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
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 10, claim 18 recites "a controller configured: (i) determine..." (instead of "a controller configured to: (i) determine..."); and
in line 13, claim 18 recites "... is not equal to or with an acceptable range..." (instead of "... is not equal to or within an acceptable range...").
Appropriate correction is required. Applicant’s cooperation is respectfully requested in reviewing the disclosure and correcting any further errors of which Applicant may become aware.
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 5-7, 15, and 18-20 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 5 recites "an acceptable range of the desired frame-to-arm angle" in line 9. However, claim 5 previously recites "an acceptable range of the desired frame-to-arm angle" in lines 7-8. It is unclear if these are the same range or different ranges. Thus, the metes and bounds of the range(s) in claim 5 cannot be determined such that clarification and correction are required. Therefore, claim 5 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 5 is being further examined as though it reads "the acceptable range of the desired frame-to-arm angle" in line 9.
Claim 6 recites "an acceptable range of the desired frame-to-arm angle" in lines 7-8 and 9. However, claim 5 (from which claim 6 depends) previously recites "an acceptable range of the desired frame-to-arm angle" in lines 7-8. It is unclear if these are the same range or different ranges. Thus, the metes and bounds of the range(s) in claim 6 cannot be determined such that clarification and correction are required. Therefore, claim 6 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 6 is being further examined as though it reads "the acceptable range of the desired frame-to-arm angle" in lines 7-8 and 9.
Claim 7 recites "an acceptable range of the desired frame-to-arm angle" in lines 7-8 and 9. However, claims 5 and 6 (from which claim 7 depends) each previously recites "an acceptable range of the desired frame-to-arm angle." It is unclear if these are the same range or different ranges. Thus, the metes and bounds of the range(s) in claim 7 cannot be determined such that clarification and correction are required. Therefore, claim 7 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 7 is being further examined as though it reads "the acceptable range of the desired frame-to-arm angle" in lines 7-8 and 9.
Claim 15 recites:
"the first group of one or more actuators comprises one or more commonly-sized actuators,
the second group of one or more actuators comprises one or more commonly-sized actuators having a different size than the first group of one or more actuators, and
the third group of one or more actuators comprises one or more commonly-sized actuators having a different size than the first and second groups of one or more actuators."
It is unclear how one actuator (i.e., when a group comprises one commonly-sized actuator) is "commonly-sized" or what it is "commonly-sized" with. Thus, the metes and bounds of the actuators in claim 15 cannot be determined such that clarification and correction are required. Therefore, claim 15 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 18 recites "an acceptable range of the desired row unit downforce" in lines 13-14. However, claim 18 previously recites "an acceptable range of a desired row unit downforce" in line 11. It is unclear if these are the same range or different ranges. Thus, the metes and bounds of the range(s) in claim 18 cannot be determined such that clarification and correction are required. Therefore, claim 18 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 18 is being further examined as though it reads "the acceptable range of the desired row unit downforce" in lines 13-14. Additionally, claims 19 and 20 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 18.
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 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fanshier et al. (US 2020/0084951)
Regarding claim 11, Fanshier discloses an agricultural machine comprising:
a main frame (including 18, or including 54);
a rotate frame (including 22 and/or 38, or including 60) coupled to the main frame;
a row unit (including 33, or including 64) coupled to the rotate frame and configured to deliver commodity to the soil;
a linkage assembly including an arm (including or of 44, including or of 66) having a first end pivotably coupled to the rotate frame and a second end pivotably coupled to the row unit;
a sensor (50, or 70) configured to identify a position of the arm relative to the rotate frame;
a controller (including 34) configured to send a first signal to a first actuator (including 32A-1 or 32 of 24A or 26, or including 62) causing movement of the rotate frame relative to the main frame based on the position of the arm relative to the rotate frame (as described in para. 0030, or as described in para. 0032);
a wing frame (including or of 24B) coupled to a lateral end of the rotate frame;
a wing row unit (including 33 on 24B) coupled to the wing frame and configured to deliver commodity to the soil; and
a wing linkage assembly including a wing arm (shown connecting 33 to 24B) having a first end pivotably coupled to the wing frame and a second end pivotably coupled to the wing row unit;
wherein the controller is configured to monitor a position of the rotate frame (via 48) and, in response to an adjustment of the rotate frame (when a single sensor 48 is used with the rotate frame as described in para. 0027), send a second signal to a second actuator (including 32 of 24B, i.e. 32E or 32F) causing movement of the wing frame relative to the main frame to attain or maintain an alignment relationship (as described in para. 0017, or at 38A-1, 38A-2, or 38A-3, wherein 32 of 24B is adjusted similarly to 32A as described in para. 0021) between the wing frame and the rotate frame (see para. 0019, wherein actuators 32 are controlled together, and again see para. 0021, wherein 32 of 24B is adjusted similarly to 32A).
Regarding claim 12, Fanshier discloses the first actuator being configured to receive the first signal sent by the controller (as described in para. 0030 or para. 0032) and move the rotate frame relative to the main frame based on the first signal sent by the controller (as the actuator is configured to actuate as described).
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.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fanshier in view of Frank et al. (US 2019/0380259)
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Fanshier discloses the machine with respect to claim 11, as set forth above. Fanshier also discloses multiple actuators (including 32) including at least one second actuator and at least one third actuator, and Fanshier discloses adjustment of said actuators. However, Fanshier does not explicitly disclose independent control of the actuators. Frank teaches independently adjusting actuators for independent row unit control (see paras. 0052-0054).
Frank is analogous because Frank teaches controlling the depth of row units of an agricultural machine. 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 Fanshier with the independent control means as taught by Frank since each row unit experiences unique conditions. (See Frank, paras. 0052-0054.)
Claims 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fanshier in view of Kowalchuk et al. (US 8,275,525)
Regarding claim 18, Fanshier discloses an agricultural machine comprising:
a main frame (including 18, or including 54) supported by wheels (of 12 or as shown in Figs. 4A and 4B);
a rotate frame (including 22 and/or 38, or including 60) coupled to the main frame;
a row unit (including 33, or including 64) coupled to the rotate fame and configured to deliver commodity to the soil;
an actuator (including 32 or 32A-1, or including 62) having a first end coupled to the main frame and a second end coupled to the rotate frame; and
a controller (including 34) configured to signal to the actuator instructing the actuator adjust the position of the rotate frame based on a sensed condition of the row unit (see para. 0030 or para. 0032).
Fanshier does not explicitly disclose a downforce gauge or the sensed condition being a downforce exerted by the row unit. Kowalchuk teaches an agricultural machine comprising:
a row unit configured to deliver commodity to the soil, the row unit including a downforce gauge (including 78, 82, or 94) configured to measure an actual downforce exerted by the row unit; and
a controller (including 88 or 100) configured to determine whether the actual downforce signal is within an acceptable range ("a range of 'no-action' values") and to signal to an actuator (52 or 106) instructing the actuator adjust the row unit if the actual downforce is not within the acceptable range (see col. 5, line 59 - col. 6, line 24). Kowalchuk recites: "However, if the stain measurements are outside the range of 'no-action' values, the CPU will cause an increase or decrease in pressure in the hydraulic cylinder 52 (or 106) to vary the amount of down pressure the cylinder 52 (or 106) applies on disc 22." (See col. 6, lines 17-21.) One skilled in the art would recognize such operation being to decrease pressure in the hydraulic cylinder to reduce the amount of down pressure on the disc when the stain measurements exceed a maximum of the range of "no-action" values. Additionally, Kowalchuk teaches another implementation (see col. 6, lines 25-38) configured such that when the actual downforce exceeds a maximum allowable downforce limit (as determined based on feedback provided by the strain gauge), to adjust the position of the rotate frame to reduce the actual downforce (as it is reduced from a maximum level).
Kowalchuk is analogous because Kowalchuk discloses an agricultural machine having automatic downforce adjustment. 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 Fanshier with the downforce sensing means as taught by Kowalchuk in order to respond automatically to changes in soil conditions and/or to optimize the amount of downforce applied. (See Kowalchuk, col. 2, lines 12-27.) Additionally, it is noted that downforce sensing means of this kind are generally known to be utilized to counteract sinking, as taught by Horsch et al. (WO 2021/089197 A1) (See Horsch, para. 0050.)
Regarding claims 16 and 19, Fanshier discloses the machine with respect to claim 11, as set forth above, and Fanshier and Kowalchuk disclose the machine with respect to claim 18, as set forth above. Fanshier also discloses the agricultural machine further comprising:
a wing frame (including or of 24B) coupled to a lateral end of the rotate frame;
a wing row unit (including 33 on 24B) coupled to the wing frame and configured to deliver commodity to the soil; and
a wing linkage assembly including a wing arm (shown connecting 33 to 24B) having a first end pivotably coupled to the wing frame and a second end pivotably coupled to the wing row unit;
wherein the controller is configured to send a signal instructing the wing frame to move relative to the main frame (see paras. 0019 and 0021) based on the position of the wing arm relative to the wing frame (as measured by 48).
Fanshier does not explicitly disclose independently sensing and adjusting the position of the wing structure. Kowalchuk teaches independently sensing row units (via 78, 82, or 94) and independently adjusting actuators (including 52) therefor (as opposed to that including 106 and shown in Fig. 5). 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 Fanshier, or the above combination of Fanshier and Kowalchuk, with the independent control means as taught by Kowalchuk in order to adjust individually adjust different portions (e.g., rows). As noted above, independent control of this kind is generally known to be utilized since row units can experience unique conditions in agricultural practice, as taught by Frank.
Regarding claim 20, Fanshier discloses the agricultural machine further comprising:
a wing frame (including or of 24B) coupled to a lateral end of the rotate frame;
a wing row unit (including 33 on 24B) coupled to the wing frame and configured to deliver commodity to the soil; and
a wing linkage assembly including a wing arm (shown connecting 33 to 24B) having a first end pivotably coupled to the wing frame and a second end pivotably coupled to the wing row unit;
wherein the controller is configured to send a signal instructing the wing frame to move relative to the main (see paras. 0019 and 0021) based on the position of the rotate frame (when a single sensor 48 is used with the rotate frame as described in para. 0027).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fanshier in view of Frank as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kinzenbaw (US 4,721,168).
Regarding claim 15, neither Fanshier nor Frank explicitly discloses first, second, and third pluralities of actuators, wherein each plurality of actuators has a different size. Kinzenbaw teaches an agricultural machine comprising:
a first plurality of commonly-sized actuators (including 160),
a second plurality of commonly-sized actuators (including 185 or 186) having a different size than the first plurality of commonly-sized actuators (see Fig. 17), and
a third plurality of commonly-sized actuators (including 174) having a different size than the first plurality of commonly-sized actuators and the second plurality of commonly-sized actuators (see Fig. 17).
Kinzenbaw is analogous because Kinzenbaw discloses an agricultural machine comprising a main frame, a rotate frame, and row units. 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 different sized actuators as taught by Kinzenbaw so that the cylinders can be operated together. (See Kinzenbaw, col. 3, lines 16-33.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, and allowed. Claims 5-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see labeled p., filed 12, with respect to the § 112(b) rejections of claims 12-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous § 112(b) r have been withdrawn.
Applicant's other arguments filed 12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant argues: "With regard to Fanshier, Fanshier in general relates to a contouring toolbar system in which a controller actuates an actuator to rotate a toolbar relative to a frame member based on sensor feedback indicative of the angular position or distance of the toolbar from the ground. (See, e.g., Fanshier at ¶ 29 ('...the controller 34 (FIG. 1) can track, based on a signal from the sensors 48, 50, at what angle the toolbar 38A has rotated relative to the frame 20A (from sensor 48) and the ground (from sensor 50).')) Yet, such ground-based adjustments neither teach nor suggest features relating to monitoring and adjusting the positions of different adjustable portions of Fanshier to maintain alignment positions." (See Remarks of 12/11/2025, labeled p. 11.)
First, Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because "monitoring and adjusting the positions of different adjustable portions ... to maintain alignment positions" is not claimed. In particular, claim 11 more broadly sets forth causing movement "to attain or maintain an alignment relationship" between frames.
Second, Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because Fanshier discloses monitoring the positions of different adjustable portions with a single sensor 48 (as described in para. 0027), and Fanshier discloses adjusting the positions of different adjustable portions via respective actuators (including 32A-1 or 32 of 24A, and including 32 of 24B), which attains or maintains an alignment relationship between the different portions (as actuators 32 are controlled together as described in para. 0019, and as 32 of 24B is adjusted similarly to 32A as described in para. 0021).
Further, Applicant argues: "Moreover, Fanshier neither teaches nor suggests features regarding the controller being configured to monitor a position of the rotate frame and, in response to an adjustment of the rotate frame, send a second signal to a second actuator causing movement of the wing frame relative to the main frame to attain or maintain an alignment relationship between the wing frame and the rotate frame, as now recited in amended independent claim 11." (See Remarks of 12/11/2025, labeled p. 11.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because, as explained in the rejection above, Fanshier discloses the controller being configured to monitor a position of the rotate frame (via 48) and, in response to an adjustment of the rotate frame (when a single sensor 48 is used with the rotate frame as described in para. 0027), send a second signal to a second actuator (including 32 of 24B, i.e. 32E or 32F) causing movement of the wing frame relative to the main frame to attain or maintain an alignment relationship (as described in para. 0017, or at 38A-1, 38A-2, or 38A-3, wherein 32 of 24B is adjusted similarly to 32A as described in para. 0021) between the wing frame and the rotate frame (see para. 0019, wherein actuators 32 are controlled together, and again see para. 0021, wherein 32 of 24B is adjusted similarly to 32A).
Since the rejection of claim 11 is maintained, the rejections of dependent claims 12-16 are also maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 18-20 have been considered but 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.
Conclusion
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/3/7/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671