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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Each of Figures 15-23 shows letters printed on shaded surfaces. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(p)(3).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: undefined abbreviation.
CLAIM 5 On line 7, define the abbreviation “PID.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn et al. (DE 11 2013 003 233 T5) in view of Sauder et al. (US 2014/0124225 A1).
CLAIM 1 Hahn et al. ‘233 (“Hahn”) discloses a control system for use with a force-implementing weight transfer system (50) adapted to adjust weight transfer along a row planter tool bar (22, 29) having a center section (22) flanked by a left wing section (Fig. 2, left tool bar section equivalent of element 29) and a right wing section (29), each section supporting a plurality of row planter units (34), the control system comprising:
a feedback controller (56) comprising a set of inputs and a set of outputs;
a set of actuators comprising:
a left wing actuator (52) anchored on the center section (22) of the tool bar and connected to the left wing section (Fig. 2) and adapted to exert a force on the left wing section; and
a right wing actuator (52) anchored on the center section of the tool bar and connected to the right wing section (Fig. 2) and adapted to exert a force on the right wing section; and
a set of wing sensors (58, 60, 62, 64) comprising a left wing sensor and a right wing sensor1, the set of sensors being connected to the feedback controller (56) and adapted to sense positions of the left and right wing sections relative to the center section and generate a set of sensed position information;
wherein the feedback controller (56) receives the set of sensed position information and generates a set of control signals adapted to control operation of the set of actuators (52)2.
Hahn fails to teach expressly the feedback controller (56) embodied as a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller. Sauder et al. ‘225 (“Sauder”) discloses a control system (1300, Fig. 13) for use with a force-implementing weight transfer system (1310) comprising a PID controller (1302, ¶¶ 0092-93). It would have been an obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the feedback controller (Hahn, 56) of the prior art control system (Hahn) such that it would have been embodied as a PID controller (Sauder, 1302), as suggested by Sauder. The motivation for making the modification would have been to use a controller “known in the art to ensure timely correction while avoiding overcorrection” (Sauder, ¶¶ 0092-93), and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Hahn fails to teach row planter actuators and row planter sensors. Sauder teaches the control system (1300, Figs. 13-15) further comprises:
a set of row planter actuators (32) operatively connected to row planter units (1400) via a set of linkages (14) and adapted to exert a force (30) on the row planter units relative to the ground; and
a set of row planter sensors (1362 and 1364, collectively) disposed on the set of linkages3 and adapted to sense the relative orientation of a respective row planter unit (1400) relative to the ground and a tool bar (520) and generate a set of sensed row planter unit position information (¶ 0078);
wherein the PID-based controller (1302) receives position information relating to the toolbar (520) of an implement frame (200) and the set of sensed row planter unit position information and generates a set of control signals adapted to control operation of the set of actuators (32) based thereon (Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the prior art control system further with the additions of row planter actuators (Sauder, 32) and row planter sensors (Sauder, 1362, 1364) having the functionalities and connections to the PID controller (Sauder, 1302) disclosed by Sauder. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for assessing the weight of the planter row units, thereby improving the accuracy of the control system with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 2 In the combination of Hahn and Sauder, the control system further comprises a set of control equipment (Hahn, 244; and Sauder, 1305, 1307, 1309) adapted to receive the set of control signals and control a supply of a power source connected to the set of actuators (Hahn, 52; Sauder, 428).
CLAIM 3 In the combination of Hahn and Sauder, the power source is one from a group consisting of pneumatic source, electric source, and hydraulic source (Hahn; Sauder, ¶ 0058)4.
CLAIM 4 In the combination of Hahn and Sauder, the set of sensors (Hahn, 58, 60, 62, 64) comprises a set of angle sensors (Hahn, “level sensor 62”) adapted to sense an angle of a linkage mechanism relative to a control reference.
CLAIM 5 The combination of Hahn and Sauder, as applied above to claims 1 and 2, teaches all of the limitations recited therein. Additionally, both Hahn and Sauder show first and second bracket assemblies (Hahn, Fig. 12; Sauder, Figs. 1C and 5A).
CLAIM 6 The combination of Hahn and Sauder, as applied above to claim 3, teaches all of the limitations recited therein.
Comments
Claims 2-6, as presented in the response filed 08 October 2025, lack status identifiers that are required by 37 C.F.R. §1.121. Applicant is advised that any future response, which lacks status identifiers and/or proper markings to show amended text, will be held non-compliant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections of the Claims Over Cited Prior Art
CLAIM 1 Applicant argues the combination of Hahn and Sauder fails to teach planter row unit actuators and sensors connected to the PID controller. The examiner concludes the newly added limitations are obvious in view of Sauder (Figs. 13-15), as applied above in the rejection of claim 1.
CLAIMS 2-6 Applicant fails to present separate arguments for the claims.
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 TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/tm/
26 January 2026
1 On page 3 of 35 in the attached translation, Hahn teaches, “It is a further object, feature and / or advantage of the present invention to provide a control system that allows an operator to adjust the size of the downward force applied to the wings based on information obtained by sensors on the tool bars, wings and row units.”
2 On page 6 of 35 in the attached translation, Hahn teaches, “The intelligent controller 56 receives data from the plurality of sensors and uses this data to those from the cylinders 52.”
3 In paragraph 0078, Sauder teaches an orientation sensor embodied as a rotary potentiometer (1362) “coupled to a follower arm 1364 configured to rollingly contact an upper surface of a parallel arm 14.”
4 On page 9 of 35 in the attached translation, Hahn teaches, ” The cylinders may be electric cylinders, pneumatic cylinders, hydraulic cylinders or the like.”