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 Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 4, lines 1-2 recites "said actuator" (instead of "said air bag");
claim 5, lines 29-30 (lines 7-8 on labeled p. 4) recite "wherein a the first and second closing wheels" (instead of "wherein the first and second closing wheels"); and
claim 7, line 6 recites "said airbag" (instead of "said air bag").
Appropriate correction is required. Consistent terminology should be used. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in reviewing the disclosure and correcting any further errors of which Applicant may become aware.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freed (US 8,939,095) in view of Van Buskirk et al. (US 9,148,989)
Regarding claim 1, Freed discloses a trench closing assembly (including the embodiment of Figs. 1-10) for a row unit of an agricultural planter, the row unit having a row unit frame (including 14) supporting an opener disk for opening a seed trench in a soil surface as the row unit travels in a forward direction of travel, the trench closing assembly comprising:
a connection bracket (including 26, having 27 and 28, and bar between 27 and 28 to which 41 is attached, said bar shown in Figs. 1 and 8) configured to mount to a rearward end of the row unit frame (see Figs. 1-3);
an attachment bracket including an actuator top plate (of 41), the actuator top plate having a first side connected to a first side of said connection bracket (first side of plate of 41 connected to 27 via a first side of the bar between 27 and 28 to which 41 is attached) and a second side connected to a second side of said connection bracket (second side of plate of 41 connected to 28 via a second side of the bar between 27 and 28 to which 41 is attached);
a frame member pivotally connected (at 20) to the attachment bracket, the frame member having a first side arm and a second side arm extending rearwardly of the connection bracket (see col. 5, lines 37-41), said frame member further including an actuator bottom connector (including 48) disposed below said actuator top plate and between said first and second side arms (see Figs. 8 and 10);
a first closing wheel (23) rotatably supported from the first side arm;
a second closing wheel (22) rotatably supported from the second side arm;
an actuator (including or of 45) disposed between said actuator top plate and said actuator bottom connector, wherein expansion of said actuator applies a down force to the first and second side arms and to the first and second closing wheels rotatably supported from the first and second side arms (see col. 6, lines 36-67);
wherein, in use, the first closing wheel (23) is disposed on a first side of the open seed trench and the second closing wheel (22) is disposed on a second side of the open seed trench, and wherein the first and second closing wheels are configured to cooperate with one another to close the open seed trench with soil as the row unit travels in the forward direction of travel (see col. 5, lines 52-62).
Freed does not explicitly disclose the actuator being an air bag, and Freed does not explicitly disclose the actuator bottom connector being a plate. However, Van Buskirk discloses a trench closing assembly (including the embodiment of Fig. 10C) for a row unit of an agricultural planter, the row unit having a row unit frame, the trench closing assembly comprising:
a connection bracket (including 276 and 279 in Fig. 10C) configured to mount to a rearward end of the row unit frame;
an attachment bracket including an actuator top plate (322) connected to said connection bracket;
a frame member having a first side arm (214) and a second side arm (216) extending rearwardly of the connection bracket, said frame member further including an actuator bottom plate (324) disposed below said actuator top plate and between said first and second side arms;
a first closing wheel (first 210) rotatably supported from the first side arm;
a second closing wheel (second 210) rotatably supported from the second side arm;
an air bag (320) disposed between said actuator top plate and said actuator bottom plate (see Fig. 10C), wherein expansion of said air bag applies a down force to the first and second side arms and to the first and second closing wheels rotatably supported from the first and second side arms (see col. 7, lines 28-34).
Van Buskirk is analogous because Van Buskirk discloses a trench closing assembly. 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 assembly of Freed with the air bag means and bottom plate therefor as taught by Van Buskirk for easier (e.g., powered and/or remote) adjustment. Additionally, it is noted that air bag systems are generally known in the art to be utilized in place of springs to control down force, as taught by Achen et al. (US 9,814,172). Further, providing Freed with alternative actuation means is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the air bag and actuator bottom plate of Van Buskirk) for another (i.e., the actuator and actuator bottom connector of Freed) to obtain predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claims 7, 8, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freed in view of Van Buskirk as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Adams et al. (US 8,448,717)
Regarding claim 7, neither Freed nor Van Buskirk explicitly discloses a fluid control assembly as claimed. Adams teaches a trench closing assembly having a fluid control assembly (see hydraulic circuit in Fig. 3) for controlling flow of fluid to and from a closing assembly actuator (including 50) in response to sensor signals (such as from 112). It is noted that the sensors set forth in claim 7 are not elements of the claimed system but rather of a functional limitation of the fluid control assembly, describing what the fluid control assembly is for acting in response to.
Adams is analogous because Adams discloses a trench closing assembly. 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 above combination with the fluid control means as taught by Adams in order to achieve a desired force and/or to automatically adjust the actuator (i.e., the air bag in the above combination) based on detected soil compaction (see col. 13, lines 4-31).
Regarding claim 8, in keeping with the same motivation and modifications made in relation to claim 7, Adams further teaches a fluid control assembly (see hydraulic circuit in Fig. 3) in combination with a downforce control system (including 96) configured to adjust downforce applied to the row unit, whereby said fluid control assembly is adapted to balance the downforce force applied by said actuator and a downforce applied to the row unit by said downforce control system (see col. 13, lines 4-31).
Regarding claim 29, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 7, Adams further teaches the fluid control assembly (see Fig. 3) controlling flow of fluid to and from the actuator (including 50) in response to sensor signals generated by a trench closing sensor (including 112) configured to generate signals indicative of an amount of closure of the seed trench by the closing wheels.
Claims 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freed in view of Van Buskirk as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Freed.
Regarding claim 15, Freed also discloses the first and second closing disc blades (22, 23) being concave discs (see col. 5, line 63 - col. 6, line 2), but Freed does not explicitly disclose the embodiment of Figs. 1-10 having first and second closing disc blades arranged as claimed. Further, Van Buskirk does not explicitly disclose first and second closing disc blades arranged as claimed. However, Freed discloses another embodiment (see Figs. 23-27), wherein the first and second of closing wheels comprise disc blades (see Figs. 23-27), each of said disc blades having a circumferential edge, a concave side and a convex side,
each of said disc blades oriented with said convex side inward toward said opened seed trench (see Figs. 24-26) and
each of said disc blades angled outwardly upward such that their circumferential edges are closer toward one another in a direction toward the soil surface (see Figs. 24 and 27),
wherein each of the disc blades is angled fore and aft such that circumferential edges are closer to one another rearwardly than toward said forward direction of travel (see Fig. 24),
whereby as said disc blades rotate through the soil as the row unit is drawn through a field in the forward direction of travel, each of the disc blades pushes the soil inward toward the opened seed trench to close the opened seed trench with soil (as described in col. 5, lines 52-62).
The embodiment in Figs. 23-27 of Freed is analogous because it discloses a trench closing system for a row unit of a planter. 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 above combination with the discs and angled means therefor as taught by the embodiment in Figs. 23-27 of Freed in order to effectively cover up seeds. Additionally, providing the above combination with alternative disc means is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., disc blades in Figs. 23-27 of Freed) for another (i.e., closing wheels in Figs. 1-10 of Freed) to obtain predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 16, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 15, Freed discloses said circumferential edge of each of said disc blades being continuous (see Figs. 23-27).
Regarding claim 20, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 15, Freed discloses the body of each of said disc blades (including or of 22, 23) including a central aperture (as shown in Fig. 10) for receiving a mounting member (such as that including 35) supported from a respective one of said first and second side arms.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freed in view of Van Buskirk in view of Freed as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Arnett et al. (US 8,333,161)
Regarding claim 17, neither Freed nor Van Buskirk explicitly discloses each disc blade having a circumferential edge, a concave side, and a convex side, wherein the circumferential edge is notched. Arnett disclose a trench closing assembly comprising first and second closing wheels (40, 42), wherein said first and second closing wheels comprise disc blades, each of said disc blades having a circumferential edge (see Fig. 6), a concave side (66), and a convex side (68), wherein said circumferential edge is notched (i.e., having notches 72), resulting in a series of radially spaced teeth (70).
Arnett is analogous because Arnett discloses a trench closing system for a row unit of a planter, the trench closing system comprising closing wheels. 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 above combination with the disc means as taught by Arnett in order to achieve a highly desirable fragmentizing of trench sidewalls. (See Arnett, col. 1, lines 39-51.) Additionally, providing the above combination with alternative disc means is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., disc blades of Arnett) for another (i.e., disc blades of the above combination) to obtain predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 18, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 17, Arnett discloses each of said radially spaced teeth (70) being curved away from a direction of rotation of said disc blade as the row unit travels in a forward direction of travel (see Figs. 1, 5, 11, and 12).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freed in view of Van Buskirk in view of Freed as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Reidhar (US 7,322,302).
Regarding claim 19, neither Freed nor Van Buskirk explicitly discloses the disc blades having a tapered edge. Reidhar teaches closing discs (70) that taper toward the circumferential edge such that said circumferential edge is thinner than the body radially inward of said circumferential edge (see Fig. 11).
Reidhar is analogous because Reidhar discloses a trench closing assembly comprising closing discs. 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 above combination with the tapered means as taught by Reidhar in order to provide a keen cutting edge. Such motivation is given by Spalding (US 1,007,399). (See Spalding, p. 2, lines 25-48.) Additionally, providing the above combination with alternative disc means is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the discs of Reidhar) for another (i.e., the discs of Freed) to obtain predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 10-12, 14, 21, 23-28, and 30-32 are allowed.
Claim 5 is objected to for an informality, as set forth above, but would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection.
Claims 3, 4, 9, and 22 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. (Additionally, claim 4 is objected to for an informality, as set forth above.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/22/2025 have been fully considered. Allowable subject matter has been indicated above. However, Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 (and claims 7, 8, 15-20, and 29 that depend therefrom) are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Additionally, it is noted that Applicant argues: "And even if the Examiner attempts to assert that it would be obvious to replace the tension spring 66 of Freed with an air bag, the following limitations of amended claims 1 and 5 cannot be met because there are no components in Freed that correspond to an 'actuator top plate having a first sided connected to a first side of said connection bracket and a second side connected to a second side of said connection bracket' and a 'actuator bottom plate disposed below said actuator top plate and between said first and second side arms' between which an air bag (if substituted for the tension spring 66 of Freed) would be 'disposed between' as recited in amended claims 1 and 5." (See Remarks of 8/22/2025, labeled p. 14.) However, this hypothetical rejection is not that which is set forth above. Among several differences, Freed is not relied upon for teaching an "actuator bottom plate disposed below said actuator top plate and between said first and second side arms" as argued.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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/1/24/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671