Final 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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 09/03/2025, with respect to claim 1. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
With regard to point a, examiner notes the acknowledgement that the details of a center frame section having a width greater than the width of the towing vehicle, and that the outer ends are located outwardly of the vehicle, are present in Boeto et al as part of US 4151886 A, hereinafter referred to as Boeto, and/or Peden as part of US 20140090347 A1, hereinafter referred to as Peden. As seen in Figure 1 of Boeto, center section 22 is shown to have two outer ends located at opposite, distal ends from the vehicle 10.
With regard to point b, examiner notes the acknowledgement that the details of a pair of wing sections, each having an inner and outer end where the inner end is pivotally coupled at the respective outer end of the center frame section are present in Boeto, and/or Peden. Specifically, the tool bar sections 26 of Boeto is shown as being pivotally coupled to opposite ends of central section 22.
With regard to point c, examiner notes the acknowledgement that the details of the wing frame sections carrying a plurality of soil working tools are present in Boeto. Examiner respectfully disagrees that the rakes described by Peden do not qualify as ground engaging or soil working tools, as they are noted to sweep cut crop material from the ground’s surface, implying contact with the soil (Peden: Paragraph 15).
With regard to point d, examiner notes the acknowledgement that the details of the inner end of each wing frame section is connected to a respective outer end of the center frame section by a hinge coupling allowing pivotal movement about an upstanding axis of the wing frame section relative to the center frame section between a working configuration and a transport configuration are present in Peden, while Boeto teaches of a horizontal axis of rotation.
With regard to point e and f, applicant argues that the phrasing “In the transport configuration…the outer end of the wing frame section is spaced forwardly from the outer end of the center frame section by the length of the wing frame section” and “in the transport configuration the outer end of each wing frame section is located alongside the towing vehicle forwardly of a rear end of the rear pair of ground engaging elements thereof” prevent an interpretation that does not allow for any folding along the wing sections of the apparatus. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that a broad interpretation of both Boeto and Peden teach of “a wing frame section spaced…by the length of the wing frame section” can refer to independent wing members of the greater wing apparatus (Boeto, Fig. 1/3, in both the work configuration and transport configuration, tool bar section 26 is extended outwardly from the center frame section, spaced outwardly from the connection to the center tool bar 22 by the full length of tool bar section 26; Peden, Fig. 33-38, in both the work configuration and transport configuration, arm section 101 is spaced outwardly from the connection to the center drawbar assembly 104 by the full length of arm section 101).
With regard to point g, examiner noted on page 4 of prior the office action mailed 03/10/2025, with respect to claim 3 which shares similar language and intent to the amended language of claim 1, that the orientation and relative position of the wing sections respective to the rear ground engaging elements of the towing vehicle in the transport configuration is a results effective variable based on multiple design considerations such as the dimensions of roads or designated pivot angles to control the overall dimensions of the tool bar while retracted (Boeto, Col. 1, Line 5-20; Col. 3, Line 24-Col. 4, Line 2). Applicant makes no argument to persuade against such an interpretation, thus examiner upholds such rationale with respect to the limitation “in the transport configuration the outer end of each wing frame section is located alongside the towing vehicle forwardly of a rear end of the rear pair of ground engaging elements thereof”.
Examiner finds the arguments presented by applicant to be unpersuasive. As such, the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 as obvious over Boeto in view of Peden, as well as all dependent claims that utilize additional references, is upheld by the examiner.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boeto et al as part of US 4151886 A, hereinafter referred to as Boeto, in view of Peden as part of US 20140090347 A1, hereinafter referred to as Peden.
Regarding Claim 1: Boeto teaches of a combination of a towing vehicle and a winged agricultural implement for towing in a forward working direction by the towing vehicle (Boeto: Fig. 2, tool bar assembly 20 towed behind Towing Vehicle 10)
wherein the towing vehicle has a frame configured for movement across a ground surface (Boeto: Fig. 1, Frame 14)
wherein the frame has opposite front and rear ends along a longitudinal axis parallel to the forward working direction, wherein the towing vehicle has transversely opposite sides (Boeto: Fig. 1, towing vehicle 10 implicitly has a front and rear end along a longitudinal axis parallel to the direction of travel, and two transversely opposite lateral sides in relation to its direction of travel)
and wherein the towing vehicle has front and rear pairs of ground engaging elements rotatably supported on the frame and rotatable around longitudinally spaced front and rear rotational axes of the towing vehicle located in front of the rear end of the frame for supporting the frame in movement across the ground surface (Boeto: Fig. 1, Front wheels 13 of towing vehicle 10 and rear wheels 12 of towing vehicle 10)
the implement comprising:
a center frame section connected to the towing vehicle at the rear end thereof for movement therewith (Boeto: Fig. 1, Hitch 33 connects the rear end of vehicle 10 and tool bar central section 22);
The center frame section having a width greater than a width of the towing vehicle (Boeto: Fig. 1, central section 22 is shown to be wider than the vehicle 10);
The center frame section having outer ends of the center frame section located outwardly of the towing vehicle (Boeto: Fig. 1, center section 22 is shown to have two outer ends located at opposite, distal ends from the vehicle 10);
a pair of wing frame sections each having an inner end and an outer end where the inner end is pivotally coupled at a respective outer end of the center frame section (Boeto: Fig. 1, Tool bar sections 26 pivotally coupled to opposite ends of central section 22)
Each of the center frame section and wing frame sections carrying thereon a plurality of soil working tools at spaced positions thereacross (Boeto: Col. 6, Line 37-46, a wide variety of ground working tools such as cultivator disks, shovels, planter units, subsoil plows, middlebusters, and other tools are available to be connected to the tool bar assemblies without disturbing the essential features of the invention.)
and wherein the inner end of each of the wing frame sections is connected to the respective outer end of the center frame section by a hinge coupling allowing pivotal movement about an axis of the wing frame section relative to the center frame section between a working configuration and a transport configuration (Boeto: Fig. 1, tool bar section 26 is connected at an inner end to the outer end of center section 22 via a pivotal connection),
wherein, in the working configuration, each wing frame section extends outwardly from the outer end of the center frame section so that the outer end of the wing frame section is spaced outwardly from the outer end of the center frame section by a length of the wing frame section to support said soil working tools thereon at spaced positions from the center frame section (Boeto: Fig. 1/3, in the work configuration, tool bar section 26 is extended outwardly from the center frame section, spaced outwardly from the connection to the center tool bar 22 by the full length of tool bar section 26, supporting the aforementioned wide variety of possible tools);
Boeto does not teach wherein the hinge coupling the outer end of the center frame section and the inner end of each wing frame section pivot about a vertical or upstanding axis, nor wherein in the transport configuration, each wing frame section extends forwardly from the outer end of the center frame section so that the outer end of the wing frame section is spaced forwardly from the outer end of the center frame section by the length of the wing frame section, nor explicitly wherein in the transport configuration the outer end of each wing frame section is located alongside the towing vehicle and forwardly of a rear end of the rear pair of ground engaging elements thereof.
Peden teaches of a towed agricultural implement, wherein the inner ends of wing frame sections are pivotally connected to the respective outer ends of a central frame section about an upstanding axis relative to the center frame section between a working configuration and a transport configuration (Peden: arms 101 are pivotally connected to a center cross bar 104 about a vertical axis to transition the implement between a work and transport configuration.),
and wherein, in the transport configuration, each wing frame section extends forwardly from the outer end of the center frame section so that the outer end of the wing frame section is spaced forwardly from the outer end of the center frame section by the length of the wing frame section (Peden: Fig. 38, in the transportation configuration, arms 101 extend forwardly from the outer end of the cross bar 104, the distal end spaced forwardly by the length of the arm 101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was properly filed to modify the wing structure taught by Boeto with the swept forward wing structure of Peden to increase the level of control the operator has over the width of the implement and the level of overlap of the individual work tools. The teaching of using a swept forward wing structure on an agricultural implement would be part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art to the predictable result of increasing the level of control an operator has over the implement (Peden: Paragraph 28, the angle is selected and controlled by hydraulics).
Boeto in view of Peden does not explicitly teach wherein in the transport configuration, the outer end of each wing frame section is located alongside the towing vehicle and forwardly of a rear end of the rear pair of ground engaging elements thereof.
However, Boeto discloses that the dimensions of the tool bar and system are known to be controlled for either as a result of dimensions of roads (Col 1, Lines 5-20) or based on a designed pivot angle to control the overall dimension of the toolbar when in the retracted state (Col 3, Line 24 – Col 4, Line 2). As a result, the overall length and angle of pivot for the tool bar may be seen as results effective variables. In addition, in light of such a determination, the extent to which the tool part would extend when in the retracted and pivoted position would likewise be a results effective variable, wherein it has been held obvious to find the optimal combination between the controllable angle of the forward sweep taught by Peden and length of the outer wing sections 24 and 26 taught by Boeto would be characterized by routine experimentation to achieve an optimal result, and therefore would be the result of a known result-effective variable and obvious to try, such that they may extend to or beyond a midpoint of the tire by virtue of a given selected length and angle of pivot. (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Regarding Claim 2: Boeto in view of Peden teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Boeto further teaches wherein the wing frame section is rigid so that no folding action is allowed between the inner and outer ends thereof (Boeto: Fig. 1, tool bar section 26 is rigid and does not fold between the inner and outer end thereof).
Regarding Claim 3: Boeto in view of Peden teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 1, Peden further teaches wherein , in the working configuration, the wing frame sections extend at an angle less than 180 degrees from the outer end of the center frame section so as to extend forwardly (Peden: Fig. 1, the wing sections are demonstrated to extend forwardly at an angle less than 180 degrees).
Boeto in view of Peden do not teach that the wing sections terminate in a position where the outer end is located forwardly of the rear end of the rear pair of ground engaging elements of the towing vehicle.
Boeto discloses that the dimensions of the tool bar and system are known to be controlled for either as a result of dimensions of roads (Col 1, Lines 5-20) or based on a designed pivot angle to control the overall dimension of the toolbar when in the retracted state (Col 3, Line 24 – Col 4, Line 2). As a result, the overall length and angle of pivot for the tool bar may be seen as results effective variables. In addition, in light of such a determination, the extent to which the tool part would extend when in the retracted and pivoted position would likewise be a results effective variable, wherein it has been held obvious to find the optimal combination between the controllable angle of the forward sweep taught by Peden and length of the outer wing sections 24 and 26 taught by Boeto would be characterized by routine experimentation to achieve an optimal result, and therefore would be the result of a known result-effective variable and obvious to try, such that they may extend to or beyond a midpoint of the tire by virtue of a given selected length and angle of pivot. (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Regarding Claim 4: Boeto in view of Peden teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Boeto does not teach of wherein each wing frame section includes a ground-engaging wheel rotatably coupled at the outer end thereof.
Peden teaches wherein each wing frame section includes a ground-engaging wheel rotatably coupled at the outer end thereof (Peden: Fig. 1, wheel units 130 are rotatably coupled at the outer end of arms 101)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to modify the tool bar of Boeto with the ground engaging wheel coupled at the outer end of the tool bar section to provide support to the distal end of the tool bar section (Peden, paragraph 90, each arm is supported by a caster wheel unit rotatably mounted thereon). Such a modification would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of supporting the distal end of the apparatus during operation.
Regarding Claim 5: Boeto in view of Peden teaches of the apparatus described in claim 4.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 4, Peden further teaches wherein the ground-engaging wheel of each of the wing frame sections is supported for rotation around respective rotational axis arranged parallel to and rearwardly of a front rotational axis of the front pair of ground engaging elements of the towing vehicle when the implement is in the working configuration (Peden: Fig. 1, wheel units 130 are aligned on an axis parallel to the rotational axis of the front ground engaging elements of the tractor 20, and are positioned rearward of said front ground engaging elements of the tractor).
Regarding Claim 6: Boeto in view of Peden teaches of the apparatus described in claim 4.
Boeto further teaches wherein the wing frame sections each comprise a beam spanning between the respective inner and outer ends, and the ground-engaging wheel thereof is supported for rotation at a forwardly spaced location from the beam (Boeto: Fig. 1, tool bar section 26 comprises a beam that spans between an inner and outer end).
Regarding Claim 7: Boeto in view of Peden teaches of the apparatus described in claim 4.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 4, Peden further teaches wherein each ground engaging wheel is supported for pivotal movement about a vertical pivot axis for rollably engaging the ground surface in the working and transport configurations (Peden: Fig. 33, 38: wheels 130 at distal end of the arms 101 are in contact with the ground in the working and transport configurations).
Regarding Claim 10: Boeto in view of Peden teaches the implement described above in claim 1.
Additionally, Boeto discloses that the implement includes first interlocking members arranged on respective inner ends of the wing frame sections (including locking pin 134 and crank arms 126 between 22 and 26, as seen in Figure 4) configured for engagement, in the working configuration, with second interlocking members on the sides of the center frame section, the first interlocking members carry respective keeper pins (104) and the center frame section carries pivotal latch dogs (included slotted link 128 and draw links 132) configured to retain the keeper pins in the working configuration to secure the first interlocking members with the second interlocking members (as seen in Figure 5, the internal piston locking members of section 22 use the locking plates to control the position and pivot extension of pin 134; Col 10, Lines 9-43).
Regarding Claim 11: Boeto further discloses that each first interlocking member is wedge shaped with upwardly and downwardly facing walls (as seen in Figure 4, the crank arms 126 includes outer angled surfaces extending upward and downward toward/away from an apex; Col 10, Lines 9-43).
Regarding Claim 16: Boeto in view of Peden teaches the implement described above in claim 1.
Boeto further teaches of a hitch member supported on the center frame section for coupling to a three point hitch on the towing vehicle (Boeto: Col. 5, Line 2-30; Fig. 1, three point hitch 33 couples the tractor frame 14 and tool bar assembly 20).
Claim 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boeto in view of Peden, further in view of Rogers as part of US 3502154 A, hereinafter referred to as Rogers.
Regarding Claim 8: Boeto in view of Peden teaches of the apparatus described in claim 3.
Boeto in view of Peden does not teach wherein, in the working configuration, the soil working tools at spaced positions across the wing frame sections are parallel to the forward direction and hence at an angle different from 90 degrees to the wing frame sections.
Rogers teaches of a towed agricultural implement, wherein the soil working tools at spaced positions across a pair of wing frame sections are parallel to the forward diction of travel (Rogers: Fig. 1, spring teeth 26 are arranged parallel to the direction of travel in the working position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to combine the winged implement taught by Boeto in view of Peden, wherein the wing sections have an angle of less than 180 degrees from the central frame section, with the tool orientation being parallel to the direction of travel as taught by Rogers to create an apparatus that comprises tools at an angle different than 90 degrees relative to the arm on which they are mounted. Such a modification would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of utilizing tools in a forward direction, parallel to the direction of travel of the implement as is common and known in the art (Rogers: Fig. 1, spring teeth 26 are arranged parallel to the direction of travel in the working position).
Claims 13, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boeto in view of Peden, further in view of Nohl et al as part of US 4360215 A, hereinafter referred to as Nohl.
Regarding Claim 13: Boeto in view of Peden teaches the implement described above in claim 1.
Boeto in view of Peden does not teach of a ground engaging wheel assembly rotatably coupled to the center frame section.
Nohl teaches of an agricultural device with articulating wing sections (Nohl: Wing members 23 and 24 support frames 17A and 18A) that comprises a central frame section (Nohl: Fig. 1, main support frame 16A) with ground engaging wheels rotatably coupled and supporting the central frame section (Nohl: Col. 3, Line 3-17; Fig. 1, wheels 16E coupled to frame 16A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to combine the ground engaging wheel assembly taught by Nohl with the similarly structured central frame section taught by Boeto in view of Peden to create a device that would more evenly distribute the weight of the implement and aid in keeping the trailing implement more level while being towed (Nohl, Col. 2, line 15-19).
Regarding Claim 14: Boeto in view of Peden, further in view of Nohl teaches the implement described above in claim 13.
Nohl additionally teaches that the ground engaging wheel assembly comprises at least one wheel supported for rotation at a rearwardly spaced location rearwardly of center frame section (Nohl: Col. 3, Line 3-17; Wheels 16E are positioned at the rear of frame 16A). In light of the modifications described above as part of claim 13, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to place the wheels on a rearward location of the center frame section to most effectively support the implement.
Regarding Claim 15: Boeto in view of Peden, further in view of Nohl teaches the implement described above in claim 13.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 13, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to design the wheels taught by Nohl to raise and lower relative to the center frame in response to uneven terrain to keep the implement level without torquing the center frame around the hitch.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boeto in view of Peden, further in view of Blackwell as part of US 20180220576 A1, hereinafter referred to as Blackwell.
Regarding Claim 17: Boeto in view of Peden teaches the implement described above in claim 1.
Boeto teaches that the implement comprises a “Tool bar sections may carry a wide variety of ground working tools”. However, Boeto in view of Peden do not explicitly teach of the agricultural implement being a liquid fertilizer applicator.
Blackwell teaches of an agricultural implement with an elongated wing structure, explicitly mentioning the use of said implement potentially comprising a means of spreading fertilizer among other applications (Blackwell: Paragraph 25, 31, 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to combine the teaching of a fertilizer spreader from Blackwell with the structure of Boeto, as Boeto teaches of a tool bar capable of carrying a variety of tools. As part of such a combination, it would be understood to one of ordinary skill in the art that a storage mechanism for the liquid fertilizer would be implicitly required, and a connection from said storage mechanism to said implement such as a hose to supply fertilizer to each of the soil working tools disposed thereon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 is 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.
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.
/EVAN A BREGEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671