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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The prior rejection is maintained.
While the preamble of claim 1 states “an agricultural row cleaner assembly”, the actual claim language details “a planter row unit including: a row unit frame…and an opening assembly” and locates the planter row unit behind “a mounting assembly”. The claim also details the “linkage arrangement” of the row cleaner assembly as the only row cleaner assembly component to connect to the mounting assembly. Therefore, the claim details two, independent subassemblies in the form of “the planter row unit” with an “opening assembly” and the “row cleaner assembly” and locates them relative to “the mounting assembly”. Similar prior art devices follow a similar configuration of opener assemblies and row cleaners and the claim does not link these subassemblies together. An amendment to the “opener assembly” of the plant row unit does not affect the “row cleaner assembly”.
Sivinski discloses similar configuration of a mounting assembly, planter row unit with an opener subassembly, and a row cleaner subassembly. The Annotated Figure directly below depicts the discussed components and subassemblies.
PNG
media_image1.png
379
837
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While these subassemblies work together, the features of one can be modified without affecting the other. In this case, the “row cleaner subassembly” has a completely different purpose from the opening subassembly; a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time could look to other prior art to modify the row cleaner subassembly only.
Brummelhuis discloses a similar configuration of a row cleaner subassembly and opener subassembly (similar to the claimed invention).
PNG
media_image2.png
269
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner asserts that the row cleaner subassemblies in Sivinski and Brummelhuis are independent of the rest of the row unit, which features a configuration similar to the claimed invention. The examiner believes this to be a simple substitution for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. This modification does not render Sivinski unsuitable for its intended purpose or change the principle mode of operation of Sivinski. As stated below, Sivinski and Brummelhuis are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of agricultural row units with row cleaner mechanisms and are generally geared towards solving the same problem of agricultural field planting preparation. A reference does not need to acknowledge all the ways in which it could be modified, so a person having ordinary skill in the art would be reasonable in looking toward related systems to produce modifications.
As for “why” a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would look to Brummelhuis specifically: simple substitution of one known element (or subassembly) for another to obtain predictable results is plainly listed as an example rationale that may support a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143 section I and section B). To further support this position, Sivinski acknowledges the fact that row cleaners can be substituted stating “the accessory 10…can be used on any row unit” (Sivinski; para [0077], lines 9-14). Brummelhuis states their specific row cleaner is specifically “suitable for narrow row spacing” (Brummelhuis; para [0009], lines 1-3). A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would, therefore, find it obvious to substitute the row cleaner of Sivinski with the row cleaner of Brummelhuis to use the device in agricultural fields with narrow rows while also expecting the row cleaner subassembly to yield the predictable result of clearing trash from the rows.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 are 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.
The reasons for allowance for claims 10-12 put forth in previous Office Actions still apply.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3-5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivinski (US 20190281756) in further view of Brummelhuis (US 20020078869).
Regarding claim 1, Sivinski discloses an agricultural row cleaner assembly, comprising:
a mounting assembly configured to connect to a toolbar of an agricultural planter forward of a planter row unit relative to a forward direction of travel of the planter row unit (Fig 6A of Sivinski; mounting assembly 16), the planter row unit including:
a row unit frame supported rearward of the toolbar (20); and
an opening assembly supported from the row unit frame (Fig 2A), the opening assembly including:
a first opener disk and a second opener disk, configured to open a seed trench in a soil surface as the agricultural planter travels in the forward direction of travel (pair of disc openers 22; para [0077], line 6);
a first opener gauge wheel arm rotatably supporting a first opener gauge wheel adjacent the first opener disk; and
a second opener gauge wheel arm rotatably supporting a second opener gauge wheel adjacent the second opener disk (pair of disc gauge wheels 24 depicted adjacent in Fig 2A; para [0077], line 6);
a cleaner assembly (10).
a linkage arrangement operably supporting the first and second row cleaner wheel arms and the row cleaner gauge wheel axle from the mounting assembly (linkages 32 and 50); and
an actuator connected with the linkage arrangement, such that when the actuator is actuated, the actuator causes a change in downforce applied by the row cleaner gauge wheel to the soil surface (actuator 56 changes the downforce on the gauge wheels 100).
Sivinski discloses a different cleaner assembly and fails to specifically disclose the row cleaner with first and second row cleaner wheel arms and row cleaner gauge wheel as currently claimed.
Brummelhuis discloses a similar agricultural row cleaner assembly with a mounting assembly (Fig 1/Fig 12; connection at 40), a linkage arrangement to support row cleaner wheel arms and row cleaner gauge wheel (linkage 6), and an actuator (5). Brummelhuis further teaches:
a first row cleaner wheel arm supporting a first row cleaner wheel rotatable about a first row cleaner wheel axle (front arm 10 with first wheel 2 rotatable about axle with axis A1; Fig 12 300C);
a second row cleaner wheel arm supporting a second row cleaner wheel rotatable about a second row cleaner wheel axle (arm 14 with second wheel 4 rotatable about axle with axis A2; Fig 12 300C);
a row cleaner gauge wheel disposed between the first row cleaner wheel arm and the second row cleaner wheel arm and rotatably supported on a row cleaner gauge wheel axle, the row cleaner gauge wheel axle disposed rearward of the first and second row cleaner wheel axles (gauge wheel 8 is disposed between the row cleaner arms and rotatable about axle with axis WA; 300C of Fig 12 depicts the row cleaner gauge wheel axle disposed rearward of the first and second row cleaner wheel axles).
Sivinski and Brummelhuis are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of agricultural row units with row cleaner mechanisms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sivinski and replaced the cleaner assembly with the analogous row cleaner assembly with row cleaner arms and row cleaner gauge wheel of Brummelhuis. One would have made this modification as a simple substitution of one known row cleaner assembly of a row unit for another to obtain predicable results.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sivinski and Brummelhuis discloses the agricultural row cleaner assembly wherein the linkage arrangement comprises:
a four bar linkage including an upper right bar, a lower right bar, an upper left bar, and a lower left bar (Sivinski; Figs 1-2 depict upper linkage pair 32 and lower linkage pair 50).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sivinski and Brummelhuis discloses the agricultural row cleaner assembly further including:
a right rear strut (Sivinski; 38); and
a left rear strut (Sivinski; 38); and
wherein:
the first row cleaner wheel arm is pivotably connected to the right rear strut;
the second row cleaner wheel arm is pivotably connected to the left rear strut (the first and second row cleaner wheel arms of the combination are pivotably connected to the struts; Sivinski even depicts cleaner wheel arms 136 that are pivotably connected to the struts in Fig 8);
the upper right bar and the lower right bar are pivotally connected to the right rear strut;
the upper left bar and the lower left bar are pivotally connected to the left rear strut (Sivinski Fig 6A; pivotal connections between the struts and each pair of linkages are at 40 and 54).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sivinski and Brummelhuis discloses the agricultural row cleaner assembly further including:
a right rear strut (Sivinski; 38); and
a left rear strut (Sivinski; 38); and
wherein:
the right rear strut is pivotally supported from the first row cleaner wheel arm;
the left rear strut is pivotally supported from the second row cleaner wheel arm (the first and second row cleaner wheel arms of the combination are pivotably connected to the struts; Sivinski even depicts cleaner wheel arms 136 that are pivotably connected to the struts in Fig 8);
the upper right bar and the lower right bar are pivotally connected to the first row cleaner wheel arm;
the upper left bar and the lower left bar are pivotally connected to the second row cleaner wheel arm (Sivinski Fig 6A; each pair of linkages are pivotally connected to each row cleaner arm through other elements).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sivinski and Brummelhuis discloses the agricultural row cleaner assembly wherein the row cleaner gauge wheel axle comprises a load pin (the term “load pin” is not a term of the art and therefore is interpreted reasonably broad; the axle is considered to be a load pin as it carries the gauge wheel which is considered to be a load).
Claim(s) 2, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivinski and Brummelhuis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Steinlage et al. (US 7568439).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sivinski and Brummelhuis fails to specifically disclose the agricultural row cleaner wherein the mounting assembly comprises a top plate and a front plate extending downwardly from the top plate.
However, Steinlage discloses a similar implement that connects to an agricultural toolbar (Fig 1) and teaches the use of a mounting assembly to make the connection to the agricultural toolbar that has a top plate and front plate that extends downwardly from the top plate (see Annotated Figure 1).
Sivinski, Brummelhuis, and Steinlage are all considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of agricultural implements and attaching the implement to a toolbar. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Sivinski and Brummelhuis to incorporate the teachings of Steinlage and modified the mounting assembly to include a top plate and front plate as taught by Steinlage. One would have made this combination to have a more robust and secure connection between the implement and toolbar.
PNG
media_image3.png
353
617
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Sivinski, Brummelhuis, and Steinlage disclose the agricultural row cleaner assembly wherein the top plate and the front plate are a unitary part (see Annotated Figure 1).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivinski and Brummelhuis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jensen et al. (US 6701857).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sivinski and Brummelhuis fails to specifically disclose the agricultural row cleaner further comprising a load sensor disposed on the first gauge wheel arm or the second gauge wheel arm.
However, Jensen discloses a similar implement with a gauge wheel arm and gauge wheel (Fig 6; arm 16 and 27, gauge wheel 25) and teaches the use of a load sensor disposed on the arm (sensor 40 disposed on 27; col 9, lines 31-33).
Sivinski, Brummelhuis, and Jensen are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of connecting agricultural implements to a toolbar. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Sivinski and Brummelhuis to incorporate the teachings of Jensen and combined the use of a sensor disposed on either gauge wheel arm. One would have made this combination to analyze the sensor output in order to maintain the proper cutting depth (Jensen; abstract).
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 BLAKE SCOVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30-6 (ET).
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.
/BLAKE E SCOVILLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
