DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This Non-Final action is in reply to the application 18005639 RCE filed on 04/27/2026.
Claims 1,4, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 20 are amended
Claim 8 is cancelled.
Claims 1 -7, 9 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
103 arguments
Examiner states that the applicants arguments are not persuasive.
The examiner states that FRANK discloses if a closed loop circuit that allows control of cylinders with in the circuit for controlling depth. FRANK also discloses that the circuit can be hydraulic or pneumatic as disclosed in para. 28. Additionally in para. 0121 of FRANK, it discloses of an actuator adjustment to be provided to control height by setting pressure of the fluid to a preselected pressure. Thus FRANK discloses the elements as amended by the applicants amended claims. Additionally the examiner states that BEAUJOT discloses of the parallel linkages and FRANK discloses of maintaining preselected pneumatic pressure for depth control in FRANK.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 5, 7, 9 – 10, 12-13, 15 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by WO2014015438 – Beaujot et al. hereinafter as BEAUJOT in view of US PG Pub 20190380259 – Frank et al. hereinafter as FRANK
Regarding Claim 1:
BEAUJOT discloses:
(Currently Amended) An implement for working an agricultural field, the implement comprising: a frame;(Fig. 1 – frame 14) and a plurality of row units ( fig. 1 – row unit – ground opener assembly ) carried by the frame (Fig. 1 – frame 14), each row unit comprising: a subframe ( fig. 1 – row unit – ground opener assembly – 10 ) trailing the frame (fig. 1 – frame – 14) and connected to the frame by an upper link (Fig. 1 actuator – 44) and a lower link (Fig. 1 Link 12) parallel to the upper link(fig. 1 – 44 and 12 are parallel where in the elements 20 is adjustable such that in a potential condition the elements form a specific dimension that this is parallel with the lower link) is connected to the frame at a first pivot and to the subframe at a second pivot, and the lower link is connected to the frame at a third pivot and to the subframe at a fourth pivot ( see figure 1 with pivots) at least two different ground-engaging tools carried by the subframe( see at least two different ground engaging tools, 51, 41, 43 and 56); and
at least one hydraulic actuator configured to change a length of the upper link (fig. 1 – actuator – 44, upper link as disclosed on drawing) or the lower link to keep the at least two different ground-engaging tools in contact with ground. ( see at least two different ground engaging tools, 51, 41, 43 and 56)
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
BEAUJOT discloses of a hydraulic actuator while FRANK discloses of a pneumatic actuator as a known alternative for a hydraulic actuator to achieve pressure on ground engagement tools. ( para. 0028 wherein force device can be hydraulic, pneumatic or electrically driven linkages). Wherein the at least one pneumatic actuator is in fluid communication with a pneumatic source carried by the frame(, the pneumatic source configured to maintain the at least one pneumatic actuator at a preselected pressure. (para. 0049 – where in the operation can adjust the pressure in the actuators)It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention to modify BEAUJOT hydraulic actuator with FRANK’s Pneumatic actuator, Wherein the at least one pneumatic actuator is in fluid communication with a pneumatic source carried by the frame, the pneumatic source configured to maintain the at least one pneumatic actuator at a preselected pressure.
Doing so merely constitutes the substitution of one known type of actuator mechanism and associated supply source for another to produce the predictable result of controlling the linkage of an implement (MPEP 2143, subsection I, B).
Regarding Claim 5:
FRANK discloses the pneumatic actuator ( para. 0028) in claim 1
BEAUJOT discloses:
The implement of wherein the upper link comprises the at least one actuator. (Fig. 1 – where in the upper link is disclosed in the figure of claim 1. Actuator 44)
Regarding Claim 7:
BEAUJOT discloses claim 1:
7. (Currently Amended) The implement of wherein the upper link or the lower link has a fixed length. (fig. 1 - where in lower link 12 has a fixed length)
Regarding Claim 9:
BEAUJOT discloses claim 1:
9. (Currently Amended) The implement of wherein the at least two different ground-engaging tools comprise an opener blade and a closing wheel. ( see at least two different ground engaging tools, 51 is closing wheel, 41, 43 and 56)
Regarding Claim 10:
BEAUJOT discloses claim 1:
10. (Currently Amended) The implement of wherein one of the at least two different ground-engaging tools trails another of the at least two different ground-engaging tools when the implement travels in the agricultural field. ( see at least fig. 1 two different ground engaging tools, 51, 41, 43 and 56)
Regarding Claim 12:
BEAUJOT / FRANK discloses claim 1
BEAUJOT / FRANK discloses of a pair of pneumatic actuators, Frank discloses of wherein the pneumatic source comprises a pressure tank carried by the frame and in fluid communication with the at least one pneumatic actuator ( para. 0048 – tank)
Regarding Claim 13:
FRANK discloses the pneumatic actuator ( para. 0028) in claim 1
BEAUJOT discloses claim 1:
13. (Currently Amended) The implement of wherein the at least one hydraulic actuator comprises at least one dual- action actuator. ( page 10, para. 1 – wherein hydraulic cylinder is a double acting hydraulic cylinder).
Regarding Claim 15:
BEAUJOT discloses:
15. (Currently Amended) A method of working an agricultural field, the method comprising:
pulling an implement through the agricultural field, the implement comprising:
a frame(Fig. 1 – frame 14) carrying a plurality of row units, each row unit ( fig. 1 – row unit – ground opener assembly ) comprising:
a subframe ( fig. 1 – row unit – ground opener assembly – 10 ) trailing the frame (fig. 1 – frame – 14) and connected to the frame by an upper link (Fig. 1 actuator – 44) and a lower link (Fig. 1 Link 12) parallel to the upper link(fig. 1 – 44 and 12 are parallel) is connected to the frame at a first pivot and to the subframe at a second pivot, and the lower link is connected to the frame at a third pivot and to the subframe at a fourth pivot ( see figure 1 with pivots) at least two different ground-engaging tools carried by the subframe( see at least two different ground engaging tools, 51, 41, 43 and 56); and
at least one hydraulic actuator configured to change a length of the upper link(fig. 1 – actuator – 44)
maintaining the at least two ground-engaging tools in contact with the agricultural field. ( see at least two different ground engaging tools, 51, 41, 43 and 56)
BEAUJOT discloses of a hydraulic actuator FRANK discloses of a pneumatic actuator as a known alternative for a hydraulic actuator to achieve pressure on ground engagement tools. ( para. 0028 wherein force device can be hydraulic, pneumatic or electrically driven linkages). Wherein the at least one pneumatic actuator is in fluid communication with a pneumatic source carried by the frame, the pneumatic source configured to maintain the at least one pneumatic actuator at a preselected pressure. (para. 0049 – where in the operation can adjust the pressure in the actuators) It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention to modify BEAUJOT hydraulic actuator with FRANK’s Pneumatic actuator and Wherein the at least one pneumatic actuator is in fluid communication with a pneumatic source carried by the frame, the pneumatic source configured to maintain the at least one pneumatic actuator at a preselected pressure. Doing so merely constitutes the substitution of one known type of actuator mechanism for another to produce the predictable result of controlling the linkage of an implement (MPEP 2143, subsection I, B).
Regarding Claim 16:
BEAUJOT / FRANK discloses claim 15:
BEAUJOT / FRANK discloses of pneumatic actuators, FRANK discloses wherein maintaining a selected pressure in the at least one pneumatic actuator ( pneumatic para. 0048 )in the pneumatic source
Regarding Claim 17:
BEAUJOT / FRANK discloses claim 15:
BEAUJOT discloses
17. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 15, wherein maintaining the at least two ground-engaging tools in contact with the agricultural field comprises maintaining the at least two ground-engaging tools in contact with the agricultural field over changes in terrain. ( see at least fig. 1 and page 11 para. 1 where in the rear gauging device and 52 where in this can raise and lower as needed. two different ground engaging tools, 51, 41, 43 and 56)
Regarding Claim 18:
BEAUJOT / FRANK discloses claim 15:
BEAUJOT discloses
18. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 15 wherein maintaining the at least two ground-engaging tools in contact with the agricultural field comprises maintaining a constant down pressure on each of the at least two ground-engaging tools. ( see at least fig. 1 and page 1 – where in gauge assembly for depth control to maintain the depth of the openers and related tools, two different ground engaging tools, 51, 41, 43 and 56 and pressure )
Regarding Claim 19:
BEAUJOT / FRANK discloses claim 15:
BEAUJOT discloses
19. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 15 wherein maintaining the at least two ground-engaging tools in contact with the agricultural field comprises applying equivalent down pressures to each of the at least two ground-engaging tools. (see at least fig. 1 and page 1 two different ground engaging tools, 51, 41, 43 and 56 and pressure)
Regarding Claim 20:
BEAUJOT / FRANK discloses claim 15:
BEAUJOT discloses of pneumatic actuators for claim 15, FRANK discloses changing the preselected pressure in the at least one pneumatic actuator from a cab of a tractor pulling the implement. (para. 0049 – where in the operation can adjust the pressure in the actuators)
Claim(s) 2, 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by WO2014015438 – Beaujot et al. hereinafter as BEAUJOT in view of US PG Pub 20190380259 – Frank et al. hereinafter as FRANK in view of US Patent 6962210 – Redenius et al. hereinafter as REDENIUS
Regarding Claim 2:
BEAUJOT / FRANK discloses claim 1
FRANK discloses of the pneumatic actuators from claim 1
BEAUJOT / FRANK a pneumatic actuator for one of the two parallel links ( four bar linkage) connecting the subframe to the frame, REDENIUS discloses of a four bar linkage that has two actuators.( col 2 line 57 – 67)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention for BEAUJOT / FRANK method of using pneumatic actuators instead of hydraulic actuators to combine with REDENIUS’s system of a four bar linkage in parallel that has a pair of cylinders. Doing so merely constitutes the substitution of actuator configuration for another to produce the predictable result of the ability to better control the ground engaging tools(MPEP 2143, subsection I, B)
Regarding Claim 3:
BEAUJOT / FRANK discloses the pneumatic actuators in claim 2 above, REDENIUS discloses the four bar linkages with parallel actuators in claim 2.
Regarding Claim 6:
BEAUJOT / FRANK disclose of claim 1
BEAUJOT / FRANK disclose of pneumatic actuators from claim 1, REDENIUS discloses the four bar linkages with parallel actuators.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention for BEAUJOT / FRANK method of using pneumatic actuators instead of hydraulic actuators to combine with REDENIUS’s system of a four bar linkage in parallel that has a pair of cylinders such that the lower linkage of the four bar parallel linkage would be a pneumatic actuator. Doing so merely constitutes the substitution of actuator configuration for another to produce the predictable result of the ability to better control the ground engaging tools(MPEP 2143, subsection I, B)
Claim(s) 4, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by WO2014015438 – Beaujot et al. hereinafter as BEAUJOT in view of US PG Pub 20190380259 – Frank et al. hereinafter as FRANK in view of US Patent 6962210 – Redenius et al. hereinafter as REDENIUS in view of US PG Pub 20200053944 – Sivinski et al. hereinafter as SIVINSKI
Regarding Claim 4:
BEAUJOT / FRANK / REDENIUS discloses of claim 2
BEAUJOT / FRANK / REDENIUS discloses of a pair of pneumatic actuators, SIVINSKI discloses the actuators are each connected as part of a pneumatic source.( para . 0057 common rail)
4. The implement of claim 2, wherein the pair of pneumatic actuators are each connected to a pneumatic source. ( para . 0057 common rail)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention for BEAUJOT / FRANK / REDENIUS disclosing of a pneumatic actuator for SIVINSKI each pneumatic source for the actuator. Doing so merely constitutes the substitution of actuators for another to produce the predictable result of the ability to utilize a common rail or tube for consistency of pressure (MPEP 2143, subsection I, B).
Regarding Claim 11:
BEAUJOT / FRANK / REDENIUS discloses of claim 2
BEAUJOT / FRANK / REDENIUS discloses of a pair of pneumatic actuators, SIVINSKI discloses of wherein the pneumatic sources comprises a compressor carried by the frame and in fluid communication with the at least one pneumatic actuator ( para. 0048 – air compressor)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention for BEAUJOT disclosing of a pneumatic actuator for a compressor that carried on frame and in fluid communication with a pneumatic actuator. Doing so merely constitutes the substitution of actuators for another to produce the predictable result of the ability to consistency of pressure (MPEP 2143, subsection I, B).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by WO2014015438 – Beaujot et al. hereinafter as BEAUJOT in view of US PG Pub 20190380259 – Frank et al. hereinafter as FRANK in view of US PG Pub 20170261009 – Paulessen et al. hereinafter as PAULESSEN
Regarding Claim 14:
BEAUJOT discloses of claim 1
BEAUJOT / FRANK discloses of pneumatic actuators and single acting actuators, PAULESSEN discloses the actuators are comprises at least 2 single action actuators. (two single acting cylinders, para. 0026)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention for BEAUJOT / FRANK disclosing of a pneumatic actuators for FRANKS 2 single action actuators. Doing so merely constitutes the substitution of one type of actuator for another to produce the predictable result of the moving ground tools in the soil (MPEP 2143, subsection I, B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-9511. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached on 5712720547. 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.
/A.H.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights