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 were received on 18 June 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
CLAIMS 1-4, 7-14 AND 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodel et al. (WO 2018/053274 A1) in view of Hodel et al.
(US 2020/0337216 A1).
CLAIMS 1-4 AND 7-9
CLAIM 1 Hodel et al. ‘274 (“Hodel ‘274”) discloses a split gauge-wheel assembly (Figs. 32B, 32C, 32F) for a planter row unit (10), the assembly comprising:
an inner gauge wheel (52-1-i) configured to rotate about an axis (957-1);
an outer gauge wheel (52-1-o) configured to rotate about the axis (957-1), wherein the inner gauge wheel and outer gauge wheel define a gap therebetween; and
a knife (923-1, Fig. 32G) disposed in the gap between the inner gauge wheel (52-1-i) and the outer gauge wheel (52-1-o), the knife defining a flow channel (997) configured to deliver liquid at a rear end of the knife (relative to the direction of travel of the row unit).
Hodel ‘274, as embodied in Fig. 32x, fails to teach a scraper. However, Hodel et al. ‘216 (“Hodel ‘216”) shows a split gauge-wheel assembly (Figs. 33A-33G) including a knife (923) disposed in a gap between an inner gauge wheel (52-1-i) and an outer gauge wheel (52-1-o), and further including a scraper (879) connected to the knife, whereby the scraper is configured to remove soil and residue from the gap at a location trailing the gauge wheels axis (57) when the assembly travels in a normal forward direction. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have connected a scraper (Hodel ‘216, 879) to the prior art knife (Hodel ‘274, 923, Fig. 32G) in the manner suggested by Hodel ‘216. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for limiting soil spray during use (Hodel ‘216, [0125]), and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 2 In the prior art combination, the inner gauge wheel (Hodel ‘274, 52-1-i) and the outer gauge wheel (Hodel ‘274, 52-1-o) form a unitary structure.
CLAIM 3 In the prior art combination, the inner gauge wheel (Hodel ‘274, 52-1-i) and the outer gauge wheel (Hodel ‘274, 52-1-o) are each connected to a hub (Hodel ‘274, Fig. 32A, center hub).
CLAIM 4 In the prior art combination, Hodel ‘274 as embodied in Fig. 32x fails to teach expressly a gauge-wheel arm. However, with reference to the embodiment of Fig. 22A, Hodel ‘274 teaches a gauge wheel (Hodel ‘274, 52-1) comprising an inner gauge wheel (Hodel ‘274, 52-1-A) and an outer gauge wheel (Hodel ‘274, 52-1-B), wherein the inner and outer gauge wheels share a common axle connected to a gauge-wheel arm (Hodel ‘274, p. 12, ll. 26-30). Additionally, Hodel ‘216 teaches a gauge wheel arm (Hodel ‘216, 53-1). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the prior art assembly such that it would have comprised a gauge-wheel arm (Hodel ‘216, 53-1) connected to the hub (Hodel ‘274, p. 12, ll. 26-30). The motivation for making the modification would have been to allow for various mounting positions of the gauge wheels relative to the row unit, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 7 In the prior art combination, the knife (Hodel ‘274, 923) is carried by an arm (Hodel ‘274, Fig. 32A, arm of bracket 21) pivotally attached (Hodel ‘274, Fig. 32A, via 125-1) to a frame of a row unit.
CLAIM 8 In the prior art combination, Hodel ‘274 as embodied in Fig. 32x fails to teach a biasing member. However, with reference to the embodiment of Fig. 26, Hodel ‘274 teaches a biasing member (86) configured to apply a force on the arm of the knife (Hodel ‘274, Fig. 32A, 923). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the prior art assembly such that it would have included a biasing member (Hodel ‘274, 86) configured to apply a force on the arm. The motivation for making the modification would have been to impart resiliency to the knife, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 9 In the prior art combination, the knife (Hodel ‘274, 923) defines a liquid flow channel (Hodel ‘274, 997) therein.
CLAIMS 10-14 AND 17-20
CLAIM 10 All of the limitations recited therein are taught by the combination of Hodel ‘274 and Hodel ‘216, as applied above to CLAIM 1. Additionally, Hodel ‘274 teaches a furrow-opening assembly (60) and a furrow-closing assembly (40).
CLAIM 11 All of the limitations recited therein are taught by the combination of Hodel ‘274 and Hodel ‘216, as applied above to CLAIM 1. Additionally, the row unit is configured to dispose fertilizer laterally from seed because the gap between the gauge wheels (Hodel ‘274, 52-1-I, 52-1-o) is laterally offset from any subsequently formed furrow, as indicated by the position of the gauge wheels relative to that of the furrow-opening assembly (Hodel ‘274, 60; Figs. 3, 5), and the flow channel (Hodel ‘274, 997) of the knife (Hodel ‘274, 923) is positioned within that gap.
CLAIM 12 All of the limitations recited therein are taught by the combination of Hodel ‘274 and Hodel ‘216, as applied above to CLAIM 2.
CLAIM 13 All of the limitations recited therein are taught by the combination of Hodel ‘274 and Hodel ‘216, as applied above to CLAIM 3.
CLAIM 14 All of the limitations recited therein are taught by the combination of Hodel ‘274 and Hodel ‘216, as applied above to CLAIM 4.
CLAIM 17 All of the limitations recited therein are taught by the combination of Hodel ‘274 and Hodel ‘216, as applied above to CLAIM 7.
CLAIM 18 All of the limitations recited therein are taught by the combination of Hodel ‘274 and Hodel ‘216, as applied above to CLAIM 8.
CLAIM 19 All of the limitations recited therein are taught by the combination of Hodel ‘274 and Hodel ‘216, as applied above to CLAIM 1.
CLAIM 20 All of the limitations recited therein are taught by the combination of Hodel ‘274 and Hodel ‘216, as applied above to CLAIM 1. Additionally, Hodel ‘274 shows (Fig. 32B) a second split gauge-wheel assembly (52-2-i, 52-2-o), wherein the axis about which the gauge wheels of the first split gauge-wheel assembly rotate is angled with respect to the axis about which the gauge wheels of the second split gauge-wheel assembly rotate (Fig. 32C).
CLAIMS 1, 5, 6, 10, 15 AND 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodel ‘274 et al. (WO 2018/053274 A1) in view of Hodel et al. (US 2020/0337216 A1).
CLAIMS 1 AND 10 Hodel ‘274, as embodied in Fig. 23, teaches all of the features of the claimed invention with the following exceptions.
Hodel ‘274 (Fig. 23) fails to teach expressly the knife (23; beginning on p. 11 at l. 32) disposed in the gap (110) between the inner and outer gauge wheels (52-1) and the knife defining a flow channel. However, in the alternative embodiment of Fig. 32x, Hodel ‘274 shows an assembly comprising a knife (923-1, Fig. 32G) disposed in the gap between an inner gauge wheel (52-1-i) and an outer gauge wheel (52-1-o), the knife defining a flow channel (997) configured to deliver liquid at a rear end of the knife (relative to the direction of travel of the row unit). 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 knife (23) of the Fig. 23 embodiment such that it would have been disposed in the gap (110) and defined a flow channel, as suggested by the alternative embodiment of Fig. 32x. The motivation for making modification would have been to include means for applying additives to the soil adjacent the furrow in a known manner and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Hodel ‘274, as embodied in Fig. 23, teaches a scraper (99-c) disposed on the knife (23; beginning on p. 11 at l. 32) but fails to teach the scraper configured to remove soil and residue from the gap between the inner gauge wheel and the outer gauge wheel at a location trailing the axis when the row unit travels in a normal forward direction. Hodel et al. ‘216 shows a split gauge-wheel assembly (Figs. 33A-33G) including a knife (923) disposed in a gap between an inner gauge wheel (52-1-i) and an outer gauge wheel (52-1-o), and further including a scraper (879) connected to the knife, whereby the scraper is configured to remove soil and residue from the gap at a location trailing the gauge wheels axis (57) when the assembly travels in a normal forward direction. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have connected the scraper (Hodel ‘274, 99-c) to the prior art knife (Hodel ‘274, 23) in the trailing configuration suggested by Hodel ‘216. The motivation for making the modification would have been to limit soil spray during use (Hodel ‘216, [0125]), and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIMS 5, 6, 15, 16 In the prior art combination, neither Hodel ‘274 nor Hodel ‘216 teaches the scraper (Hodel ‘274, 99-c) pivotally attached to the knife by a pivot bushing. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have pivotally connected the scraper to the knife with a pivot bushing, since the examiner takes Official Notice of the claimed structure as useful for imparting adjustability and reducing wear on structural members.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
With respect to CLAIMS 1 AND 10, Applicant argues the scraper (879) of Hodel ‘216 (Figs. 33A-33G) lacks a configuration capable of removing soil and residue from the gap between the inner and outer gauge wheels at a location trailing the axis of rotation (57) because the “wide portion” of the scraper is positioned below the gauge wheels (Fig. 33D). The examiner disagrees because the prior art scraper is not limited to the “wide portion” but includes its entire length. As admitted by Applicant, the scraper “connects to the knife 823 in the gap between the gauge wheels,” and it is this portion of the scraper that functions to remove soil and residue from the gauge wheel gap. Whether or not the prior art scraper was purposefully designed to remove soil from the gap between the inner and outer gauge wheels is immaterial to the fact that, because of its structural connection to the knife (823) between gauge wheels, the scraper functions effectively to remove soil and residue therefrom at a location trailing the axis. For these reasons, the rejection of the claims is maintained.
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 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, Christine M. Mills can be reached at (571)272-8322. 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/
05 September 2026
Prosecution Insights