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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: page 13, line 6, it appears “deep, medium, and shallow” should be changed to –shallow, medium, and deep—.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Positions “302”, “304” set forth in paragraph [0042];
“the L arrow in Figure 6” (para. [0045], lns. 9-10), there is no Figure 6 and also no “L arrow”.
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. 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 6, 7, 11, and in the penultimate line, “course” should be changed to –coarse—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 7, 8, 11, “course” should be changed to –coarse—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 10-11, “a ground engaging” should be changed to –the ground engaging—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 6, 7, 11, “course” should be changed to –coarse—. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-4, 6-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klenz et al. 2011/0282556 A1 in view of Hulin CA 2899761 A1.
Independent Claim 1: Klenz discloses an air seeder (para. [0011], lns. 7-12) for an agricultural implement, comprising:
a frame (5);
a plurality of seeding units (1) coupled to the frame;
a linkage (unnumbered parallel linkage seen below cylinder 11 in Fig. 1) coupling an arm (3) to the frame, wherein the arm is coupled to a ground engaging member (9) to hold the ground engaging member at a course setting height relative to the frame (via 27, see Fig. 5 and para. [0046]) to provide a course setting (in each of notches 30 seen in Fig. 5) ground penetration depth of the ground engaging member; and
an actuator (15) having a piston and cylinder arrangement (para. [0029], lns. 8-10) operationally coupled to the arm and configured to adjust the ground penetration depth of the ground engaging member (see the final two lines of para. [0029], and paras. [0030-0032]) relative to the course setting ground penetration depth to provide a fine setting seeding depth (throughout any of the infinite positions between the fully extended and fully retracted positions of 15) of the ground engaging member,
wherein the piston and cylinder arrangement is operable to change the height of the ground engaging member relative to the frame (seen between Figs. 1 and 3) by movement of the cylinder to make fine adjustments (throughout any of the infinite positions between the fully extended and fully retracted positions of 15) to the ground penetration depth of the ground engaging member relative to the course setting ground penetration depth, as per claim 1.
However, Klenz fails to disclose wherein the piston and cylinder arrangement comprises a two-stage cylinder, as per claim 1.
Hulin discloses a similar implement wherein the piston and cylinder arrangement (37) comprises a two-stage cylinder (page 11, lns. 8-10), as per claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the two-stage cylinder of Hulin for the continuous cylinder of Klenz in light of Hulin’s teaching that the two types of cylinders are old and known alternatives to each other.
Dependent Claims 2-4, 6-15: Hulin, of the resultant combination above, further discloses, wherein the two-stage cylinder (37) is operable in only three positions, including a full stroke position (low position), a nominal stroke position (medium position), and a closed position (high position), each of the positions defining a different ground penetration depth (page 11, lns. 8-10), as per claim 2;
wherein the closed position defines a bump up planting depth (high position), the nominal stroke position defines a nominal planting depth (medium position), and the full stroke position defines a bump down planting depth (low position), as per claim 3;
wherein a change in depth between each of the positions is the same (this must be the case in order for the “medium position”, page 11, lns. 8-10), as per claim 4;
wherein the two-stage cylinder (37) is configured to perform three-point ground penetration depth control (page 11, lns. 8-10), as per claim 12;
wherein the two-stage cylinder (37) is configured to perform two-point ground penetration depth control in a high-low control arrangement (in the medium and low positions, page. 11, lns. 8-10), as per claim 13.
Klenz further discloses wherein the arm (3) includes a pivot point (at BA) and the two stage cylinder (15, two-stage when combined with Hulin) is configured to change a position of at least one end of the arm in response to movement of a cylinder portion of the cylinder causing rotation about the pivot point (as seen between Figs. 1 and 3), as per claim 6;
a user input (17) remote from the actuator (15), wherein the user input is configured to receive an input and generate a control signal in response to the received input, the control signal transmitted to the actuator to change the ground penetration depth (see para. [0034]) of the ground engaging member (9), as per claim 7;
wherein the user input (17) is positioned within a cab of a vehicle towing the air seeder (Abstract, lines 11-12), as per claim 8;
wherein the user input (17) is positioned on the air seeder (on the vehicle of the air seeder, Abstract, lns. 11-12), as per claim 9;
wherein the two-stage cylinder (15, when combined with Hulins) comprises a hydraulically controlled cylinder (para. [0029], lns. 7-10), as per claim 10;
wherein the two-stage actuator (15, when combined with Hulins) is automatically controlled in response to sensed conditions received from one or more sensors in a closed feedback loop (see para. [0006]), as per claim 11;
one or more wheels (7), wherein the piston and cylinder arrangement (15) is mechanically coupled to the arm, the coupling is one of above (above as seen in Fig. 1) or below the arm, and the arm is configured as an intermediate arm between the linkage (unnumbered parallel linkage seen below cylinder 11 in Fig. 1) and the one or more wheels (seen in Fig. 1), as per claim 14;
wherein the piston and cylinder arrangement (15) forms part of the arm (3, as seen in Fig. 1), as per claim 15.
Independent Claim 16: Klenz discloses an actuator for an air seeder (para. [0011], lns. 7-12), the actuator comprising:
a piston and cylinder arrangement (15); and
a linkage (unnumbered parallel linkage seen below cylinder 11 in Fig. 1) configured to operationally couple the piston and cylinder arrangement to a movable arm (3) capable of rotation at a pivot point (at BA),
wherein the arm is coupled to a ground engaging member (9) to hold the ground engaging member at a course setting height relative to a frame (via 27, see Fig. 5 and para. [0046]) of the air seeder to provide a course setting seeding depth of the ground engaging member,
wherein a piston of the piston and cylinder arrangement is movable to rotate the arm at the pivot point and to cause a ground engaging member coupled to the moveable arm to change a seeding depth relative to the course setting seeding depth to provide a fine setting seeding depth of the ground engaging member (a fine setting is provided at least because the arrangement provides continuous adjustment along its extension),
wherein the linkage is coupled to the frame (5) of the air seeder, the frame supporting a plurality of seeding units (1), and the frame not moving in response to movement of the piston (as seen in Fig. 1), as per claim 16.
However, Klenz fails to disclose wherein the piston and cylinder arrangement is configured to operate at a plurality of discrete set points, as per claim 16.
Hulin discloses a similar actuator wherein the piston and cylinder arrangement (37) is configured to operate at a plurality of discrete set points (page 11, lns. 8-10), as per claim 16.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the two-stage cylinder of Hulin for the continuous cylinder of Klenz in light of Hulin’s teaching that the two types of cylinders are old and known alternatives to each other.
Dependent Claims 17-18: Hulin, of the resultant combination above, further discloses wherein the piston and cylinder arrangement (37) comprises a hydraulic cylinder (page 11, ln. 5) operable to define only three seeding depths (pg. 11, lns. 8-10), as per claim 17;
wherein the piston and cylinder arrangement (37) comprises a hydraulic cylinder (page 11, ln. 5) operable to define only two seeding depths (page 11, lns. 8-10, as set by an operator, the high position could be a transport position), as per claim 18.
Independent Claim 19: Klenz discloses an apparatus used by a method of air seeding depth control, the method comprising:
configuring an air seeder (para. [0011], lns. 7-12) for adjustable depth control using an actuator (15), the actuator operationally coupled to an intermediate arm (3) of the air seeder, the arm being coupled to a ground engaging member (9) to hold the ground engaging member at a manually preconfigured course setting height relative to a frame (5, via 27, see Fig. 5 and para. [0046]) supporting a plurality of seeding units (1) of the air seeder to provide a course setting ground penetration depth of the ground engaging member; and
controlling the actuator from a remote user interface (17) to adjust a seeding depth by changing the ground penetration depth of the ground engaging member of the air seeder relative to the course setting ground penetration depth (see para. [0034]) to provide a fine setting seeding depth (a fine setting is provided at least because the arrangement provides continuous adjustment along its extension) of the ground engaging member,
wherein a position of the intermediate arm is changed by a pivoting motion (at BA) to adjust the seeding depth (as seen between Figs. 1 and 3), and
wherein a position of the frame supporting the plurality of seeding units of the air seeder is not changed (as seen between Figs. 1 and 3), as per claim 19.
However, Klenz fails to disclose wherein the actuator has a plurality of discrete set points, as per claim 19.
Hulin discloses a similar actuator (37) has a plurality of discrete set points (page 11, lns. 8-10), as per claim 19.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the two-stage cylinder of Hulin for the continuous cylinder of Klenz in light of Hulin’s teaching that the two types of cylinders are old and known alternatives to each other.
Dependent Claim 20: Klenz further discloses wherein the controlling is performed based on one or more sensed conditions, the one or more sensed conditions including at least one of observed conditions or received data from one or more sensors (see para. [0006]), as per claim 20.
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(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klenz et al. in view of Hulin as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Dean et al. 4,811,795.
Dependent Claim 5: The seeder is disclosed as applied above. However, the combination fails to disclose one or more spacers at an end of the two-stage cylinder, wherein the closed position defines a bump up planting depth, the nominal stroke position defines a nominal planting depth, and the full stroke position defines a bump down planting depth, wherein a change in depth between each of the positions is not the same, as per claim 5.
Dean discloses a similar seeder comprising one or more spacers (28) at an end of the two-stage cylinder (when combined with Klenz and Hulin), wherein the closed position defines a bump up planting depth, the nominal stroke position defines a nominal planting depth, and the full stroke position defines a bump down planting depth, wherein a change in depth between each of the positions is not the same (as determined by the operator’s spacer arrangement), as per claim 5.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Dean’s spacers on the two-stage cylinder of Klenz and Hulin in order to vary the stroke of the cylinder and hench the depth(s) of the ground engaging member.
Response to Arguments
Please see the updated rejections above in response to applicant’s claim amendments.
Conclusion
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 Alicia M. Torres whose telephone number is 571-272-6997. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-6997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph M. Rocca, can be reached at (571) 272-8971.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the group receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-3600. The fax number for this Group is 571-273-8300.
/Alicia Torres/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 February 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights