DETAILED 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 .
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.
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.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ptacek et al. (Pub. No.: 2020/0359545; hereinafter Ptacek).
Regarding independent claim 8, Ptacek discloses a method of raising and lowering an agricultural row unit (See claims 18-20) between non-planting and planting positions (the claimed non-planting and planting positions correspond to a raised and lowered position of the row unit with respect to the ground), the row unit (18) being operatively mounted to a tool bar (22) via pivotal link arms (108, 124), the method comprising:
extending an actuator (120) to pivot the link arms (108, 124) downwardly (See Fig. 13 where the link arms are depicted closer to the ground after downward pivot via the actuator), without linear movement of the link arms (i.e., the link arms 108 and 124 only rotate, and do not move linearly/in the direction of travel unlike arms 110 and 114 as depicted in Fig. 13), to raise the row unit out of a planting position (claimed raised position corresponds to the row unit depicted on the right of Fig. 13, See Fig. 13 where the actuator is depicted in extension); and
retracting the actuator (120) to pivot the link arms (108, 124) upwardly (See Fig. 13 where the link arms are depicted closer to the ground after downward pivot via the actuator), without linear movement of the link arms (i.e., the link arms 108 and 124 only rotate, and do not move linearly/in the direction of travel unlike arms 110 and 114 as depicted in Fig. 13), to lower the row unit into a planting position (claimed lowered position corresponds to the row unit depicted on the left of Fig. 13, See Fig. 13 where the actuator is depicted in retraction).
Regarding claim 9, Ptacek discloses the method of claim 8, and also discloses wherein the extension and retraction of the actuator is controlled from a cab of a tractor pulling the row unit (as disclosed in first sentence of para. [0057]).
Regarding claim 10, Ptacek discloses the method of claim 8, and also discloses wherein full retraction of the actuator (120, See left row unit of Fig. 13 where the full retraction is depicted) allows link arms (108, 124) on the row unit to pivot without interference (e.g., while the row unit moves up and down when following uneven terrain as disclosed in para. [0055]) from the actuator (120).
Regarding claim 11, Ptacek discloses the method of claim 8, and discloses locking (i.e., preventing from lowering, See para. [0057] where it discloses the that the operator can selectively choose the position of the row unit, thereby preventing the row units from lowering and locking them in a raised position) the row units (18) in the raised position (See right row unit of Fig. 13 where the row unit is raised).
Regarding claim 12, Ptacek discloses the method of claim 8, and also discloses comprising pre-planning a field prescription (i.e., desired crop/field layout, See para. [0055] where it discloses an example of providing wider row and seed spacing for wheat or soybean crop) to automatically control (See last two sentences of para. [0057] where it discloses the control may be automated) actuation of the actuator (120) during movement of the row unit (18) through the field.
Regarding claim 13, Ptacek discloses the method of claim 8, and also discloses wherein extension and retraction of the actuator (120) pivots an actuator arm (108) in opposite directions to raise and lower the row unit (compare movement of actuator arm 108 in opposite directions in Fig. 13 across the left to right row unit).
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.
Claims 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ptacek in view of NPL: Planting Seed Corn 2020; hereinafter Planting Seed Corn.
Regarding independent claim 14, Ptacek discloses a method of coordinating raising and lowering of a plurality of row units (18) for planting rows of different crops (See last three sentences of para. [0055] where it discloses raising and lowering row units to provide for wider row and appropriate seed spacing for planting rows of different crops like soybeans and wheat), comprising;
raising row units (18) corresponding to one of the crops (soybeans, See last three sentences of para. [0055]) and lowering the row units (18) corresponding to the other crop (wheat, See last three sentences of para. [0055]);
the raising and lowering of the row units (18) being accomplished by automated (See last two sentences of para. [0057] where it discloses the control may be automated) actuators (120) connected to the row units (18); and
the actuators (120) engaging pivotal link arms (124, 108) supporting the row units (18), and pivoting the link arms upwardly and downwardly to raise and lower the row units without linear movement of the link arms (See rejection of independent claim 8 for claim mapping and interpretation for pivoting link arms upwardly and downwardly without linear movement).
Ptacek fails to discloses wherein the rows of different crops are male and female sexes of corn, and wherein the raising therefore corresponds to one of the corn sexes and lowering corresponds to the other corn sex.
Planting Seed Corn teaches a method of planting male and female sexes of corn (title of video) using a plurality of row units (row units depicted at 0:49 of the video). The operator discloses that five days before filming the video, he had planted male seed with the same planter (around 1:25), and was now planting female seed. Then, the operator states that correct timing of the male and female corn seed is “paramount” for an effective planting operation (2:43-3:16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the different crops of Ptacek (wheat and soybeans as described in para. [0055]), to be the sexes of corn as disclosed by Planting Seed Corn, in order to yield a corn that has optimal “seed size, nutrient uptake/density, test weight, and water uptake” (as stated at 0:29-1:10).
Regarding claim 15, Ptacek discloses the method of claim 14, and also discloses wherein the row units are raised by extending the actuators (i.e., when the actuator is extended as seen in the right row unit of Fig. 13, the row unit 18 is raised; further See para. [0055] for a corresponding disclosure of the movement) and the row units are lowered by retracting the actuators (i.e., when the actuator is retracted as seen in the left row unit of Fig. 13, the row unit 18 is lowered; further See para. [0055] for a corresponding disclosure of the movement).
Regarding claim 16, Ptacek discloses the method of claim 14, and also discloses wherein the row unit (18) each include parallel link arms (108, 124) and the actuators (120) each include a pivotal actuator arm (See arm/piston rod of cylinder 120 in Fig. 13) operatively engaging (at 102 in Fig. 13) the link arms (108 and 124).
Regarding claim 18, Ptacek discloses the method of claim 14, and also discloses wherein the automated actuator (120) is selected from a group comprising a hydraulic cylinder, an electric motor, and an air bag (specifically a hydraulic actuator, See para. [0056]).
Regarding claim 19, Ptacek discloses the method of claim 14, and also discloses wherein the actuators are controlled from a cab of a tractor (as disclosed in first sentence of para. [0057]) pulling the row units (18).
Regarding claim 20, Ptacek discloses the method of claim 14, and also discloses wherein the actuators (120) are hydraulically or electrically moved between extended and retracted positions (specifically hydraulically, See para. [0056]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are allowed.
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8-20 have been considered but are moot as a modified interpretation is applied to address the claims in light of the amendments. While Ptacek is being relied upon as detailed above, it is not being relied upon in the same capacity as detailed in the prior rejection.
While Claim 8 recites structures similar to those in allowable Claim 1, the differences of the lifting assembly comprising an insert and an actuator engaging link arms are not recited in the same level of detail. Examiner notes that a recitation more in keeping with the structures for the lift assembly from Claim 1 would likely overcome the rejections presented herein.
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 Audrey L Lusk whose telephone number is (571)272-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8am-5pm.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. 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.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671