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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 16, 18, and 19 are amended.
Claims 5 and 12 were previously canceled.
Claims 1- 4, 6-11 and 13-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1- 4, 6-11 and 13-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as necessitated by applicant's amendments.
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. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. 2111.01 (I). See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'"2111.01 (II).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a)(1)” and “(a)(2) as being anticipated by Paxinos et al. [US 20210105942, now Paxinos]. Note that the priority date of Paxinos is 04/15/2021 which is more than one year prior to the priority date of the instant application.
Examiners note: Note that most of the figures and much of the Specification in Paxinos correlates closely or is identical to the Figures and Specification in the Instant application.
Claim 1
Paxinos discloses an agricultural implement, comprising: a frame [see at least Paxinos, ¶ 0009, (“frame”); 0028-0029];
a basket assembly supported on the frame such that the basket assembly is configured to roll relative to a surface of a field as the agricultural implement travels across the field, [see at least Paxinos, ¶ 0003; 0034 (“ In several embodiments, each basket assembly 54 includes a plurality of support plates 70, 72, 74 configured to support a plurality of blades or bars 76 (hereinafter referred to simply as “bars 76” for the sake of simplicity and without intent to limit) spaced circumferentially about the outer perimeter of the basket. For instance, as shown in FIG. 3, each basket assembly 54 includes first and second end plates 70, 72 positioned at the opposed lateral ends of the basket assembly 54 and a plurality of inner support plates 74 spaced apart laterally from one another between the end plates 70, 72. Lateral basket sections 78 are generally defined between each pair of adjacent support plates 70, 72, 74, with each basket section 78 being generally characterized by a hollow or substantially hollow interior area surrounded by the lateral portions of the bars 76 extending between the respective pair of adjacent support plates 70, 72, 74. As is generally understood, the end plates 70, 72 may be rotatably coupled to the corresponding basket hanger 64 (which, in turn, is coupled to the associated bracket support arm(s) 62) via bearings to allow the basket assembly 54 to rotate relative to the hanger/arm 64, 62 as implement 10 is being moved across the field. Additionally, in the illustrated embodiment, the bars 76 of each basket assembly 54 are configured as formed bars. However, in other embodiments, the bars 76 may have any other suitable configuration, such as flat bars, round bars, and/or the like.”)],
the basket assembly including a first end plate and a second end plate spaced apart from the first end plate along a rotational axis of the basket assembly, the basket assembly further including a plurality of bars extending between the first end plate and the second end plate along the rotational axis, the plurality of bars spaced circumferentially about an outer perimeter of the basket assembly [see at least Paxinos, ¶ 0034 (discusses “end plate(s)” and “circumferentially about the outer perimeter of the basket”); 0041 (describes a “rotational axis of the basket assembly”)];
a sensor configured to generate data indicative of a width of a bar of the plurality of bars in a rotational direction extending circumferentially relative to the rotational axis [see at least Paxinos, ¶ 0006 (“width of the basket assembly” is similar to and easily calculates the width of the bar and plurality of bars that hold the baskets); 0024 - 0025 (“In general, the present subject matter is directed to systems and methods for monitoring plugging of one or more basket assemblies of an agricultural implement.” Then further discussion of several embodiments and [0025] discusses “plugging sensor” technology including “ a single plugging sensor may monitor plugging across all or a significant portion of the basket width, which may reduce the costs and the complexity associated with detecting plugging of basket assemblies.”)];
and a computing system communicatively coupled to the sensor, wherein the computing system: determines the width of the bar in the rotational direction based on the data generated by the sensor[see at least Paxinos, abstract: ¶ 0041 (“rotational”];
determines when the basket assembly is plugged based on the determined width [see at least Paxinos, ¶ 0006 (looks at “subject matter is directed to a system for monitoring basket plugging for agricultural implements.”]; and
initiates a control action associated with de-plugging the basket assembly when it is determined that the basket assembly is plugged [see at least Paxinos, ¶ 0056 (Discussion of plugging sensors and actions taken when a plug is determined))].
Claim 2
Paxinos discloses the implement of claim 1.
Paxinos further discloses wherein, when determining when the basket assembly is plugged, the computing system s the determined width to a threshold value; and when the determined width exceeds the threshold value, determines that the basket assembly is plugged. [see at least Paxinos, ¶ 0056; 0062 (“The analysis module 122 may be configured to analyze the distance data associated with the return signals received by the plugging sensor(s)… calculating… the detection signals transmitted from a given plugging sensor” and further goes into the details of this action)].
Claim 3
Paxinos discloses the implement of claim 1.
Paxinos further discloses the sensor comprises a transceiver-based sensor configured to emit output signals directed at the basket assembly and receive return signals based on reflections of the output signals off of the basket assembly. [see at least Paxinos, Fig. 6A-7B; ¶ 0016-0019 (discussion of Figures 6A-7B)].
Claim 5 (cancelled)
Claim 6
Claim 6 has similar limitations to claim 1, therefore claim 6 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 7
Claim 7 has similar limitations to claim 2, therefore claim 8 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 8
Claim 8 has similar limitations to claim 3, therefore claim 7 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 9
Paxinos discloses the system of claim 8.
Paxinos further discloses when determining the width of the bar in the rotational direction, the computing system determines the width of the bar in the rotational direction based on a time period across which the return signals are received [see at least Paxinos, ¶ 0037 (“rotational” a); 0041 (“rotational axis”); 0056].
Claim 12 (cancelled)
Claim 13
Paxinos discloses the implement of claim 12.
Paxinos further discloses the control action comprises providing a notification to an operator of the agricultural implement that the basket assembly is plugged [see at least Paxinos, ¶ 0037 (“notifying the operator of the plugged condition or by performing an automated control action.”)].
Claim 14
Paxinos discloses the implement of claim 12.
Paxinos further discloses the control action comprises adjusting a ground speed of the agricultural implement [see at least Paxinos, ¶ 0056].
Claim 15
Paxinos discloses the implement of claim 12.
Paxinos further discloses the control action comprises adjusting a force being applied to the basket assembly [see at least Paxinos, ¶ 0056].
Claim 16
Claim 16 has similar limitations to claim 1, therefore claim 16 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 1.
One additional limitation was added to this independent claim.
Paxinos further discloses and initiating, with the computing system, a control action associated with de- plugging the basket assembly when it is determined that the basket assembly is plugged [see at least Paxinos, ¶ 0056 (“more automated control actions adapted to de-plug the basket assembly 54 or otherwise reduce the amount of material accumulation on and/or within the basket assembly 54,”)].
Claim 17
Claim 17 has similar limitations to claim 2, therefore claim 17 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 18
Claim 18 has similar limitations to claim 3, therefore claim 18 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 19
Claim 19 has similar limitations to claim 9, therefore claim 19 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 9.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 10, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paxinos et al. [US 20210105942, now Paxinos]
Claim 4
Paxinos discloses the implement of Claim 1.
Paxinos does not specifically disclose/teach but Prechtl does teach/suggest the sensor comprises an imaging device configured to generate image data depicting the basket assembly [see at least Prechtl, ¶ 0008-0011 (“[0008]The mobile terminal can in particular be a mobile phone, for example in the form of a smartphone, which has a camera for capturing the actual image of the component,” and more on image data]
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the “system for monitoring basket plugging for agricultural implements [Abstract]” of Paxinos, with the more specific imaging abilities of Prechtl. Providing a more effective “tilling of the soil [¶ 30]” and process to automatically de-plug an agricultural implement.
Claim 10
Claim 10 has similar limitations to claim 4, therefore claim 10 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 11
Paxinos discloses the implement of Claim 1.
Paxinos does not specifically disclose/teach but Prechtl does teach/suggest when determining the width of the bar in the rotational direction, the computing system is configured to: identify the bar depicted within the generated image data; and determine the width of the identified bar depicted within the generated image data [see at least Prechtl, ¶ 0008-0011; 0018-0021 (“[0018]The recording guide module can basically provide the instruction for capturing the actual image in various ways” and further discusses image evaluation device); 0037 (“rotational”); 0041 (“rotational axis”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the “system for monitoring basket plugging for agricultural implements [Abstract]” of Paxinos, with the more specific imaging abilities of Prechtl. Providing a more effective “tilling of the soil [¶ 30]” and process to automatically de-plug an agricultural implement.
Claim 20
Claim 20 has similar limitations to claim 4, therefore claim 20 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kovach et al. [US 20150053442]
Abstract: An agricultural tillage implement including a carriage frame assembly and pull hitch towed by a tractor and forward and aft secondary frames supported by the carriage frame assembly. The forward and aft secondary frames mount gangs of disk blades for tilling the soil. The secondary frames establish a plane and the aft secondary frame is connected to the carriage frame assembly at a greater distance from the plane than the forward secondary frame so that the depth of penetration of the disk blades is uniform during field operation. The tillage implement has outboard wing sections pivotally connected to the secondary frames and annular shims are provided to establish the wing sections and secondary frames in common plane during field operation, the annular shim being rotatable about central axis to present a common surface to the implements irrespective of the orientation of the shims.
Forbes et al. [US 20210092894]
Abstract: A disk assembly for agricultural implements comprises a disk hanger including a proximal end and a distal end opposite the proximal end. The disk assembly further includes a hanger spindle supported relative to the distal end of the disk hanger for rotation about a first axis of rotation, and a blade spindle supported relative to the hanger spindle, with the blade spindle being rotatable about a second axis of rotation oriented non-parallel relative to the first axis of rotation. Additionally, the disk assembly includes a blade coupled to the blade spindle for rotation therewith about the second axis of rotation. Moreover, the disk assembly is configured such that rotation of the hanger spindle relative to the disk hanger about the first axis of rotation results in an adjustment of both an angle-of-engagement and a camber angle of the blade.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOAN T GOODBODY whose telephone number is (571) 270-7952. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7-3 (US Eastern time).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RACHID BENDIDI can be reached at (571) 272-4896. The Fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspot.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from the USPTO Customer Serie Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOAN T GOODBODY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
(571) 270-7952
Prosecution Insights