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 18/110,713 RCE filed on 06/22/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 22 are amended
Claims 18 is cancelled
Claim 22 is new
Claims 1 – 17, 19 – 20, and 22 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to arguments
The examiner states that the applicants arguments with regards to the virtual curved reference lines are not persuasive. Based on broadest reasonable interpretation the curved reference lines are interpreted to be any curve lines representative of features or elements on the blade as shown in figure 3. As shown below in the diagram, the examiner states that the reference line as interpreted in the figure 3, to be the curved line portion designated by the box outlining the virtual curved reference line. The width as disclosed shown relative to the hub. The applicant is arguing limitations not stated within the claim. The claim discloses a curved reference line but doesn’t explicitly detail what the curved reference line is and is being broadly interpreted. The examiner states that the interpretation as shown in the figure below is a reasonable interpretation of the applicants amended claims. Additionally the examiner states that this interpretation is also applicable to independent claims 12 and 19 with similar arguments.
Claim 8 and 16 also similarly argued, are not persuasive. New claim is taught by MEIER in fig. 3 ) (See figure 3 – wherein the bend of the blade is between the inner end portion and outer end portion of a fin)
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A First Width - Radially inner width of inner end portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A Second Width - Radially outer width outer end portion)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Virtual curved reference line)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
758
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 – 4, 7, 9 – 13, 17, 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)(a2) as being unpatentable by US Patent 9839172 – Meier et al. hereinafter as MEIER
Regarding claim 1
MEIER discloses:
A tilling implement, comprising:
a frame; (fig. 1 – frame 14 )
a row of disc blades coupled to the frame; (fig. 1 – disc blades 18 coupled to frame)
a soil finisher coupled to the frame, wherein the soil finisher comprises a plurality of chopper blades, (fig. 2 – spider tines) a first chopper blade of the plurality of chopper blades comprises a plurality of fins that extend radially from a hub, (col 2 line 59 – 65 – wherein a compressed bearing acts as a hub)
a first fin of the plurality of fins curves forward relative to the hub along a virtual curved reference line, ( fig. 4 and 3 – see virtual curved reference line) comprises a radially inner end portion with a first width transverse to the virtual curved reference line( fig. 3 – see virtual curved reference line and a first width ) and radially outer end portion with a second width transverse to the virtual curved reference line( fig. 3 – see virtual curved reference line and a second width )and the first width is less than the second width( See fig. 3 with a first width and second width) a first set of the plurality of fins bend in a first direction relative to the hub, and a second set of the plurality of fins bend in a second direction relative to the hub to facilitate tossing soil as the tilling implement travels through a field. ( fig. 2 – wherein the blade extend in a first direction – blade 54 pointing to the left, blade 60 pointing to the right.)
[AltContent: textbox (A First Width - Radially inner width of inner end portion)][AltContent: textbox (A Second Width - Radially outer width outer end portion)]
PNG
media_image2.png
632
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Virtual curved reference line)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
758
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Fin portion 42B - Curving forward relative to hub)]
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
858
502
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2
MEIER discloses claim 1:
2. The tilling implement of claim 1, wherein the first set of the plurality of fins bend laterally in the first direction relative to the hub, (fig. 2 – fin pointing laterally in a first direction) and the second set of the plurality of fins bend laterally in the second direction relative to the hub (fig. 2 – fin pointing laterally in a first direction) to facilitate tossing soil in the first direction and the second direction as the tilling implement travels through the field.
Regarding Claim 3
MEIER discloses claim 1:
3. The tilling implement of claim 1, wherein the first fin of the plurality of fins is positioned at a compound angle relative to the hub. (See figure 3 – wherein the blade are at a compound angle. See feature 32)
Regarding Claim 4
MEIER discloses claim 3:
The tilling implement of claim 3, wherein the compound angle comprises a respective bend laterally relative to the hub, and a respective curve forward relative to the hub along the virtual curved reference line. (fig. 3 with respect to c- with respect to moving forward in the direction of 20.the compound angle is shown with the blade. And fig. 4)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A First Width - Radially inner width of inner end portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A Second Width - Radially outer width outer end portion)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Virtual curved reference line)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
758
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Fin portion 42B – bend forward relative to hub)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
822
394
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5
MEIER discloses claim 1:
5. (Currently Amended) The tilling implement of claim 1, wherein each additional fin of the plurality of fins comprises a respective radially inner end portion with a respective first width and a respective radially outer end portion with a respective second width, and the respective first width is less than the respective second width. ( See fig. 3 above - where in a fin has a radially inner portion with a first width and radially outer portion with a second with and the first width is less than the second width.)
Regarding Claim 6
(Currently Amended) The tilling implement of claim 1, wherein each the first fin of the plurality of fins comprises a convex curved surface and a concave curved surface that extend from [[a]] the radially outer end portion to [[a]] the radially inner end portion.( See figure 2 below, convex and concave curved surface as noted in the figure)
PNG
media_image2.png
632
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7
MEIER discloses claim 1:
The tilling implement of claim 1, wherein the plurality of chopper blades are mounted on a shaft that extends laterally across at least a portion of the tilling implement. (Fig. 1 – blades mounted on shaft 34 that extend laterally of tilling equipment)
Regarding Claim 9
MEIER discloses claim 1:
The tilling implement of claim 1, wherein the soil finisher is a rear-most ground- engaging structure of the tilling implement relative to a forward direction of travel. (fig. 1 – wherein the soil finisher is the rear most ground engaging tool of the tillage equipment)
Regarding Claim 10
MEIER discloses claim 1:
The tilling implement of claim 1, wherein the plurality of chopper blades are configured to roll along the soil as the tilling implement travels through a field. ( fig. 1 where in the blades are non powered implement tools)
Regarding Claim 11
MEIER discloses claim 1:
The tilling implement of claim 1, wherein the row of disc blades comprises pairs of solid disc blades. ( Fig. 1 – disc blades 18 )
Regarding Claim 12
A soil finisher for a tilling implement, the soil finisher comprising:
a frame; (fig. 1 – frame 14 )
a mounting bracket coupled to the frame; (fig. 1 – The curve shaped bracket is mounted to frame as shown in the diagram below)
a shaft coupled to the mounting bracket; (fig. 1 – shaft 34 wherein it is attached to the bracket as shown in the diagram below.)
a plurality of chopper blades disposed on the shaft(fig. 2 – chopper blade 32), wherein a first chopper blade of the plurality of chopper blades comprises a hub and a plurality of fins circumferentially disposed about the hub relative to a rotational axis of the hub,( col 2 line 59 – 67 – wherein a compressed bearing can be mounted to the tines , such that it acts as a hub) a first fin of the plurality of fins curves forward relative to the hub along a virtual curved reference line, ( fig. 4 and 3 – see virtual curved reference line) comprises a radially inner end portion with a first width transverse to the virtual curved reference line( fig. 3 – see virtual curved reference line and a first width ) and radially outer end portion with a second width transverse to the virtual curved reference line( fig. 3 – see virtual curved reference line and a second width ) and the first width is less than the second width( See fig. 3- where in a fin has a radially inner end portion with a first width and radially outer end portion with a second with and the first width is less than the second width.) a first set of the plurality of fins bend laterally in a first direction relative to the hub, and a second set of the plurality of fins bend laterally in a second direction relative to the hub to facilitate tossing soil in the first direction and the second direction as the tilling implement travels through a field. ( fig. 2 – wherein the blade extend in a first direction – blade 54 pointing to the left, blade 60 pointing to the right.)
Regarding Claim 13
MEIER discloses claim 12:
The soil finisher of claim 12, wherein the first fin of the plurality of fins is positioned at a compound angle relative to the hub. (See figure 3 – wherein the blade are at a compound angle. See feature 32)
Regarding Claim 14
MEIER discloses claim 12:
The soil finisher of claim 12, wherein each additional fin of the plurality of fins comprises a respective radially inner end portion with a respective first width and a respective radially outer end portion with a respective second width, and the respective first width is less than the respective second width. ( See fig. 3- where in a fin has a radially inner end portion with a first width and radially outer end portion with a second with and the first width is less than the second width.)
Regarding Claim 15
The soil finisher of claim 12, wherein the first fin of the plurality of fins comprises a convex curved surface and a concave curved surface that extend from the radially outer end portion to the radially inner end portion.( See figure 2 below, convex and concave curved surface as noted in the figure)
PNG
media_image2.png
632
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17
MEIER discloses claim 12:
17. The soil finisher of claim 12, wherein the soil finisher is configured to be a rear- most ground-engaging structure of the tilling implement relative to a forward direction of travel. (fig. 1 – wherein the soil finisher is the rear most ground engaging tool of the tillage equipment)and the plurality of chopper blades are configured to roll along the soil as the tilling implement travels through the field. ( Fig. 1 – wherein the soil finisher is the rear most ground engaging tool of the tillage equipment)
Regarding Claim 19
MEIER discloses:
19. An agricultural system, comprising: a work vehicle;( col 2 line 50 – 51) tow vehicle and a tilling implement configured to couple to the work vehicle( col 2 line 35 – 51 – tow vehicle with tillage implement), wherein the tilling implement comprises:
a frame; (fig. 1 – frame 14 )
a row of disc blades coupled to the frame; (fig. 1 – disc blades 18 coupled to frame)
a soil finisher coupled to the frame rearward of the row of disc blades relative to a forward direction of travel of the agricultural system(fig. 1 – wherein the soil finisher is the rear most ground engaging tool of the tillage equipment), wherein the soil finisher comprises a plurality of chopper blades(fig. 2 – spider tines), each chopper blade of the plurality of chopper blades comprises a plurality of fins that extend radially from a hub, (col 2 line 59 – 65 – wherein a compressed bearing acts as a hub) each fin of the plurality of fins extends along a virtual reference line that curves forward relative to the hub comprises( fig. 4 and 3 – see virtual curved reference line)a radially inner end portion with a first width transverse to the virtual curved reference line( fig. 3 – see virtual curved reference line and a first width )
radially outer end portion with a second width transverse to the virtual curved reference line( fig. 3 – see virtual curved reference line and a second width )comprises a convex curved surface and a concave curved surface that extend from a radially outer end portion to a radially inner end portion( See figure 2 below, convex and concave curved surface as noted in the figure)
wherein the first width is less than the second width, ( See fig. 3- where in a fin has a radially inner end portion with a first width and radially outer end portion with a second with and the first width is less than the second width.) a first fin of the plurality of fins bends in a first direction relative to the hub, and a second fin of the plurality of fins bends in a second direction relative to the hub to facilitate tossing soil as the tilling implement travels through a field. ( fig. 2 – wherein the blade extend in a first direction – blade 54 pointing to the left, blade 60 pointing to the right.)
Regarding Claim 20
MEIER discloses:
20. The agricultural system of claim 19, wherein each fin of the plurality of fins is positioned at a compound angle relative to the hub. (See figure 3 – wherein the blade are at a compound angle. See feature 32)
Regarding Claim 22
MEIER discloses:
The tilling implement of claim 1, wherein a respective bend of the first fin is positioned between the radially inner end portion and the radially outer end portion relative to the virtual curved reference line. (See figure 3 – wherein the bend of the blade is between the inner end portion and outer end portion of a fin)
[AltContent: textbox (Respective bend)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A First Width - Radially inner width of inner end portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A Second Width - Radially outer width outer end portion)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Virtual curved reference line)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
758
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)(a2) as being unpatentable by US Patent 9839172 – Meier et al. hereinafter as MEIER in view of US PG Pubs 20190261549 – Christie et al. hereinafter as CHRISTIE
Regarding Claim 8
MEIER discloses claim 7:
MEIER discloses of a plurality of blades that are mounted on a shaft, MEIER doesn’t explicitly disclose the plurality of blades mounted on the shaft are at a rotational offset relative to each other, however CHRISTIE discloses:
The tilling implement of claim 7, wherein the plurality of chopper blades are mounted on the shaft to be rotationally offset relative to one another. (para. 0174 is shaft driven, para. 0193 - where in the blades are rotationally offset one is a leading blade and one is trailing blade)
MEIER and CHRISTIE are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor and usable together. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MEIER to incorporate teachings of CHRISTIE and Operate the shaft with chopper blades wherein the plurality of chopper blades are mounted on the shaft to be rotationally offset relative to one another. One would have made this combination in order to allow an offset of the chopper blades of MEIER to be offset using CHRISTIE as this would allow MEIER to break soil and increase width of penetration into the soil. ( para. 0193)
Regarding Claim 16
MEIER discloses claim 12:
MEIER discloses of a plurality of blades that are mounted on a shaft, MEIER doesn’t explicitly disclose the plurality of blades mounted on the shaft are at a rotational offset relative to each other, however CHRISTIE discloses:
The soil finisher of claim 12, wherein the plurality of chopper blades are mounted on the shaft to be rotationally offset relative to one another. (para. 0174 is shaft driven, para. 0193 - where in the blades are rotationally offset one is a leading blade and one is trailing blade)
MEIER and CHRISTIE are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor and usable together. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MEIER to incorporate teachings of CHRISTIE and Operate the shaft with chopper blades wherein the plurality of chopper blades are mounted on the shaft to be rotationally offset relative to one another. One would have made this combination in order to allow an offset of the chopper blades of MEIER to be offset using CHRISTIE as this would allow MEIER to break soil and increase width of penetration into the soil. ( para. 0193)
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