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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-16 are being further examined. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, in claim 1, the term "in the form of" (in "a linkage ... in the form of a first linkage ... and a second linkage ...") is interpreted to be inclusive or open-ended and to not exclude additional, unrecited elements, particularly in light of the specification wherein the linkage includes multiple parts (e.g., see Specification, paras. 0053-0056). As such, "in the form of" is interpreted to be synonymous with "comprising" or "including" in the context of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 has been amended to recite "the first and second linkages each comprise an extendable actuator and a fixed length arm each rotatably connected to the first and second outer wing sections and the center wing section." However, the original disclosure fails to provide support for each extendable actuator and fixed length arm (of each of first and second linkages) being rotatably connected to a first outer wing section, a second outer wing section, and a center wing section, as claimed. Therefore, claim 5 contains new matter and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Additionally, claim 6 is rejected because of its dependency on claim 5.
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 1-16 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 1 recites the limitation "the direction of the tongue" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, claims 2-10 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 5 has been amended to recite "the first and second linkages each comprise an extendable actuator and a fixed length arm each rotatably connected to the first and second outer wing sections and the center wing section." It is unclear if each extendable actuator and fixed length arm (of each of the first and second linkages) is being required to rotatably connect to each, one of, or some other combination of the first and second outer wing sections and the center wing section. Thus, the metes and bounds of the linkages (and relative connections thereof) in claim 5 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 5 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. In light of the specification, claim 5 is being further examined as though it concludes "the first and second linkages each comprise an extendable actuator and a fixed length arm each rotatably connected to the center wing section and a respective outer wing section of the first and second outer wing sections."
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the " in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 is being further examined as though "the actuator of the first and second linkages" reads "the respective extendable actuators of the first and second linkages" in lines 1-2.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the direction of the tongue" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, claims 12-16 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 11.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Friesen et al. (US 5,113,956)
Regarding claim 1, Friesen discloses an agricultural implement, comprising:
a tongue (including 28, 36, and center wheels shown along 72 in Fig. 2) comprising a hitch (including 36) at a first end and one or more transport wheels (including center wheels shown along 72 in Fig. 2) at a second end; and
a toolbar at the second end of the tongue, said toolbar extending substantially perpendicular to the tongue in a field use configuration (see Fig. 1), the toolbar comprising:
a center wing section (including 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 72) extending transversely to a direction of the tongue (see Figs. 8-10, wherein a dimension of 14 extends transversely to a selected direction of 28 and/or 36; and more particularly, the length of 72 extends transversely to the length of 28, as seen from Figs. 2 and 9);
first and second outer wing sections (including 75 and including 75') extending outward from opposite sides of the center wing section in the field use configuration (see Fig. 1); and
a linkage (including 80, 80', 95, and 95') between each of the outer wing sections and the center wing section in the form of a first linkage (including 80 and 95) between the first outer wing section (including 75) and the center wing section (see Figs. 1 and 2) and a second linkage (including 80' and 95') between the second out wing section (including 75') and the center wing (see Figs. 1 and 2), said first and second linkages operable to rotate the outer wing sections forward about a substantially vertical axis (see Figs. 1 and 2) and also translating the outer wing sections in a rearward direction (75 and 75' translating rearwardly relative to at least 14 and 36) with a portion of the outer wing sections being rearward of the center wing section (75 and 75' extending rearward of at least 14 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Friesen discloses at least one actuator (32) between the tongue (including 28, 36, and center wheels shown along 72 in Fig. 2) and the center wing section (including 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 72) to rotate the toolbar about a substantially horizontal axis (at 30; see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Friesen discloses the substantially horizontal axis of rotation (at 30) for the toolbar extending substantially perpendicular to the length of the tongue (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 4, Friesen discloses extension of the at least one actuator (32) rotating the toolbar vertically about the substantially horizontal axis of rotation (at 30; see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 5, Friesen discloses the first linkage comprising an extendable actuator (including 80) and a fixed length arm (including 90) each rotatably connected to the first outer wing section (including 75) and the center wing section (including 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 72), and Friesen discloses the second linkage comprising an extendable actuator (including 80') and a fixed length arm (including 90') each rotatably connected to the second outer wing section (including 75') and the center wing section (including 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 72).
Regarding claim 6, Friesen discloses retraction of the respective extendable actuators (including 80 and including 80') of the first and second linkages rotates the outer wing sections (including 75 and including 75') forward toward the tongue (see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 7, Friesen discloses the outer wing sections comprising wing wheels (including outer wheels shown along 75 and 75' in Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 8, Friesen discloses the center wing section (including 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 72) comprising a frame (including 14).
Regarding claim 9, Friesen discloses the first and second linkages (including 80, 80', 95, and 95') being connected between the outer wing sections and the frame of the center wing section (see Figs. 1 and 2, wherein 95 is connected between 75 and 14, and 95' is connected between 75' and 14).
Regarding claim 10, Friesen discloses the first and second outer wing sections (including 75 and including 75') being substantially parallel to the tongue in a transport configuration (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Friesen discloses an agricultural implement, comprising:
a tongue (including 28, 36, and center wheels shown along 72 in Fig. 2) comprising a hitch (including 36) at a first end and one or more transport wheels (including center wheels shown along 72 in Fig. 2) at a second end; and
a toolbar at the second end of the tongue, said toolbar extending substantially perpendicular to the tongue in a field use configuration (see Fig. 1), the toolbar comprising:
a center wing section (including 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 72) extending transversely to a direction of the tongue (see Figs. 8-10, wherein a dimension of 14 extends transversely to a selected direction of 28 and/or 36; and more particularly, the length of 72 extends transversely to the length of 28, as seen from Figs. 2 and 9); and
first and second outer wing sections (including 75 and including 75') extending outward from opposite sides of the center wing section in the field use configuration (see Fig. 1); and
a toolbar rotation system comprising:
a center linkage including an actuator (32) to rotate the toolbar about a generally horizontal axis (at 30); and
first and second wing linkages including actuators (including 80 and including 80') to rotate the first and second outer wing sections in a forward manner relative to the center wing section (see Figs. 1 and 2) wherein the first and second outer wings also translate in a rearward direction during rotation in the forward manner (75 and 75' translating rearwardly relative to at least 14 and 36).
Regarding claim 12, Friesen discloses the toolbar further comprising a transport configuration (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Friesen discloses the first and second outer wings (including 75 and including 75') being substantially parallel to the tongue in the transport configuration (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Friesen discloses the first and second outer wings (including 75 and including 75') including a portion extending rearward of the center wing section in the transport configuration (see Fig. 2, wherein 75 and 75' extend rearward of at least 14).
Regarding claim 15, Friesen discloses the first and second wing linkages (including 80 and including 80') rotating the first and second outer wings about a substantially vertical axis (as at 92; see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 16, Friesen discloses the first and second outer wing sections (including 75 and including 75') being substantially parallel to the center wing section (see Fig. 1) during rotation of the center linkage (when 32 is operated in the field use configuration).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the § 112 rejections, Applicant's amendments have overcome the previous § 112(b) rejections, but have created new § 112 issues for which the claims are rejected above.
Applicant argues: "Applicant first would like to point out the gross mischaracterization of elements in Friesen, which, when properly construed, would indicate no possible way of anticipating the claimed invention. For example, on page 5 of the action, it is incorrectly stated that elements 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 72 of Friesen form a center wing portion. However, if one were to read the reference, it is clearly stated that elements 16, 18, 20, and 22 form a portion of the tongue. See, e.g., column 3, lines 5-7, 'Tool bar 10 includes a telescoping tongue 12 comprised of tubular tongue sections 14, 16, 18, 20 and 22.' Thus, it would be improper to recharacterize an element of a reference in which that inventor had clearly identified as something else. ... Thus, it is absolutely improper to mischaracterize and construe the exact words from a reference to try to fit a round peg into a square hole. The reference does not and cannot be said to teach what is alleged in the action. For this reason alone, it is noted that the rejection recites incorrect analysis which cannot be sustained for the rejection." (See Remarks of 2/4/2026, labeled p. 7.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because the identified structure (i.e., including 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 72) of a center wing section of a toolbar in Friesen meets that as claimed, when giving "a toolbar" comprising "a center wing section" its broadest reasonable interpretation. The claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See MPEP § 2111. Further, as admitted by Applicant, Friesen states: "Tool bar 10 includes a telescoping tongue 12 comprised of tubular tongue sections 14, 16, 18, 20 and 22." (See Friesen, col. 3, lines 5-7, emphasis added.) It would be improper to not consider elements (i.e., 14, 16, 18, 20 and 22) to be of a toolbar when Friesen explicitly sets forth that these elements are part of a toolbar. These elements along with 72 meet structure of "a center wing section" when giving the claim language its broadest reasonable interpretation as required during patent examination.
Applicant argues: "Even further, at column 4, lines 5-7, Friesen clearly and unequivocally includes, 'Tool bar 10 includes a center tool bar section 66 having wing sections 68 and 70 pivotally connected thereto as seen in the drawings.' Thus, it is absolutely improper to mischaracterize and construe the exact words from a reference to try to fit a round peg into a square hole. The reference does not and cannot be said to teach what is alleged in the action. For this reason alone, it is noted that the rejection recites incorrect analysis which cannot be sustained for the rejection." (See Remarks of 2/4/2026, labeled p. 7.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because the identified structure of Friesen (i.e. a center wing section including 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 72) meets the claim language. Further, Applicant's argument fails to specifically point out how the language of the claim patentably distinguishes it from the teachings of Friesen. In other words, Applicant's argument fails to explain how a "hole" is claimed to be shaped such that a "peg" of Friesen does not fit. Additionally, Friesen does not limit "tool bar 10" to only elements 66, 68, and/or 70. Again, as admitted by Applicant, Friesen states: "Tool bar 10 includes a telescoping tongue 12 comprised of tubular tongue sections 14, 16, 18, 20 and 22." (See Friesen, col. 3, lines 5-7, emphasis added.)
Applicant argues: "While it is true that the central toolbar 66 and tongue of Friesen are transverse, the remainder of the claim (namely, a portion of the outer wing sections being rearward of the center wing section) cannot be met with both interpretations of the reference." (See Remarks of 2/4/2026, labeled p. 8.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because Friesen discloses a portion of the outer wing sections being rearward of the center wing section (75 and 75' extending rearward of at least 14 in Fig. 2). Applicant's argument does not address this explanation set forth in the Non-Final Rejection of 11/4/2025. Also, it is noted that Applicant admits: "... the central toolbar 66 and tongue of Friesen are transverse, ..." And it is noted that Friesen states: "Center tool bar section 66 includes a lower frame member 72 ..." (See col. 4, lines 7-8.)
Applicant argues: "The amended claim language is not disclosed by Friesen. As noted, the interpretation of Friesen taken in the action does not provide a central toolbar that is transverse to the tongue." (See Remarks of 2/4/2026, labeled p. 9.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because "a central toolbar that is transverse to the tongue" is not claimed. However, Friesen discloses a center wing section (including 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 72) extending transversely to a direction of the tongue (see Figs. 8-10, wherein a dimension of 14 extends transversely to a selected direction of 28 and/or 36; and more particularly, the length of 72 extends transversely to the length of 28, as seen from Figs. 2 and 9), as claimed and as indicated in the rejection above.
Applicant argues: "In addition, a proper analysis and designation of claim elements of Friesen does not provide a configuration wherein a portion of the outer wings extend behind the central toolbar 66 of Friesen. Thus, Friesen cannot be said to teach an identical invention to the claimed invention." (See Remarks of 2/4/2026, labeled p. 9.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because a "central toolbar" is not claimed, and Applicant's argument appears to be based on a hypothetical rejection (i.e., a rejection considering only element 66 of Friesen as the center wing section) that has not been made.
The prior art rejection of claims 2-16 is maintained because Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 are unpersuasive, the prior art rejection of claim 1 is maintained, and the limitations of claim 2-16 are met by the prior art as set forth in the rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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/3/20/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671