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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, "wherein the ground wheel axis and the pivot axis are at different vertical heights" (in claim 21) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Also, Figures 7 and 8 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (as set forth in para. 0047 of the specification). See MPEP § 608.02(g).
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 Interpretation
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. Claim 1 has been amended to recite "wherein the tilling section and the ground engaging tools pivot relative to the back end of the main frame around only one axis that is generally horizontal and perpendicular to the direction of travel of the cultivator." For clarification, this recitation is interpreted to mean that the tilling section and the ground engaging tools pivot relative to the back end of the main frame around only one horizontal and perpendicular axis (wherein "horizontal" and "perpendicular" are defined as recited) and is NOT interpreted to mean the tilling section and the ground engaging tools pivot relative to the back end of the main frame around only one axis (wherein the only one axis is generally horizontal and perpendicular to the direction of travel of the cultivator).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite "wherein the tilling section and the ground engaging tools pivot relative to the back end of the main frame around only one axis that is generally horizontal and perpendicular to the direction of travel of the cultivator." However, the original disclosure does not adequately describe or show ground engaging tools that pivot with the tilling section relative to the back end of the main frame around only one axis that is generally horizontal and perpendicular to the direction of travel. On the contrary, the ground engaging tools shown (150, 150A, 150B) are discs, that in functioning, pivot relative to the back end of the main frame around another axis that is generally horizontal and perpendicular to the direction of travel of the cultivator, as the discs rotate relative to the tilling section about such an axis. Ground engaging tools that "pivot relative to the back end of the main frame around only one axis that is generally horizontal and perpendicular to the direction of travel of the cultivator" are neither detailed nor described in such a manner to convey possession of such tools. Thus, the amendment to claim 1 is new matter, and claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) such that clarification and/or correction are required. Additionally, claims 2-5 and 19-25 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1.
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 1-5 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), wherein the pivot axis is generally horizontal and perpendicular to a direction of travel of the cultivator (see Figs. 1-3, wherein the pivot axis extends into and out of Figs. 2 and 3, and wherein the direction of travel is to the right in Figs. 2 and 3);
a pair of main ground wheels (including or of inner 35s in Fig. 1) attached (via 36 and 12) 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 and the ground engaging tools pivot relative to the main frame around the pivot axis (6, 7, 8, 9, and 14 pivoting relative to the main frame via 15), and
wherein the tilling section and the ground engaging tools pivot relative to the back end of the main frame around only one axis that is generally horizontal and perpendicular to the direction of travel of the cultivator (6, 7, 8, 9, and 14 pivoting relative to the main frame around only one axis that is generally horizontal and perpendicular to the direction of travel as defined by 15).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see labeled p. 6, filed 7/24/2026, with respect to the abstract have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
In light of the claim amendments, Applicant’s arguments, see labeled pp. 6-, filed 7/24/2026, with respect to Cornelius (US 4,272,097) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections over Cornelius have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see labeled pp. 10-11, filed 7/24/2026, with respect to Blair (US 3,954,144) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues: "Claim 1 specifies, among other things, 'a tilling section pivotally attached to the back end of the main frame' and 'a pair of main ground wheels attached to the main frame'. ... However, the wheels 35 [of Blair] are not attached to the sides 3 of the main frame 1 or any portion of the main frame 1. Instead, the wheels 35 are attached to the central wing member 7 (or what is asserted as analogous to the tilling section of the claim). ... The Blair reference explicitly teaches that the inner wheels 35 are connected to the elements that are said to be analogous to the tilling section and not the main frame 1 (including the sides 3) as required by claim 1. Therefore, the Blair reference fails to anticipate claim 1 because it lacks at least this element of claim 1." (See Remarks of 7/24/2026, labeled pp. 10-11.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because it relies on an interpretation of "a pair of main ground wheels attached to the main frame" that is unduly narrow with respect to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Given the BRI, the limitation of "a pair of main ground wheels attached to the main frame" is interpreted to be met by main ground wheels operatively and/or indirectly attached (e.g., attached via other structure) to the main frame. This interpretation is met by Blair since Blair discloses the pair of main ground wheels (including or of inner 35s in Fig. 1) attached (via 36 and 12) to the main frame (including 3). Notably, this interpretation is supported by the specification of the instant application, wherein the main ground wheels are not directly attached to the main frame, but rather "the main ground wheels 90A, 90B are connected to the main frame by swing arms 91A, 91B," as described in para. 0052. Additionally, it is noted that the specification sets forth and describes the swing arms as separate and distinct from the main frame (i.e., the swing arms are not part of the main frame). Furthermore, to require specific details (e.g., some sort of direct attachment) not positively recited in the claims would require improperly imparting limitations from the specification into the claims, in direct contradiction of para. 0098 in the instant specification.
Conclusion
Prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: Hickman (US 435,831), Zimmer (US 3,154,151), Arnold et al. (US 5,839,516), and Hudgins (US 6,415,873) disclose cultivators as in at least claim 1.
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/9/18/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights