between the hydraulic cylinders (102 arranged a serial connection between 42 and 60, and 104 arranged as a serial connection between 44 and 58) and comprising fluid lines (including 102, 104) connecting to each of the plurality of hydraulic cylinders (see Fig. 3), wherein sub-chambers of the hydraulic cylinders are connected to a hydraulic fluid source (via 66; see col. 3, lines 29-36) through one or more supply lines (including 62, 64, 65, 68, 70, 75), wherein the one or more supply lines are directly connected to the sub-chambers of the hydraulic cylinders and are provided separately from the fluid lines of the synchronization circuit (see Fig. 3); and
a plurality of functional elements (including those of "a field cultivator or chisel plow" in col. 2, and/or including 82, 84, 88, and 90, and/or including the arms connecting the frame to 82, 84, 88, and 90) provided on the frame and movable in working positions by the plurality of hydraulic cylinders;
synchronizing, by the synchronization circuit connecting to each of the plurality of hydraulic cylinders, movement of all of the plurality of hydraulic cylinders (as 42 and 60 are synchronized by 102, and 44 and 58 are synchronized by 104; further, 42 and 44 are synchronized by other structure including 65 and rockshaft 46).
Barber does not explicitly disclose the hydraulic cylinders being connected to a hydraulic fluid pump device. However, Examiner has taken Official Notice that connecting hydraulic cylinders of an agricultural implement to a hydraulic fluid pump device is old and well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Barber with a hydraulic fluid pump device to power the system.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barber in view of Iida (US 4,216,700).
Regarding claim 2, Barber discloses the agricultural machine with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Barber does not explicitly disclose the hydraulic cylinders having one of a three-chamber cylinder design and a four-chamber cylinder design. Iida teaches a hydraulic cylinder having one of a three-chamber cylinder design and a four-chamber cylinder design (see Fig. 3).
Iida is analogous because Iida discloses actuators for earth working equipment, including hydraulic cylinders and a control system therefor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the machine of Barber with the chambered cylinder design means as taught by Iida for efficiency. (See Iida, cols. 1-2.)
Regarding claim 5, Barber discloses the agricultural machine with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Barber also discloses working tools (including those of "a field cultivator or chisel plow" in col. 2, and/or including 88 or 90) being provided on a first frame element (including 18 or 20) of the frame, the working tools being configured to engage with soil and/or an agricultural product in a plurality of working positions (at different heights) which are controlled by the control system in a control mode (of or via 66), wherein, for locating the working tools in the plurality of working positions, a position of the first frame element relative to a second frame element (including 16) of the frame is adjustable (vertically) by means of the control system; wherein the hydraulic cylinders are configured to adjust the relative position between the first and second frame elements.
Barber does not explicitly disclose a piston rod movably extending through a front end of the hydraulic cylinder and an inner cylinder wall, and on which a front piston and a rear piston are provided. Iida teaches a hydraulic cylinder configured to adjust the relative position between first and second elements, wherein the hydraulic cylinder is provided with:
a cylinder chamber (see Fig. 3);
a front sub-chamber and a rear sub-chamber both provided in the cylinder chamber and separated by an inner cylinder wall (including 3); and
a piston rod (including 4a, 9, fixed secured or connected in series as set forth by Iida) which is movably extending through a front end of the hydraulic cylinder and the inner cylinder wall and on which a front piston (4) and a rear piston (8) are provided, wherein the front piston provided in the front sub-chamber and the rear piston is provided in the rear sub-chamber, thereby, the front piston dividing the front sub-chamber, with respect to the inner wall, into a proximal front sub-chamber and a distal front sub-chamber, and the rear piston dividing the rear sub-chamber, with respect to the inner wall, into a proximal rear sub-chamber and a distal rear sub-chamber (see Fig. 3).
Iida is analogous because Iida discloses actuators for earth working equipment, including hydraulic cylinders and a control system therefor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the machine of Barber with the chambered cylinder design means as taught by Iida for efficiency. (See Iida, cols. 1-2.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barber in view of Gerein et al. (US 6,035,943)
Regarding claim 9, Barber discloses the agricultural machine with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Barber does not explicitly disclose a draw bar and the control system including a draw bar hydraulic cylinder. Gerein teaches an agricultural machine, comprising:
a draw bar (including 38) provided on a frame (including 12); and
a draw bar hydraulic cylinder (including 50) provided with a hydraulic control system (see Figs. 4-6), the draw bar hydraulic cylinder configured, for traction control, to adjust load applied to one or more hitch points of the draw bar when the draw bar is connected to a tractor in the one or more hitch points.
Gerein is analogous because Gerein discloses actuators of an agricultural machine, including hydraulic cylinders and a control system therefor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the machine of Barber with the drawbar means as taught by Gerein in order to tow the machine and offset the effects of moment forces. (See Gerein, cols. 1-2.)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barber in view of Henry (US 9,609,800).
Regarding claim 10, Barber discloses the agricultural machine with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Barber does not explicitly disclose an offset control as claimed. Henry discloses an agricultural machine having an offset control provided with a control system (see col. 6, lines 1-9), the offset control being configured to control an offset between a front height position applied by front hydraulic cylinders (for 86, 88) and a rear height position applied by rear hydraulic cylinders (for 68, 70, 72).
Henry is analogous because Henry discloses actuators for earth working equipment, including hydraulic cylinders and a control system therefor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the machine of Barber with the offset and control means therefor as taught by Henry in order to ensure uniform penetration of the soil by tool elements of forward and aft frame sections and for accurate depth of penetration. (See Henry, col. 6, lines 1-9.)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barber in view of Jensen et al. (US 6,701,857)
Regarding claim 13, Barber discloses the agricultural machine with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Barber does not explicitly disclose either of: a first pressure sensor configured to detect a load force to one or more hitch points of the draw bar; or a second pressure sensor configured to detect a load force to at least one of a depth control element and a front gauge wheel. Jensen teaches an agricultural machine, comprising a pressure sensor (including 72) configured to detect a load force to a gauge wheel (25).
Jensen is analogous because Jensen discloses actuators of an agricultural machine, including hydraulic cylinders and a control system therefor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the machine of Barber with the sensing means as taught by Jensen in order to automatically adjust down pressure for ensuring proper depth. (See Jensen, col. 1.)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barber in view of Gilstring (US 9,301,439).
Regarding claim 14, Barber discloses the agricultural machine according to claim 1, as set forth above. Barber does not explicitly disclose a position sensor to detect a position of a piston in the cylinder chamber(s) of at least one of the hydraulic cylinders. Gilstring teaches an agricultural machine, comprising a position sensor (including 18, 19) provided on a hydraulic cylinder (including 13a, 13b, 15a, and/or 15b), the position sensor configured to detect position sensor signals for a piston in the cylinder chamber(s) of the hydraulic cylinder (see col. 5, lines 30-42).
Gilstring is analogous because Gilstring discloses actuators of an agricultural machine, including hydraulic cylinders and a control system therefor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the machine of Barber with the sensing means as taught by Gilstring in order to facilitate handling for the user. (See Gilstring, cols. 1-2.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/ have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually (i.e., "As acknowledged in section 6 of the Office Action, Barber does not disclose (or suggest) a hydraulic fluid pump device."), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking a reference individually where the rejections are based on combinations of prior art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues: "Further, Barber fails to disclose or hint at a synchronization circuit that is arranged as a serial connection between the hydraulic cylinders as well as one or more supply lines that are directly connected to the sub-chambers of all of the hydraulic cylinders and are provided separately from the fluid lines of the synchronization circuit." (See Remarks of 6/30/2025, labeled p. 6.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because, as set forth in the rejection above, Barber discloses a synchronization circuit (including 102, 104) that is arranged as a serial connection between the hydraulic cylinders (102 arranged a serial connection between 42 and 60, and 104 arranged as a serial connection between 44 and 58), as well as one or more supply lines (including 62, 64, 65, 68, 70, 75) that are directly connected to the sub-chambers of all of the hydraulic cylinders and are provided separately from the fluid lines of the synchronization circuit (see Fig. 3).
Applicant states: "While in the Response to Arguments section of the Office action it is asserted that no specific definition of 'circuit' can be read from the description, Applicant respectfully submits that the term 'circuit' is intended and would be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art, according to its common usage in technical fields, as a closed system of wires or pipes through which electricity or liquid can flow. See e.g., Cambridge Dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/ dictionary/english/circuit; 13 June 2025. Therefore, those of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the claimed 'synchronization circuit' refers to a configuration in which the fluid lines of the synchronization circuit form a closed system by connecting all of the hydraulic cylinders. This interpretation is further supported by the feature that the synchronization circuit 'is arranged as a serial connection between all of the hydraulic cylinders.' The ordinarily skilled person would recognize that, in a technical context, a serial connection is part of a closed system of pipes or wires and that the hydraulic cylinders are interconnected by the serial connection of the synchronization circuit." (See Remarks of 6/30/2025, labeled pp. 6-7.)
Applicant's definition of "circuit" (i.e., "a closed system of wires or pipes through which electricity or liquid can flow") is a narrow definition that is contrary to Applicant's own use of "circuit" in "a parallel power circuit" (see Specification, labeled p. 19, lines 5-9), which has supply ports ("+" and "-") that allow the introduction and removal of fluid, such that it is not a "closed system." A broader, more fitting definition of "circuit" is "A configuration of electrically or electromagnetically connected components or devices." (See Webster's II Dictionary, Third Edition, p. 133.) Where the term "electrically or electromagnetically" is replaced by "hydraulically" in the context of a "synchronization circuit" which is described and claimed to comprise fluid lines connecting hydraulic cylinders. This definition (i.e., "a configuration of hydraulically connected components or devices") aligns with Applicant's use of the term and is met by the structure indicated in Barber.
Applicant argues: "As a consequence, Applicant disagrees with the assertion that Barber's lines 102 and 104, which connect the left-hand rockshaft cylinder 42 with the right-hand outer cylinder 60 and the right-hand rockshaft cylinder 44 with the left-hand outer cylinder 58, form the claimed synchronization circuit. Four cylinders, each pair connected by lines and thus forming two separate configurations, cannot constitute a synchronization circuit according to claim 1, in which the synchronization circuit is arranged as a serial connection between all of the hydraulic cylinders. To meet the requirements of amended claim 1, additional fluid lines connecting all of the hydraulic cylinders are required for such a synchronization circuit,. These additional fluid lines can be seen in Barber's lines 62, 64, 68, and 70, as well as in Barber's inlet line 65 and return line 75, which together form a hydraulic circuit that could be considered most similar to the claimed synchronization circuit. However, in contrast to the claimed synchronization circuit, not all hydraulic cylinders in Barber's hydraulic circuit are connected in series." (See Remarks of 6/30/2025, labeled p. 7, emphasis Applicant's.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because "all" of the hydraulic cylinders being connected in series is not claimed. Rather, claim 1 recites "the synchronization circuit arranged as a serial connection between the hydraulic cylinders..." The fluid lines (including 102, 104) of Barber are arranged as a serial connection between the hydraulic cylinders (including 42, 44, 58, and 60, wherein 42 and 44, the respective left and right inner cylinders in Fig. 3, are not labeled in Fig. 3), wherein 102 is arranged as a serial connection between 42 and 60, and 104 is arranged as a serial connection between 44 and 58. As such, Applicant's argument is also unpersuasive because Barber even discloses serial connection between all of the hydraulic cylinders since each of the hydraulic cylinders (42, 44, 58, and 60) is in series with at least one other hydraulic cylinder of the hydraulic cylinders (42 and 60 are in series with each other, and 44 and 58 are in series with each other). All of the hydraulic cylinders being in the same series is not claimed.
Applicant argues that Barber fails to disclose or suggest supply lines, particularly arguing: "As outlined above, the lines (cf. 62, 64, 65, 68, 70, 75, 102, and 104) disclosed by Barber are all part of Barber's hydraulic circuit, and therefore, cannot be considered as supply lines that are provided separately from the fluid lines of the synchronization circuit." (See Remarks of 6/30/2025, labeled p. 7.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because all the lines (62, 64, 65, 68, 70, 75, 102, and 104) disclosed by Barber are neither considered in the rejection nor required by the claim language to be part of Barber's synchronization circuit. That the lines are part of a hydraulic circuit does not mean they cannot be considered as supply lines. By the logic of this argument (i.e., that lines of a hydraulic circuit cannot be supply lines), Applicant's own supply lines cannot be supply lines. Lines 62, 64, 65, 68, 70, and 75 in Barber meet the limitations of supply lines as claimed.
Applicant argues: "Claim 15 has been amended analogously to claim 1. It is therefore submitted that claim 15 is also not rendered obvious by Barber." (See Remarks of 6/30/2025, labeled pp. 7-8.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 are unpersuasive, as explained above.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the dependent claims do not specifically point out how the language of these claims patentably distinguishes them from the references beyond their dependency on claim 1. Thus, Applicant's arguments with respect to the dependent claims are unpersuasive because Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 are unpersuasive, as explained above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Andrich et al. (WO 2018/141700 A1) discloses hydraulic cylinders (including 22a, 22b, 22c, and 22d) connected by a synchronization circuit (including 86a, 86b, 86c, 86d, and 86e) and connected to supply lines (including 80 and/or including 82 and 84) as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joel F. Mitchell whose telephone number is (571)272-7689. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00.
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.
/JFM/12/13/25
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671