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 .
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., ". 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 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 1-4 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cornelius (US 4,272,097).
Regarding claim 1, Cornelius discloses a cultivator comprising:
a main frame (including 14, 16, 26, 28, 30, 32, 55, and 57) having a front end (proximate 12) and a back end (including 14, 55, and 57);
a hitch assembly (12) connected to the front end of the main frame (see Fig. 1);
a tilling section (including 50 and 104) pivotally attached to the back end of the main frame (via 58) to pivot around a pivot axis (at connections of 105 and 107 to 58, about which said tilling section pivots) relative to the main frame;
a pair of main ground wheels (60 and 64) attached to the main frame (via 58, 62, and 66), the main ground wheels defining a ground wheel axis (through 62 and 66, and extending through the back end of 58) passing through centers of the main ground wheels (see Figs. 2, wherein the ground wheel axis is a vertical axis that passes through the centers of 60, 66, 62, and 64; and see Fig. 3, wherein the ground wheel axis is into and out of the figure and passes through the centers of the part labeled 58 and the wheel shown); and
a plurality of ground engaging tools connected to and extending below the tilling section (see Fig. 3 and col. 3, lines 64-65),
wherein the ground wheel axis is substantially aligned with the pivot axis in a horizontal direction (see Figs. 2, wherein the connections of 105 and 107 to 58 are along the ground wheel axis, such that ground wheel axis and the pivot axis are coincident in Fig. 2; and see Fig. 3, wherein the pivot axis, which is into and out of the figure at the center of the concentric circles at the connection of 107 to 58, is directly above and in vertical alignment, i.e., aligned horizontally, with the ground wheel axis, which is into and out of the figure at the center of the wheel shown), and
wherein the tilling section (particularly including 104 with respect to this limitation) pivots relative to the main frame (including 14, 16, 26, 28, 30, 32, 55, and 57) only around the pivot axis (at connections of 105 and 107 to 58; as 105 and 107 only pivot relative to the main frame only around their connections to 58; and since a portion of the tilling section meets this limitation, the tilling section as a whole is interpreted to meet this limitation).
Regarding claim 2, Cornelius discloses the ground wheel axis being positioned proximate the back end of the main frame (see Fig. 1, wherein a horizontal axis through the axles of 60 and 64 is proximate 14 relative to the front ends of 26, 28, 30, and 32 proximate 12, and see Fig. 2, wherein a vertical axis through 60, 62, 64, and 66 is proximate 16, 55, and 57 relative to 26 and 30 and the front end of the main frame).
Regarding claim 3, Cornelius discloses the tilling section (including 50 and 104) comprising a rear frame, a first wing frame, and a second wing frame (see annotated Fig. A, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
520
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. Cornelius (US 4,272,097) annotated Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 4, Cornelius discloses the cultivator having the main frame as set forth above, wherein the back end of the main frame further includes a frame member (58), and Cornelius discloses the tilling section (including 50 and 104) being pivotally attached to the back end of the main frame, by the back end of the main frame being pivotally connected to a front end of the rear frame (see col. 6, lines 10-19).
Regarding claim 19, Cornelius discloses the ground wheel axis being positioned behind the back end of the main frame (see Fig. 1, wherein a horizontal axis through the axles of 60 and 64 is proximate to 14 relative to the front ends of 26, 28, 30, and 32 proximate 12, and a horizontal axis through the axles of 60 and 64 is behind 14, i.e., lower than 14 in Fig. 1, and see Fig. 2, wherein a vertical axis through 60, 62, 64, and 66 is proximate to 16, 55, and 57 relative to 26 and 30 and the front end of the main frame, and a vertical axis through 60, 62, 64, and 66 is behind 16, 55, and 57, i.e., to the right of 16, 55, and 57 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Cornelius discloses the cultivator having the main frame as set forth above, wherein the back end of the main frame further includes a frame member (58), and Cornelius discloses the ground wheel axis being positioned substantially at the back end of the main frame (see Fig. 2, wherein a vertical axis through 60, 62, 64, and 66 is along and through, i.e., at, 58, and see Fig. 3, wherein a center of the main ground wheel is at 58).
Regarding claim 21, Cornelius discloses the ground wheel axis (see Fig. 3, wherein the ground wheel axis is into and out of the figure at the centers of 58 and the wheel shown) and the pivot axis (see Fig. 3, wherein the pivot axis, which is into and out of the figure at the center of the concentric circles at the connection of 107 to 58) being at different vertical heights (as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 22, Cornelius discloses a first wing ground wheel and a second wing ground wheel attached to a front end of the tilling section (see annotated Fig. A, above, wherein the tilling section includes the labeled frames).
Regarding claim 23, Cornelius discloses that the cultivator can be transformed from a field position into a transport position by pivoting the tilling section (including 50 and 104) upwards around the pivot axis (at connections of 105 and 107 to 58) relative to the main frame (including 14, 16, 26, 28, 30, 32, 55, and 57) while the pair of main ground wheels (60 and 64) remain in place as the tilling section is pivoted upwards (as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 24, Cornelius discloses the tilling section (including 50 and 104) pivoted upwards substantially perpendicular to the main frame (including 14, 16, 26, 28, 30, 32, 55, and 57) when the cultivator is in the transport position (as shown in Fig. 3).
Claims 1-5 and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blair (US 3,954,144).
Regarding claim 1, Blair discloses a cultivator comprising:
a main frame (including 3) having a front end (including end of 3 adjacent 2) and a back end (including end of 3 adjacent 15);
a hitch assembly (including 2) connected to the front end of the main frame;
a tilling section (including 7, 8, 9, and 14) pivotally attached to the back end of the main frame to pivot around a pivot axis (through 15);
a pair of main ground wheels (including or of inner 35s in Fig. 1) attached to the main frame, the main ground wheels defining a ground wheel axis passing through centers of the main ground wheels; and
a plurality of ground engaging tools (including 6) connected to and extending below the tilling section,
wherein the ground wheel axis is substantially aligned with the pivot axis in a horizontal direction (both extending into and out of Figs. 2 and 3; and also shown substantially aligned therein), and
wherein the tilling section pivots relative to the main frame only around the pivot axis (7 and 14 only pivoting relative to the main frame via 15, meeting the limitation as disclosed by Applicant).
Regarding claim 2, Blair discloses the ground wheel axis (defined through the centers of 35) being positioned proximate the back end of the main frame (see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 3, Blair discloses the tilling section (including 7, 8, 9, and 14) comprising a rear frame (including 7); a first wing frame (including 8); and a second wing frame (including 9).
Regarding claim 4, Blair discloses the tilling section (including 7, 8, 9, and 14) being pivotally attached (at 15) to the back end of the main frame, by the back end of the main frame being pivotally connected (at 15) to a front end of the rear frame.
Regarding claim 5, Blair discloses a first side of the rear frame (including 7) being pivotally connected (at 16 via 17) to the first wing frame (including 8) and a second side of the rear frame (including 7) being pivotally connected (at 16 via 17) to the second wing frame (including 9).
Regarding claim 19, Blair discloses the ground wheel axis (defined through the centers of 35) being positioned behind the back end of the main frame (see Figs. 2 and 3, wherein the cultivator can be pitched clockwise to be positioned such that the ground wheel axis is entirely behind the back end of the main frame).
Regarding claim 20, Blair discloses the ground wheel axis (defined through the centers of 35) being positioned substantially at the back end of the main frame (see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 21, Blair discloses the ground wheel axis (defined through the centers of 35) and the pivot axis (through 15) being at different vertical heights (see Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 22, Blair discloses a first wing ground wheel (including outer 35 on 8) and a second wing ground wheel (including outer 35 on 9) attached to a front end of the tilling section (including 7, 8, 9, and 14; see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23, Blair discloses the cultivator can be transformed from a field position (see Fig. 1) into a transport position (see Fig. 2 or 3) by pivoting the tilling section (including 7, 8, 9, and 14) upwards (as shown in Figs. 2 and 3) around the pivot axis (through 15) relative to the main frame while the pair of main ground wheels remain in place (relative to the tilling section; held via 36, 38, and 39) as the tilling section is pivoted upwards.
Regarding claim 24, Blair discloses the tilling section (including 7, 8, 9, and 14) being pivoted upwards substantially perpendicular to the main frame when the cultivator is in the transport position (see Fig. 2 or 3, wherein the length of 13, unlabeled, is substantially perpendicular to the length of 3).
Regarding claim 25, Blair discloses the cultivator can be transformed from a field position (see Fig. 1) into a transport position (see Fig. 3) by pivoting the rear frame (including 7) of the tilling section upwards (as shown in Figs. 2 and 3) around the pivot axis (through 15) relative to the main frame while the pair of main ground wheels remain in place (relative to the tilling section; held via 36, 38, and 39) as the tilling section is pivoted upwards, and wherein the first wing frame (including 8) and the second wing frame (including 9) are pivoted (at 16 via 17) relative to the rear frame and forward towards a front end of the main frame (see Fig. 3).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelius in view of Anderson et al. (US 9,832,921)
Regarding claim 5, Cornelius discloses the cultivator with respect to claim 4, as set forth above. Cornelius does not explicitly disclose a first side of the rear frame being pivotally connected to the first wing frame and a second side of the rear frame being pivotally connected to the second wing frame. However, Anderson teaches a towed agricultural implement comprising a main frame (including 16), a hitch assembly (including 18), and a ground working section having a center frame (including 26 and 30), a first wing frame (including 24), and a second wing frame (including 28), and wherein a first side of the center frame is pivotally connected to the first wing frame (see col. 4, lines 17-40) and a second side of the center frame is pivotally connected to the second wing frame (see col. 4, lines 41-59).
Anderson is analogous because Anderson discloses a towed agricultural implement comprising a main frame, a hitch assembly, and a ground working section having wings. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cultivator of Cornelius with the pivoting connection of wings as taught by Anderson in order to "bend in response to variations in the surface of the soil." (See Anderson, col. 4, lines 17-59.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues: "The Cornelius reference discloses that the carriage frame 104 of the device is pivotally connected between the crossbar 58 and the implement tool bar 50 by end links 105 and 107. However, it also discloses that the carriage frame 104 is pivotally connected above the implement tool bar 58 at first ends of the end links 105 and 107 and also pivotally connected at second ends of the end links 105 and 107 to the implement tool bar 50. Therefore, the implement tool bar 50 would pivot relative to the main frame around two axis, one at each end of the end links 105 and 107 of the carriage frame, rather than only around one axis at the first ends of the end links 105 and 107 (said to be analogous to the pivot axis in claim 1). The Cornelius reference would therefore fail to have each and every element of amended claim 1 because it does not disclose at least the element of 'wherein the tilling section pivots relative to the main frame only around the pivot axis'." (See Remarks of 2/16/2026, labeled p. 8, emphasis Applicant's.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because it relies on an interpretation of "wherein the tilling section pivots relative to the main frame only around the pivot axis" that is unduly narrow with respect to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. The limitation of "wherein the tilling section pivots relative to the main frame only around the pivot axis" is interpreted to only require a portion of the tilling section pivoting relative to the main frame only around the pivot axis. This interpretation is met by Cornelius since Cornelius discloses a portion of the tilling section (i.e., a portion including 105 and 107 of 104) pivoting relative to the main frame only around the pivot axis, as described in the rejection above.
Further, Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because it relies on an interpretation of "wherein the tilling section pivots relative to the main frame only around the pivot axis" that is not commensurate with that disclosed by the instant application. The limitation of "wherein the tilling section pivots relative to the main frame only around the pivot axis" being interpreted to require "the entirety of the tilling section pivoting relative to the main frame only around the pivot axis" (as seemingly argued by Applicant) would also require the entirety of the tilling section to be a rigid, unitary structure (i.e., without portions pivoting relative to each other) since pivoting between portions of the tilling section would result in pivoting relative to the main frame (as argued by Applicant with respect to the identified tilling section of Cornelius). However, this interpretation would raise various § 112 issues because it is not supported by Applicant's disclosure, and it is directly contradicted by claim 5, which requires portions of the tilling section being pivotally connected to each other. In other words, if 50 pivoting relative to 105 and 107 in the tilling section of Cornelius (including 50 and 104) results in the tilling section of Cornelius failing to meet the amended claim language, then the tilling section (comprising a rear frame, a first wing frame, and a second wing frame) having a first side of the rear frame pivotally connected to the first wing frame and having a second side of the rear frame pivotally connected to the second wing frame results in the tilling section of the instant application failing to meet the amended claim language.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Hudgins (US 6,415,873) and Arnold et al. (US 5,839,516) disclose cultivators as claimed, having forwardly folding frames.
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 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/3/29/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights