0DETAILED 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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Friggstad et al. 8,047,301.
Independent Claim 1: Friggstad discloses a row unit coupling device for securing a first row unit and a second row unit (12, 14, respectively, see col. 1, lns. 31-33) to a tool bar (26) of an agricultural implement, the row unit coupling device comprising:
a swing arm (18, 20) having a first end (the front end) and a second end (the rear end), the first end configured for pivotal coupling to the tool bar (at 42), the swing arm comprising a first arm (18, seen in annotated Fig. 4 below) extending in a first direction from the first end, a second arm (20,also shown below) extending in a second direction from an elbow portion (see below) that joins the first arm to the second arm, the second direction being different from the first direction, and the second end being at an end of the second arm; and
a walking beam (16) having a central beam (also 16), a first row adapter (58, 60), and a second row adapter (a similar mount to 58, 60, col. 4, lns. 25-28), the central beam having a proximal end (the front end) and a distal end (the rear end), the first row adapter and the second row adapter secured to the central beam on opposing sides of a position at which the swing arm is pivotally coupled to the central beam (seen in Figs. 4-5), the first row adapter configured to be coupled to the first row unit, the second row adapter configured to be coupled to the second row unit (as seen in Figs. 4-5), as per claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
448
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dependent Claims 2-4: Friggstad further discloses wherein the first row adapter (58, 60) is positioned at or around the proximal end of the central beam (the front end of central beam 16), and the second row adapter (a similar mount to 58, 60, col. 4, lns. 25-28) is positioned at or around the distal end of the central beam (the rear end of central beam 16), as per claim 2;
wherein the first row adapter (say the mount of forward right-side disc 48, as seen in Fig. 5) extends from the central beam in a first direction (to the right), and the second row adapter (the mount of rear left-side disc 50, as seen in Fig. 5) extends from the central beam in a second direction (to the left), the first direction being opposite to the second direction, the first and second directions being perpendicular to a direction that the central beam extends (in the front-to-back direction) from the distal end (the rear end) to the proximal end (the front end), as per claim 3;
wherein the second end of the swing arm (the rear, bottom end of 20, seen in annotated Fig. 4 above) is pivotally coupled (via 22) to the central beam (16) at a location adjacent to the distal end (the rear end of 16) of the central beam (as seen in Fig. 4), as per claim 4.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Norman WO 03/032707.
Independent Claim 1: Norman discloses a row unit coupling device (10) for securing a first row unit (17, 26, 42, see Figs. 1-2) and a second row unit (21, 31, 43, see Figs. 1-2) to a tool bar (at11) of an agricultural implement, the row unit coupling device comprising:
a swing arm (12) having a first end (its front, upper end) and a second end (its rear, bottom end), the first end configured for pivotal coupling (13) to the tool bar, the swing arm comprising a first arm (see annotated Fig. 1 below) extending in a first direction from the first end, a second arm (also seen in Fig. 1 below) extending in a second direction from an elbow portion (see below) that joins the first arm to the second arm, the second direction being different from the first direction, and the second end being at an end of the second arm; and
a walking beam (14) having a central beam (also 14), a first row adapter (27), and a second row adapter (32), the central beam having a proximal end (its forward end) and a distal end (its rear end), the first row adapter and the second row adapter secured to the central beam on opposing sides of a position at which the swing arm is pivotally coupled to the central beam (as seen in Fig. 2), the first row adapter configured to be coupled to the first row unit, the second row adapter configured to be coupled to the second row unit, as per claim 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
384
616
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dependent Claims 2-3: Norman further discloses wherein the first row adapter (27) is positioned at or around the proximal end (the forward end) of the central beam (14), and the second row adapter (32) is positioned at or around the distal end (the rear end) of the central beam, as per claim 2;
wherein the first row adapter (27) extends from the central beam (14) in a first direction (toward the left relative to the direction of travel, see Fig. 2), and the second row adapter (32) extends from the central beam in a second direction (to the right, see Fig. 2), the first direction being opposite to the second direction, the first and second directions being perpendicular to a direction that the central beam extends from the distal end to the proximal end (as seen in Fig. 2), as per claim 3.
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 Friggstad in view of Pingry 5,406,897.
Dependent Claim 5: The coupling device is disclosed as applied above. However, Friggstad fails to disclose wherein the first row adapter is separated from the second row adapter by a distance at which, when the first row unit is coupled to the first row adapter and the second row unit is coupled to the second row adapter, the first and second row units are in a partial overlapping side-by-side alignment, as per claim 5.
Pingry discloses a similar coupling device wherein the first row adapter (34 of 16B-1 in Fig. 3) is separated from the second row adapter (34 of 16C-1) by a distance at which, when the first row unit (16B-1) is coupled to the first row adapter and the second row unit (16C-1) is coupled to the second row adapter, the first and second row units are in a partial overlapping side-by-side alignment (as seen in Fig. 3, depth gauge wheel 28 of front row unit 16B-1 overlaps with coulter blade 32 of rear row unit 16C-1), 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 overlap the row units as taught by Pingry on the coupling device of Friggstad in order to provide a wide seeding width with a relatively compact machine.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norman in view of Pingry 5,406,897.
Dependent Claim 5: The coupling device is disclosed as applied above. However, Norman fails to disclose wherein the first row adapter is separated from the second row adapter by a distance at which, when the first row unit is coupled to the first row adapter and the second row unit is coupled to the second row adapter, the first and second row units are in a partial overlapping side-by-side alignment, as per claim 5.
Pingry discloses a similar coupling device wherein the first row adapter (34 of 16B-1 in Fig. 3) is separated from the second row adapter (34 of 16C-1) by a distance at which, when the first row unit (16B-1) is coupled to the first row adapter and the second row unit (16C-1) is coupled to the second row adapter, the first and second row units are in a partial overlapping side-by-side alignment (as seen in Fig. 3, depth gauge wheel 28 of front row unit 16B-1 overlaps with coulter blade 32 of rear row unit 16C-1), 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 overlap the row units as taught by Pingry on the coupling device of Norman in order to provide a wide seeding width with a relatively compact machine.
Response to Arguments
Please see the updated rejections above in light of applicant’s claim amendments.
Applicant argues that Friggstad does not disclose a swing arm including a first portion and a second portion which extend in different directions. However, as seen above, Friggstad discloses a swing arm comprised of first portion 18 and second portion 20 which extend in different directions. The rejection is therefore maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-20 are allowed.
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 May 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights