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 § 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 12, 15, and 16 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 12 recites the limitation "the direction of motion of the row unit" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 is being further examined as though it concludes "the direction of motion."
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the " in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, claim 16 is rejected because of its dependency on claim 15.
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, 2, 4-6, 8, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clemens (US 5,031,705) in view of Kolskog (US 5,005,497) and further in view of Eaton et al. (US 7,032,369).
Regarding claim 1, Clemens discloses a method for weeding between rows of crops with a weeding rod (including 2 and 3, in view of the weeding rod described and shown having multiple parts in the specification of the instant application) that is suspended from a part of a row unit (including 4), the weeding rod having a distal portion (including the un-suspended end of 3) and a proximal portion (including lower portion of 2) in the same horizontal plane (see Figs. 1-3, wherein the lower portion of 2 and the un-suspended end of 3 reside in a common horizontal plane), the method comprising:
ensuring that the weeding rod (including 2 and 3) has a cross section in a transverse plane with respect to a length axis thereof between the proximal portion and the distal portion (in that Clemens teaches providing the weeding rod with a cross section for use and thus ensures the weeding rod and its cross section);
advancing the weeding rod below ground level (see Figs. 1-3) in a direction of motion (13) along a ground plane,
wherein the weeding rod comprises a vertical part (including upper portion of 2) connected to the proximal portion (including lower portion of 2) and to the part of the row unit (including 4) from which the weeding rod is suspended (see Figs. 1-3); and
weeding between individual plants in an adjacent row of crop plants (including 14) by intermittently pivoting (via 6) the part of the row unit (including 4) from which the weeding rod is suspended around a pivot point (at the center of 2 in Figs. 4-7) such that both a distal end of the part and the distal portion of the weeding rod move in a direction transverse to the direction of motion (see Figs. 4-7) and reside temporarily on a same side of the row unit (see annotated Fig. A, below, wherein a distal end of 4 and the distal portion of 3 reside on the left side of the line dividing sides),
wherein a rotational axis (through the length of 2) of the pivot point (at the center of 2 in Figs. 4-7) is perpendicular to the direction of motion (13; wherein a direction into and out of Figs. 4-7 is perpendicular to a horizontal direction in Figs. 4-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. Clemens (US 5,031,705) annotated Fig. 7.
Clemens does not explicitly disclose the weeding rod having a rounded cross section in a transverse plane with respect to a length axis thereof between the proximal portion and the distal portion. Kolskog teaches a method for weeding, the method comprising ensuring that a weeding rod (including 20) has a rounded cross section (see Fig. 1) in a transverse plane with respect to a length axis thereof between a proximal portion (at 11) and a distal portion (at an un-suspended end of 20) of the weeding rod (in that Kolskog teaches providing a weeding rod with such a cross section for use and thus ensures the weeding rod having a cross section as claimed).
Kolskog is analogous because Kolskog discloses a method for weeding using a towed device and a weeding rod advanced below ground level. 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 weeding rod of Clemens with the cross-sectional shape as taught by Kolskog in order to lift weeds from the ground and resist damage. (See Kolskog, col. 3, lines 51-65.)
Neither Clemens nor Kolskog explicitly discloses the specific speed at which a weeding rod or implement is advanced through the ground. Eaton teaches a method for cultivating, the method including advancing a tool (including 36) in a direction of motion along a ground plane at speeds of 0.3 to 5 km/h (see col. 8, lines 1-20; also see col. 2, lines 12-17).
Eaton is analogous because Eaton discloses a method for cultivating using a towed device. 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 speed as taught by Eaton in order to avoid excessive cultivating. (See Eaton, col. 2, lines 12-17.) Additionally, it is noted that Valdes Hernandez (US 2012/0061110; previously cited in the Non-Final Rejection of 6/20/2024) teaches advancing a cultivator at speeds within the claimed range in order to maintain the size of aggregates for efficiency. (See Valdes Hernandez, paras. 0038-0050.)
Regarding claim 2, the examiner has taken Official Notice that it is old and well-known in the art for a towing vehicle to include sensing means (such as GPS) comprising an antenna for receiving positioning signals, such that the towing vehicle knows its exact location and orientation at any given time. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a vehicle of the above combination with such sensing means and to receive positioning signals therefrom in order to navigate for weeding and/or cultivating between the rows of crops.
Regarding claims 4-6, Clemens discloses the weeding rod being advanced in a direction (13) having an angle between 90 and 85 degrees with respect to the length axis (as shown in Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 8, Clemens discloses the weeding rod comprising a straight part (see figures) along the length axis between the proximal portion (where it is suspended) and the distal portion (where it is un-suspended), the straight part of the weeding rod arranged parallel to the ground plane when in use (see Fig. 3), and wherein the weeding rod at the proximal portion comprises the vertical part that extends upwards with respect to the length axis (see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 17, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 1, Kolskog teaches the rounded cross section of the weeding rod (including 20) being uniform (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 18, Clemens discloses the horizontal plane occupied by the proximal portion (including lower portion of 2) and the distal portion (including the un-suspended end of 3) constituting an outer boundary of the weeding rod (see annotated Fig. B, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
560
860
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B. Clemens (US 5,031,705) annotated Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 19, Clemens discloses the weeding rod (including 2 and 3) being T-shaped (see Figs. 1-3, wherein 2 and 3 are shaped like an upside-down "T"). Further, Kolskog teaches the weeding rod (including 20) being T-shaped (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clemens in view of Kolskog in view of Eaton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Owens (US 1,105,450).
Regarding claim 7, neither Clemens, Kolskog, nor Eaton explicitly discloses advancing several arrays of weeding rods from a first end of a row of crops to a second end of the row, and at the second end of the row elevating the several arrays of weeding rods out of the ground and rotating the several arrays of weeding rods about a vertical center axis. Owens teaches advancing several arrays of cultivating tools (including 56, 58) below ground level from a first end of a row of crops to a second end of the row; and at the second end of the row elevating the several arrays of cultivating tools out of the ground and rotating the several arrays of cultivating tools about a vertical center axis (see labeled p. 2, lines 24-51, wherein "turning the machine around" is about a vertical axis).
Owens is analogous because Owens discloses a method for weeding between rows of crops using a towed device. 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 arrays and turning as taught by Owens in order to work more rows (and thus weed a greater area).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clemens in view of Kolskog in view of Eaton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dietrich et al. (US 2018/0160611)
Regarding claim 9, Kolskog teaches the weeding rod (including 20) being made from a round steel rod (see col. 5, lines 10-22). However, neither Clemens, Kolskog, nor Eaton explicitly discloses the weeding rod (including 184, for cultivating and capable of weeding) having a diameter between 1 and 5 mm. Dietrich teaches a weeding rod made from a round steel rod having a diameter between 1 and 5 mm (see para. 0041).
Dietrich is analogous because Dietrich discloses a towed implement having weeding rods (as Dietrich teaches cultivators capable of weeding). 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 dimensions as taught by Dietrich in order to leave the soil level (see Dietrich, para. 0041) and to reduce drag in the soil.
Regarding claim 10, neither Clemens, Kolskog, nor Eaton explicitly discloses the weeding rod at the proximal portion having a curved top connected to a further weeding rod that extends to a distal end. Dietrich teaches a weeding rod (including 184, for cultivating and capable of weeding) having a proximal portion (including 192), wherein the proximal portion has a curved top connected to a further weeding rod (including 186) that extends to a distal (and unsuspended) end (see Fig. 10).
Dietrich is analogous because Dietrich discloses a towed implement having weeding rods (as Dietrich teaches cultivators capable of weeding). 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 connection as taught by Dietrich in order to provide simple and inexpensive construction (see para. 0011) and to work a greater area with a second (further) weeding rod.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clemens in view of Kolskog in view of Eaton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McFarland et al. (US 10,448,571)
Regarding claim 11, neither Clemens, Kolskog, nor Eaton explicitly discloses the weeding rod at the proximal portion being fixed to the row unit above ground, wherein the row unit has a first ground supporting wheel at a front end relative to the direction of motion and a second ground supporting wheel at a rear end relative to the direction of motion. McFarland teaches a weeding rod (including 413A) having a proximal portion fixed to a row unit (including or of 120, or including or of 130) above ground, wherein the row unit has a first ground supporting wheel (including 401 on front 410; seen in Fig. 4) at front end and a second ground supporting wheel (including 401 on rear 410; seen in Fig. 4) at a rear end relative to the direction of motion (S; see Figs. 2, 4, and 5).
McFarland is analogous because McFarland discloses a method for weeding between rows of crops using a towed device. 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 row unit means as taught by McFarland in order to work more rows (and thus weed a greater area) and to support the row unit with wheels. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide row unit means with ground support (with ground support wheels) to the row unit(s) as taught by McFarland in order to allow individual row unit height adjustment of a respective weeding assembly (comprising a respective weeding rod or respective weeding rods). (See McFarland, col. 4, lines 36-56.)
Regarding claim 12, Clemens discloses the weeding rod at its proximal portion being fixed to an arm (connecting 2 and 4 to 1) that is movably connected to a row unit and adapted to move in a transverse direction relative to the direction of motion (see Figs. 4-7). Further, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 11, McFarland teaches the weeding rod (including 413A) at its proximal portion being fixed to an arm (including at least one 815) that is movably connected to the row unit and adapted to move in a transverse direction relative to the direction of motion (S; the arm moving in a transverse direction as it is rotated as Applicant’s).
Regarding claim 13, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 11, McFarland teaches providing a plurality of row units (including or of 120 and including or of 130) side-by-side (without any intervening weeding or ground working tools), wherein the plurality of row units is arranged and adapted to be moved towards or away from the ground (see col. 5, lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 14, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 13, McFarland teaches an array of weeding rods (including 413A and including 413B) attached to each row unit in the plurality of row units (including or of 120 and including or of 130).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clemens in view of Kolskog in view of Eaton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blackwell et al. (US 10,104,824)
Regarding claim 15, neither Clemens, Kolskog, nor Eaton explicitly discloses the vehicle being an autonomous vehicle comprising a control unit and at least one sensor. Blackwell teaches an autonomous vehicle (including 10) comprising a control unit (including 19) and at least one sensor (see col. 6, lines 10-41).
Blackwell is analogous because Blackwell teaches an autonomous vehicle for towing (advancing) agricultural implements, such as cultivating or weeding implements. 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 vehicular means as taught by Blackwell for autonomous agricultural operation(s). (See Blackwell, col. 2, lines 1-48.)
Regarding claim 16, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 15, Blackwell teaches powering the autonomous vehicle with a solar panel (see col. 27, lines 21-31).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see labeled p. 9, filed 6/20/2025, with respect to the drawing objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn. Additionally, Applicant’s arguments, see labeled p. 9, filed 6/20/2025, with respect to the § 112(b) rejection of claim 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The § 112(b) rejection of claims 11, 13, and 14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's other arguments filed 6/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: "With respect to claim 12, antecedent basis for 'the direction of motion of the row unit' is proper, in light of amendments made to claim 1." (See Remarks of 6/20/2025, labeled p. 9.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because claim 1 sets forth advancing the weeding rod in a direction of motion, and although this direction of motion likely applies to the row unit, it does not necessarily apply to the row unit. Thus, "the direction of motion of the row unit" does not have proper antecedent basis, and the § 112(b) rejection of claim 12 is maintained.
Applicant argues: "None of the cited references discloses intermittent pivoting of a part connected to a weeding rod such that 'both a distal end of the part and the distal portion of the weeding rod ... reside temporarily on a same side of the row unit.' Annotated Fig. 7 of Clemens (below [on labeled p. 11 in the Remarks of 6/20/2025]) shows that the distal end of the part 4 resides on an opposite side of unit 1 relative to the distal portion of the soil-cultivating implement 3. ... In failing to disclose each and every element of claim 1, Clemens, Kolskog and Eaton cannot support a rejection based on anticipation or obviousness. For at least this reason, claim 1, and all claims depending therefrom, should be deemed patentable over the cited art." (See Remarks of 6/20/2025, labeled p. 11.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because Clemens shows that the distal end of the part 4 resides on a same side of unit 1 relative to the distal portion of the soil-cultivating implement 3 when considering front and back sides (i.e., right and left sides in Fig. 7 and annotated Fig. A, above) of the row unit. Further, without claim language setting forth different configurations or positions and the relative timing thereof, the teachings of Clemens are considered to meet the limitation of weeding such that the distal end and the distal portion reside "temporarily" on a same side because the claim language does not define when the distal end and the distal portion are somewhere else. As such, the combination including Clemens meets the amended language of claim 1, and the rejection of claim 1 over Clemens, Kolskog, and Eaton is maintained.
Applicant argues: "Further, use of an arm that moves to the same side as a weeding rod is more than an obvious variation of Clemens's design because the different mechanisms of action create different weeding patterns. A detailed discussion of the unexpected benefits achieved by a 'shark fin' type pattern created by a weeding rod on a swing arm was provided in the response filed December 18, 2024..." (See Remarks of 6/20/2025, labeled p. 12.)
First, Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because a "shark fin" type pattern is not claimed, and such a pattern is not definitively required by the claims. There is no nexus apparent between the claimed invention and the argued unexpected results, and Applicant's argument fails to establish such a nexus. Second, Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because the pattern created by Clemens was not modified in the combination of the § 103 rejection made. As set forth in the Non-Final Rejection of 2/28/2025 and the rejection above, merely the cross-sectional shape and advancement speed of Clemens are modified. Thus, even if a "shark fin" type pattern is considered to be non-obvious, Applicant's argument fails to overcome the § 103 rejection because the type of pattern was not an obvious modification or feature in the rejection. Accordingly, Applicant's argument of non-obviousness is unpersuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
With respect to claim 18, Applicant argues: "For example, claim 18 recites 'the horizontal plane occupied by the proximal portion and the distal portion constitutes an outer boundary of the weeding rod.' In contrast, the outer boundary of Clemens's weeding rod is a point of drive shaft 2." (See Remarks of 6/20/2025, labeled p. 12.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because Clemens shows the proximal portion (including lower portion of 2) and the distal portion (including the un-suspended end of 3) occupying a horizontal plane that constitutes an outer boundary of the weeding rod (see annotated Fig. B, above). Additionally, it is noted that a point can be considered a "boundary" when given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term and as admitted by Applicant (i.e., Applicant states "... the outer boundary of Clemens's weeding rod is a point...").
Applicant's arguments additional with respect to the dependent claims are unpersuasive because Clemens shows the amended language of claim 1, as explained above.
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/11/24/25
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671