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 Final action is in reply to the application 18009166 amendment filed on 03/24/2026.
Claims 1 – 10 are amended
Claims 11 – 15 are new
Claims 1 - 15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to arguments
Claim to priority
The examiner acknowledges the applicants foreign priority claims
Response to 112
Examiner states applicant has addressed the 112 concerns.
Response to 103
The examiner does not find the applicants arguments persuasive. The applicant argues that the prior art KIRCHOFF teaches away. Examiner states that the applicants argument regarding KIRCHOFF teaching away is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that KURCHOFF or HODAPP does not disclose of lower tool carriers relative to a frame when a boom is from a working position to a transport position. KIRCHOFF disclose of raising the tools in order to gain ground clearance but the examiner doesn’t find the argument persuasive because if KIRCHOFF has the ability to raise for ground clearance it can has the ability to lower relative to the frame.
Additionally, the disclosure of desirable alternatives does not necessarily negate a suggestion for modifying the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. In In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the claims of a utility patent application were directed to a shoe sole with increased traction having hexagonal projections in a "facing orientation." 391 F.3d at 1196-97, 73 USPQ2d at 1142. The Board combined a design patent having hexagonal projections in a facing orientation with a utility patent having other limitations of the independent claim. 391 F.3d at 1199, 73 USPQ2d at 1144. Applicant argued that the combination was improper because (1) the prior art did not suggest having the hexagonal projections in a facing (as opposed to a "pointing") orientation was the "most desirable" configuration for the projections, and (2) the prior art "taught away" by showing desirability of the "pointing orientation." 391 F.3d at 1200-01, 73 USPQ2d at 1145-46. The court stated that "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. Therefore the KIRCHOFFs ability that disclose the ability tool carriers does not take away from the alternative of lowering the tool relative to the frame.HODAPP is used to disclose the boom that is foldable with respect to a base segment and does not deter KIRCHOFF from being combined with HODAPP. The applicant argues that KIRCHOFF does not teach or suggest at least one boom that is foldable with respect to a base segment, the examiner does not find the argument persuasive because this is taught by HODAPP at ( col 2 line 45 – 60 Fig. 1-5). Additionally, the applicant's arguments cannot argue against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Additionally the examiner states that based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the current claims does not provide specifically provide a frame of reference on the tool carrier position during the working position or transportation position with regard to the tool carrier position lowered relative to the frame in the transport position. Such that are the lowered tools only lowered during working position and during transportation or is it lowered only during the working position. The examiner recommend the applicant clarify the tools positions frame of reference with regards to the rest of the implementation.
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 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 10238021 – Kirchhoff et al. hereinafter as KIRCHHOFF in view of US Patent 4632417 – Hodapp et al. hereinafter as HODAPP
Regarding Claim 1:
KIRCHHOFF discloses:
(Currently Amended) A soil-working device for row crops, comprising:
a frame which extends transversely with respect to the direction of travel in a working position ; ( col 2 line 19 – 25 – wherein there is a transverse beam, and at least one tool for working a row. Interpreted such that it would be traveling the row. ( col 1 line 49- 52 – working position)
a plurality of tool carriers which are arranged on the frame respective a remotely adjustable height-guiding device( Col 2 line 1 – 18 – finger weeder tools that are mounted to a transverse beam) , wherein soil-working tools assigned to individual plant rows are arranged on the tool carriers ,( Col 2 line 1 – 18 – where in the finger weeder tools are for working a row of the row of crops) and at least the height guidance devices of tool carriers ( Col 2 line 1 – 18 – where in the finger weeder tools are for working a row of the row of crops) arranged on base segment are coupled to another by mean of a coupling control device, ( Col 2 line 43 – 46 – hydraulic cylinder)
the height-guiding devices of tool carriers arranged on the base segment move the tool carriers into a position in which they are lowered relative to the frame ( Col 1 line 40 – 67 - wherein height guidance unit is height adjustable to be lowered from the transverse frame)
KIRCHHOFF discloses of a transverse frame that discloses the height guidance unit which is height adjustable in the working position, HODAPP discloses:
a frame which extends transversely with respect to the direction of travel in a working position and which has a base segment and at least one boom which is able to be folded with respect to the base segment( col 2 line 45 – 60 Fig. 1-5)
a folding device for moving the at least one foldable boom between the working position and a transport position in which it is folded by at least approximately 90 degrees, (col 3 line 54 -67, col 6 line 15 – 30, fig. 3 )
wherein in that the folding device for each movement of the boom from the working position into the transport position (col 7 line 55 – 67 – hydraulic cylinder and fig. 1 transport position)
It would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the soil working device frame of height-guiding devices of tool carriers of KIRCHHOFF to include HODAPP’s ability to go from working position to transportation position. This would allow KIRCHHOFF to have the ability to reduce the turning radius of a tractor having a mounted toolbar and a trailing drawn toolbar of the same width without altering the tongue length of the trailing toolbar (HODAPP - col 2 line 24 – 28).
Regarding Claim 2:
HODAPP discloses the combination of a folding toolbar above in claim 1
2. (Currently Amended) the soil working device of claim 1, wherein the height-guiding devices of tool carriers arranged on the boom are coupled to the coupling control device in such a way that each time a boom is moved from the working position to the transport position, the height-guiding devices of tool carriers arranged on the boom move the tool carriers into a raised position. (HODAPP col 6 line 57 – col 7 line 19 - in order to provide support for the outer wing toolbar 16 when in the upraised, retracted position)
Regarding Claim 3:
HODAPP discloses the combination of a folding toolbar above in claim 1
3. (Currently Amended) the soil working device of claim 1, further comprising at least one support wheel , which is arranged on the frame via a remotely adjustable swivel device (Col 4 line 30 - 44 – trailing frame with wheels – wherein the wheel - 40 is the support wheel)
Regarding Claim 4:
KIRCHHOFF / HODAPP disclose claim 1:
HODAPP discloses the combination of a folding toolbar above in claim 1
4. (Currently Amended) the soil working device of claim 3 wherein the at least one swivel device is coupled to the coupling control device in such a way that whenever the boom is moved from the working position to the transport position, the swivel device swivels the at least one support wheel into a lift-out position. ( col 8 line 25 – 40 – raising for transport coupled through hydraulics)
Regarding Claim 5:
KIRCHHOFF / HODAPP disclose claim 1:
KIRCHHOFF discloses:
5. (Currently Amended) the soil working device of claim 1, wherein the height-guiding devices are each configured to move the tool carrier into positions spaced at least 30 centimeters apart (fig. 10 – col 5 line 3 – 20 - telescoping distance for height shift )
Regarding Claim 6:
KIRCHHOFF / HODAPP disclose claim 1:
KIRCHHOFF discloses:
6. (Currently Amended) the soil working device of claim 1, wherein the height-guiding devices comprise a releasable fixing device, for arranging the tool carriers on the frame , so that the tool carriers can be arranged on the frame at adjustable distances transversely to the direction of travel ( fig. 1 and col 4 line 13 – 30 – wherein holders have a fixation means meaning that holders can be removed and too allow tools to affix to beams)
Regarding Claim 7:
KIRCHHOFF / HODAPP disclose claim 1:
HODAPP discloses the combination in claim 1
7. (Currently Amended) the soil working device of claim 1, wherein at least the height-guiding devices on a tool carrier arranged on the boom are lockable ( lock pin col 6 line 57 – 67 lock pin for transport)
Regarding Claim 8:
HODAPP discloses the combination in claim 1
8. (Currently Amended) the soil working device of claim 1, wherein the coupling control device is configured as a hydraulic master circuit, so that whenever the boom is moved from the working position to the transport position, the height-guiding devices on the tool carrier arranged on the base segment can be controlled exclusively in the direction of the lowered position, the height-guiding devices on tool carriers arranged on the boom can be controlled exclusively in the direction of the raised position and/or the swivel devices can be controlled exclusively in the direction of the lift-out position. ( Col 8 line 5 – 60, hydraulic cylinder from working to transportation mode. And col 6 – 57 – col 7 line 20 – retracted position for tools)
Regarding Claim 9:
HODAPP discloses the combination in claim 1
9. (Currently Amended) the soil working device of claim 1, wherein the frame comprises the base segment and two booms , in that the two booms are arranged so as to be foldable about a respective horizontal axis , in front of the base segment in the direction of travel ( col 2 50 -62 – bifold hinge two booms, left and right wing to be folded horizontal axis)
Regarding Claim 10:
HODAPP discloses the combination in claim 1
10. (Currently Amended) the soil working device of claim 1, wherein the base segment and the two booms are superimposed adjacent to the horizontal axis , in particular transversely to the direction of travel( col 5 27 – 50 – center alignment horizontal pivot)
Regarding Claim 11
KIRCHOFF / HODAPP discloses claim 1:
KIRCHOFF discloses:
wherein the coupling control device is a hydraulic coupling control device ( Col 2 line 47 – 54 adjustable hydraulically )
Regarding Claim 12
KIRCHOFF / HODAPP discloses claim 3:
HODAPP discloses the combination in claim 3
Wherein the at least one support wheel is arranged on a side of the frame facing away from the tool carriers (Col 4 line 30 - 44 – trailing frame with wheels – wherein the wheel - 40 is the support wheel, wherein the wheels are not facing any tool carriers.)
Regarding Claim 13
KIRCHOFF / HODAPP discloses claim 5:
KIRCHOFF discloses:
wherein the height-guiding devices are each configured to move the tool carrier into positions spaced at least 40 centimeters apart. (fig. 10 – col 5 line 3 – 20 - telescoping distance for height shift )
The value of the distance to move the tool carrier into positions spaced a part a certain distance is seen as a results effective variable. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants invention to utilize the value of the distance to move the tool carrier into positions spaced apart a certain distance as it has been held that routine optimization of a results effective variable is obvious, in this case to achieve that value of the distance for the specific condition of moving the tool carrier into position spaced apart would allow for one control distance of the distance for clearance
Regarding Claim 14
KIRCHHOFF / HODAPP disclose claim 6:
KIRCHOFF discloses:
Wherein the releasable fixing device is configured as a clamping device (fig. 1 and col 4 line 13 – 30)
Regarding Claim 15
KIRCHHOFF / HODAPP disclose claim 1:
HODAPP discloses the combination in claim 1
Wherein at least the height guiding devices are lockable in the folded transport position of the soil-working device ( lock pin col 6 line 57 – 67 lock pin for transport)
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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
