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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 8/10/2022 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. The copy of GB 1154811 A appears to be incomplete, and a copy of WO 2019/157521 A1 was not included. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The IDS filed 8/29/2025 lists EP 2462794 B1. However, a copy of EP 2462794 B1 was not included, and a copy of EP 2462794 A1 was included instead. As indicated, EP 2462794 A1 has been considered since a copy has been provided, and EP 2462794 B1 has not been considered. Further, a copy of DE 102017103646 B4 was not included, and a copy DE 102017103646 A1 was included instead. However, the translation of DE 102017103646 A1 appears to be incomplete (as it ends in the middle of the list of reference numbers). As such, neither DE 102017103646 B4 nor DE 102017103646 A1 has been considered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains an implied phrase (i.e., "... are also disclosed."). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 9, 15, 17, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 8 recites "the first toolbar" in lines 2-3 (instead of "the first elongate toolbar");
claim 8 recites "the second toolbar" in lines 3-4 (instead of "the second elongate toolbar");
claim 9 recites "the first toolbar" in line 2 (instead of "the first elongate toolbar");
claim 9 recites "the first toolbar" in line 3 (instead of "the first elongate toolbar");
claim 9 recites "the second toolbar" in line 4 (instead of "the second elongate toolbar");
claim 9 recites "the second toolbar" in line 5 (instead of "the second elongate toolbar");
claim 15 recites "the first toolbar" in line 3 (instead of "the first elongate toolbar");
claim 15 recites "the second toolbar" in line 4 (instead of "the second elongate toolbar");
claim 17 recites "the first toolbar" in line 2 (instead of "the first elongate toolbar");
claim 17 recites "the second toolbar" in line 2 (instead of "the second elongate toolbar");
claim 18 recites "the first toolbar" in line 2 (instead of "the first elongate toolbar"); and
claim 18 recites "the second toolbar" in line 4 (instead of "the second elongate toolbar").
Consistent terminology should be used. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation 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. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: "a first control component" and "a second control component" in claims 6 and 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification sets forth corresponding structure of "control components" as "control valves, air valves, electronic control components, magnetic control components, or electromagnetic control components, etc." (See Specification, paras. 0036.)
If Applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fanshier et al. (WO 2018/109545 A1; hereinafter referred to as "Fanshier")
Regarding claim 1, Fanshier discloses an agricultural implement, comprising:
a longitudinally extending frame (including 16, 18, and 26) configured to be coupled to a tractor (such as 12) at a first end thereof;
a first elongate toolbar (including 22 of 24A, corresponding to 38A, 38A-1, 38A-2, and 38A-3 in Fig. 3) extending laterally outward from a second end of the frame (see Fig. 1) and carrying a first ground-engaging row unit (including 33 of 24A, corresponding to 33B in Fig. 3);
a second elongate toolbar (including 22 of 24B, corresponding to 38A, 38A-1, 38A-2, and 38A-3 in Fig. 3) extending laterally outward from the second end of the frame (see Fig. 1) and carrying a second ground-engaging row unit (including 33 of 24B, corresponding to 33B in Fig. 3);
a first sensor (50 of or on 24A) configured to sense a position of the first ground-engaging row unit relative to ground (see paras. 0027-0029);
a second sensor (50 of or on 24B) configured to sense a position of the second ground-engaging row unit relative to the ground (see paras. 0027-0029);
a first actuator (including 32A and/or 32B in Fig. 1, corresponding to 32A-1 in Fig. 3) configured to rotate the first elongate toolbar relative to the frame based at least in part on the sensed position of the first ground-engaging row unit (see para. 0030); and
a second actuator (including 32E and/or 32F in Fig. 1, corresponding to 32A-1 in Fig. 3) configured to rotate the second elongate toolbar relative to the frame based at least in part on the sensed position of the second ground-engaging row unit (see para. 0030).
Regarding claim 2, Fanshier discloses the first ground-engaging row unit (including 33 of 24A, corresponding to 33B in Fig. 3) being coupled to the first elongate toolbar by a first parallel linkage (as 33B is coupled to 38A by 44 in Fig. 3), and the second ground-engaging row unit (including 33 of 24B, corresponding to 33B in Fig. 3) being coupled to the second elongate toolbar by a second parallel linkage (as 33B is coupled to 38A by 44 in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Fanshier discloses the first sensor (50 of or on 24A) comprising a rotary sensor configured to measure an angle of an element of the first parallel linkage (see paras. 0027-0029), and the second sensor (50 of or on 24B) comprising a rotary sensor configured to measure an angle of an element of the second parallel linkage (see paras. 0027-0029).
Regarding claim 4, Fanshier discloses the first sensor (50 of or on 24A) and the second sensor (50 of or on 24A) each comprising an ultrasonic, lidar, or radar sensor (see para. 0031).
Regarding claim 5, Fanshier discloses a controller (including 34) configured to:
receive a first signal from the first sensor and a second signal from the second sensor (see paras. 0029 and 0031); and
control the first actuator based on the first signal and the second actuator based on the second signal (see para. 0030).
Regarding claim 6, Fanshier discloses a first control component (of 36) configured to drive the first actuator (see para. 0019), and a second control component (of 36) configured to drive the second actuator (see para. 0019), wherein the controller is configured to send control signals to the control components (see para. 0019).
Regarding claim 7, Fanshier discloses the control components (of 36) each comprising a control valve (see para. 0019). Additionally, Fanshier discloses control components comprising an air valve, an electronic control component, a magnetic control component, or an electromagnetic control component (see claim 6 of Fanshier).
Regarding claim 8, Fanshier discloses a third sensor (48 of or on 24A) configured to sense a position of the first elongate toolbar relative to the ground (see para. 0031), and a fourth sensor (48 of or on 24B) configured to sense a position of the second elongate toolbar relative to the ground (see para. 0031).
Regarding claim 9, Fanshier discloses the first actuator (including 32A and/or 32B in Fig. 1, corresponding to 32A-1 in Fig. 3) being configured to raise and lower the first elongate toolbar relative to the frame based in part on the sensed position of the first elongate toolbar relative to the ground (see paras. 0030-0031), and the second actuator (including 32E or 32F in Fig. 1, corresponding to 32A-1 in Fig. 3) being configured to raise and lower the second elongate toolbar relative to the frame based in part on the sensed position of the second elongate toolbar relative to the ground (see paras. 0030-0031).
Regarding claim 10, Fanshier discloses the frame (including 16, 18, and 26) comprising an integral elongate toolbar (including 20 and/or 22 of 26).
Regarding claim 11, Fanshier discloses the first and second elongate toolbars (including 22 of 24A, and including 22 of 24B) being each rotatably coupled (via their coupling to 20 and/or via 24 being pivotally coupled to 26 as set forth in para. 0016) to the integral elongate toolbar (of 26) of the frame.
Regarding claim 12, Fanshier discloses a control system for an implement comprising a longitudinally extending frame (including 16, 18, and 26), a first elongate toolbar (including 22 of 24A, corresponding to 38A, 38A-1, 38A-2, and 38A-3 in Fig. 3) extending laterally outward from the frame (see Fig. 1) and carrying a first ground-engaging row unit (including 33 of 24A, corresponding to 33B in Fig. 3), and a second elongate toolbar (including 22 of 24B, corresponding to 38A, 38A-1, 38A-2, and 38A-3 in Fig. 3) extending laterally outward from the frame (see Fig. 1) and carrying a second ground-engaging row unit (including 33 of 24B, corresponding to 33B in Fig. 3), the control system comprising:
a first actuator (including 32A and/or 32B in Fig. 1, corresponding to 32A-1 in Fig. 3) connecting (via 20) the first elongate toolbar to the frame (see Fig. 1);
a second actuator (including 32E and/or 32F in Fig. 1, corresponding to 32A-1 in Fig. 3) connecting (via 20) the second elongate toolbar to the frame (see Fig. 1);
a first sensor (50 of or on 24A) configured to sense a position of the first ground-engaging row unit relative to ground (see paras. 0027-0029);
a second sensor (50 of or on 24B) configured to sense a position of the second ground-engaging row unit relative to the ground (see paras. 0027-0029); and
a controller (including 34) configured to receive a first signal from the first sensor indicating the position of the first ground-engaging row unit relative to the ground and a second signal from the second sensor indicating the position of the second ground-engaging row unit relative to the ground (see paras. 0029 and 0031), wherein the controller is configured to cause the first actuator to raise or lower the first elongate toolbar based on the sensed position of the first ground-engaging row unit and to cause the second actuator to raise or lower the second elongate toolbar based on the sensed position of the second ground-engaging row unit (see para. 0030).
Regarding claim 13, Fanshier discloses a first control component (of 36) configured to drive the first actuator (see para. 0019), and a second control component (of 36) configured to drive the second actuator (see para. 0019), wherein the controller is configured to send control signals to the control components (see para. 0019).
Regarding claim 14, Fanshier discloses the control components (of 36) each comprising a control valve (see para. 0019). Additionally, Fanshier discloses control components comprising an air valve, an electronic control component, a magnetic control component, or an electromagnetic control component (see claim 6 of Fanshier).
Regarding claim 15, Fanshier discloses a third sensor (48 of or on 24A) configured to sense a position of the first elongate toolbar relative to the ground (see para. 0031), and a fourth sensor (48 of or on 24B) configured to sense a position of the second elongate toolbar relative to the ground (see para. 0031).
Regarding claim 16, Fanshier discloses a computer-implemented method for operating an implement that comprises a longitudinally extending frame (including 16, 18, and 26), a first elongate toolbar (including 22 of 24A, corresponding to 38A, 38A-1, 38A-2, and 38A-3 in Fig. 3) extending laterally outward from the frame (see Fig. 1) and carrying a first ground-engaging row unit (including 33 of 24A, corresponding to 33B in Fig. 3), and a second elongate toolbar (including 22 of 24B, corresponding to 38A, 38A-1, 38A-2, and 38A-3 in Fig. 3) extending laterally outward from the frame (see Fig. 1) and carrying a second ground-engaging row unit (including 33 of 24B, corresponding to 33B in Fig. 3), the method comprising:
receiving (with 34, as set forth in paras. 0029 and 0031) an indication of a position of the first ground-engaging row unit relative to ground sensed by a first sensor (50 of or on 24A);
receiving (with 34, as set forth in paras. 0029 and 0031) an indication of a position of the second ground-engaging row unit relative to the ground sensed by a second sensor (50 of or on 24B);
causing a first actuator (including 32A and/or 32B in Fig. 1, corresponding to 32A-1 in Fig. 3) to raise or lower the first elongate toolbar relative to the frame based at least in part on the indication of the position of the first ground-engaging row unit (see para. 0030); and
causing a second actuator (including 32E and/or 32F in Fig. 1, corresponding to 32A-1 in Fig. 3) to raise or lower the second elongate toolbar relative to the frame based at least in part on the indication of the position of the second ground-engaging row unit (see para. 0030).
Regarding claim 17, Fanshier discloses sensing (with 48 of or on 24A) a position of the first elongate toolbar relative to the ground (as set forth in para. 0031), and sensing (with 48 of or on 24B) a position of the second elongate toolbar relative to the ground (as set forth in para. 0031).
Regarding claim 18, Fanshier discloses causing the first actuator (including 32A and/or 32B in Fig. 1, corresponding to 32A-1 in Fig. 3) to raise or lower the first elongate toolbar relative to the frame comprises sending a first control signal (from 34) to a first control component (of 36) associated with the first actuator (as set forth in para. 0019), and causing the second actuator (including 32E and/or 32F in Fig. 1, corresponding to 32A-1 in Fig. 3) to raise or lower the second elongate toolbar relative to the frame comprises sending a second control signal (from 34) to a second control component (of 36) associated with the second actuator (as set forth in para. 0019).
Regarding claim 19, Fanshier discloses receiving (with 34) the indication of the first position of the first ground-engaging row unit (including 33 of 24A, corresponding to 33B in Fig. 3) relative to the ground sensed by the first sensor (50 of or on 24A) comprises receiving a first signal from the first sensor (see paras. 0029-0031), and receiving (with 34) the indication of the second position of the second ground-engaging row unit (including 33 of 24B, corresponding to 33B in Fig. 3) relative to the ground sensed by the second sensor (50 of or on 24B) comprises receiving a second signal from the second sensor (see paras. 0029-0031).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Sauder et al. (US 9,320,190) shows sensors (1360) mounted on a wing toolbar (of 410; see Fig. 14), wherein the sensors are configured to sense a position of the toolbar relative to the ground (see col. 9, line 55 to col. 10, line 40).
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/12/13/25
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675