Final 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Richardson as part of US 4204575 A, hereinafter referred to as Richardson, does not teach of the cylinders of Richardson as being synchronized in their movement. Applicant posits that the only the outer cylinder 88 is activated before cylinder 98, and therefore the cylinders are not synchronized.
Upon further consideration of prior art references and review of the instant application, Examiner has found that there is insufficient basis in the specification for the language of the claim that Applicant argues is allowable over prior art, namely “…a hydraulic line between the first cylinder and the second cylinder configured to synchronize movement of the second cylinder with movement of the first cylinder”. Examiner has presented a new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 112(a) with regard to this language on grounds of scope of enablement, and under 35 USC 112(b) on the grounds of being indefinite and failing to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claim.
In light of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b), examiner does not find the above argument to be persuasive. The inner cylinder 88 and the outer cylinder 98 are not independently actuated; they are connected via hydraulic supply lines in parallel, and thus the two cylinders are activated at the same time. The activation of the cylinders 88 and 98 is, by their nature of being connected in parallel, synchronous, as hydraulic fluid is supplied to the two cylinders at the same time from a single supply. The cylinders are not activated in a staged arrangement as is detailed in the disclosure of Boetto et al as part of US 4151886 A, hereinafter referred to as Boetto, which relies on two control valves CV1 and CV2 for the coordinated motion of the middle and outer sections of the folding arms (Boetto: Col. 13, line 1-17).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for synchronizing the cylinders via hydraulic line connections, does not reasonably provide enablement for simultaneous or synchronizing the movement of the cylinder arms in such a way that overcomes the problem of the inner cylinder encountering a higher resistance than the outer cylinders due to the increased weight, as mentioned in Richardson as a known technical detail in the art (Col. 8, line 31-41, the outer cylinder and inner cylinder 88 and 98 respectively are actuated in parallel, at the same time; however, cylinder 98 encounters higher resistance than cylinder 88). The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to achieve simultaneous retraction of the folding cylinders of the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The specification of the instant application details only that “...the cylinders 306, 312, 408 can be synchronized by routing hydraulic lines 314 between them” (Specification, paragraph 47), which does not require the level of specificity that the movement of the cylinders is the element that is being synchronized.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. As described above in the rejection under 112(a), there is a lack of detail as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to overcome known challenges in the art regarding the simultaneous or synchronized movement of the cylinders in a folding apparatus as described in the instant application. As such, the language used in the claim “a hydraulic line between the first cylinder and the second cylinder configured to synchronize the movement of the second cylinder with movement of the first cylinder” is unclear in scope, as it is not informed by the specification as to how it is being achieved. In light of this lack of detail in the specification, “[synchronizing the] movement of the second cylinder with the movement of the first cylinder” will be interpreted to mean “the first and second cylinders are activated simultaneously via a hydraulic line” for the purposes of examination.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boetto in view of Richardson.
Regarding Claim 1: Boetto teaches of an agricultural implement, comprising:
a frame supporting a plurality of ground-engaging tools (Boetto: Fig. 1, inner tool bar section 22; Col. 6, 37-46, a variety of tools, including cultivating discs, shovels, subsoil plows and middlebusters, may be used in conjunction with a folding tool bar apparatus);
a foldable marker assembly comprising a first marker arm coupled to the frame at a first pivot joint, wherein the first marker arm is operable to pivot between an extended position extending laterally outward from the frame, and a folded position at an acute angle relative to the frame (Boetto: Fig. 4, intermediate tool bar section 26 pivotally connects to inner section 22 between a laterally extended position and a folded position, shown to be at an acute angle to one another when folded);
a first cylinder coupled to the frame and the first marker arm, the first cylinder configured to control an orientation of the first marker arm relative to the frame (Boetto: Fig. 4, hydraulic cylinder 64 is connected to inner section 22 and intermediate section 26, and controls the orientation of the intermediate section 26 relative to the inner section);
a second marker arm coupled to the first marker arm at a second pivot joint, wherein the second marker arm is operable to pivot between an extended position extending laterally outward from the first marker arm, and a folded position at an acute angle relative to the first marker arm (Boetto: Fig. 2, intermediate tool bar section 26 pivotally connects to outer tool bar section 24 between a laterally extended position and a folded position, shown to be at an acute angle respective to one another when folded);
a second cylinder coupled to the first marker arm and the second marker arm, the second cylinder configured to control an orientation of the second marker arm relative to the first marker arm (Boetto: Fig. 2, hydraulic cylinder 64 is coupled to intermediate tool bar 26 and outer tool bar section 24, configured to control the relative orientation between the intermediate tool bar and outer tool bar sections 26 and 24);
and a hydraulic line connecting the first cylinder to the second cylinder (Boetto: Col. 12, line 52-67; Fig. 6, both pairs of cylinders 66 and 64 share a fluid path to valve CV2 through fluid lines 21, 23, 29, and 31).
Boetto does not explicitly teach wherein the hydraulic line connection is configured to synchronize the movement of the second cylinder with the movement of the first cylinder.
Richardson teaches of a folding winged agricultural implement, comprising a first and second cylinder (Richardson: Fig. 4, first and second hydraulic cylinders 88 and 98) that act to fold and unfold a first and second arm section of an agricultural implement (Richardson: Fig. 4, cylinder 88 acts to fold outer wing section 32, cylinder 98 acts to fold section 30),
and a hydraulic line connecting the first cylinder to the second cylinder is configured to synchronize the movement of the second cylinder with the movement of the first cylinder (Richardson: Col. 8, Line 31-33, hydraulic cylinders 88 and 98 are fed in parallel by hydraulic supply lines to be actuated simultaneously).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to actuate the cylinders of Boetto simultaneously, as is suggested by Richardson (Richardson: Col. 8, Line 31-33, hydraulic cylinders 88 and 98 are fed in parallel by hydraulic supply lines to be actuated simultaneously). Such a modification would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to achieve the predictable result of synchronizing the movement of the folding sections under hydraulic power. Additionally, Richardson teaches that the actuation of the hydraulic systems may occur one at a time or through simultaneous actuation (Col 8, Lines 22-30), such that synchronized movement is merely a known alternative to individual sequential actuation.
Regarding Claim 3: Boetto in view of Richardson teaches of the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first cylinder
comprises a hydraulic cylinder (Boetto: Col. 6, line 64-Col. 7, line 4; hydraulic cylinder 64 is a hydraulic cylinder).
Regarding Claim 6: Boetto in view of Richardson teaches of the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second cylinder comprises a hydraulic cylinder (Boetto: Col. 7, Line 4-15; hydraulic cylinder 66 is a hydraulic cylinder).
Regarding Claim 8: Boetto in view of Richardson teaches of the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the first cylinder is connected to a hydraulic source (Boetto: Col. 12, line 52-67; Fig. 6, cylinders 66 is connected to control valve CV2).
Regarding Claim 14: Boetto in view of Richardson teaches of the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the foldable marker assembly comprises a support wheel (Boetto: Fig. 1, folding tool bar section 24 comprises gauge wheel 34).
Regarding Claim 15: Boetto in view of Richardson teaches of the apparatus of claim 1.
Boetto further teaches wherein the apparatus further comprises a stabilizing support coupled to the frame and configured to support the first marker arm in the folded position (Fig. 1, rest bars 140 determine the fully folded position between inner section 22 and intermediate section 26; Col. 10, line 60-63).
Claims 9, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boetto in view of Richardson, further in view of Maenle et al as part of US 6257343 B1, hereinafter referred to as Maenle.
Boetto in view of Richardson teaches of the apparatus described above as part of claim 1.
Boetto in view of Richardson does not teach wherein the foldable marker assembly further comprises a third marker arm coupled to the second marker arm at a third pivot joint, wherein the third marker arm is operable to pivot between an extended position extending laterally outward from the second marker arm, and a folded position at an acute angle relative to the second marker arm.
Maenle teaches of an agricultural marking unit, comprising:
a frame supporting a plurality of ground-engaging tools (Fig. 11a, folding row marker 10 comprises inner arm section 30, which is connected to the agricultural implement via inner link assembly 20, which are support ground engaging markers 60);
And a foldable marker assembly comprising a first marker arm coupled to the frame at a first pivot joint, wherein the first marker arm is operable to pivot between an extended position extending laterally outward from the frame, and a folded position at an acute angle relative to the frame (Fig. 11a-11c, inner link assembly 20 is a pivot joint, wherein inner arm section 30 pivots to form an acute angle as it folds over the implement),
further comprising a second marker arm coupled to the first marker arm at a second pivot joint, wherein the second marker arm is operable to pivot between an extended position extending laterally outward from the first marker arm, and a folded position at an acute angle relative to the first marker arm (Fig. 11a-11c, middle arm section 110 is connected to inner arm section 30 via a hinged connection of middle link assembly 90; as shown between Fig. 11a and 11c, section 110 and section 30 form an acute angle when folded).
wherein the foldable marker assembly further comprises a third marker arm coupled to the second marker arm at a third pivot joint, wherein the third marker arm is operable to pivot between an extended position extending laterally outward from the second marker arm, and a folded position at an acute angle relative to the second marker arm (Maenle: Fig. 11a-11c, outer arm section 50 is connected to middle arm section 110 via a hinged connection of outboard link assembly 100; as shown between Fig. 11a and 11c, section 50 and section 110 form an acute angle when folded).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to modify the folding apparatus taught by Boetto in view of Richardson with the third pivot joint and marker arm as taught by Maenle to create an apparatus capable of spanning a wider section of an agricultural field while maintaining the capacity to be collapsed for transport. Such a modification would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of having an implement that spans a wider area on account of comprising seven folding sections (Boetto: Col. 1, line 50-56, it is known for folding or collapsable toolbars to utilize as many as five to seven sections; Richardson, Col. 8, line 26-30, modern tractors are known to handle nine section plow wings).
Regarding Claim 11: Boetto in view of Richardson teaches of the apparatus described above as part of claim 1.
Boetto in view of Richardson does not teach explicitly of the foldable marker assembly comprising a marker device.
Maenle teaches of an agricultural marking unit comprising a foldable marker assembly (Fig. 11a, folding row marker 10), wherein the foldable marker assembly further comprises a marker device (Maenle: Fig. 11a-11c, marker 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to modify the foldable tool bar apparatus taught by Boetto in view of Richardson to be used in conjunction with a marker device, such as the marker taught by Maenle, to create an apparatus capable of marking the boundaries of the rows that the row unit is passing over (Maenle: Col. 1, Line 11-14, marker assemblies are known to be mounted to the outside edge of an agricultural implement to mark a line to be used as reference for subsequent passes of the field). Such a modification would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of marking the edge of each completed pass of the implement.
Regarding Claim 16: Boetto in view of Richardson, further in view of Maenle, teaches of the apparatus described above as part of claim 9.
Boetto in view of Richardson, further in view of Maenle, does not explicitly tech of a third cylinder coupled to the third marker arm and second marker arm, the third cylinder configured to control an orientation of the third marker arm relative to the second marker arm; and a second hydraulic line between the second cylinder and the third cylinder configured to synchronize movement of the third cylinder with movement of the second cylinder.
However, within the disclosure of Richardson, it is stated as known that as many as nine sections may be connected in such a folding arrangement (Richardson, Col. 8, line 26-30, modern tractors are known to handle nine section plow wings). As such, it would have been within the technical grasp of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to extrapolate the known arrangement a cylinder connecting two arm sections, connected via a hydraulic line, which is configured to synchronize the movement of the hydraulic cylinders. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to duplicate the hydraulic cylinder arrangement and configuration taught by Boetto in view of Richardson as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960); see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boetto in view of Richardson, further in view of Grollmes et al as part of US 9198340 B2, hereinafter referred to as Grollmes.
Regarding Claim 10: Boetto in view of Richardson teaches of the apparatus described above as part of claim 1.
Boetto in view of Richardson does not teach wherein the frame is operable to fold between a field position and a transport position, wherein in the field position, the frame is oriented perpendicular to a forward direction of travel, and wherein in the transport position, the frame is oriented toward or parallel to the forward direction of travel.
Grollmes teaches of a foldable agricultural implement comprising a frame supporting a plurality of ground engaging tools (Grollmes: Fig. 2, outboard arm 24 supports coulter assemblies 34 at the distal ends of arm sections 86, 88),
a foldable marker assembly comprising a first marker arm coupled to the frame at a first pivot joint, wherein the first marker arm is operable to pivot between an extended position extending laterally outward from the frame, and a folded position at an angle relative to the frame (Grollmes: Fig. 2, outboard arm 26 is pivotally connected to outboard arm 24, actuated via hydraulic cylinder assembly 32 to form an angle when folded),
wherein the frame is operable to fold between a field position and a transport position, wherein in the field position, the frame is oriented perpendicular to a forward direction of travel (Grollmes: Fig. 2, coulter assembly 34 is mounted at the end of outboard arm section 86, 88, coupled to outboard arm 24; in the working position, outboard arm 24 is perpendicular to the direction of travel), and wherein in the transport position, the frame is oriented toward or parallel to the forward direction of travel (Grollmes: Fig. 2, in the transport position, the outboard arm 24 is oriented substantially parallel to tow bar 46 in the direction of travel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to modify the fixed frame section taught by Boetto in view of Richardson with the articulating frame members taught by Grollmes to allow the apparatus to fold more compactly, reducing the width of the vehicle during transport. Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of allowing the frame to be transported in the folded position (Grollmes: Fig. 1, the apparatus shown in the folded position is narrower than the wheelbase of the towed implement; Boetto: Fig. 3, central tool bar member 22 is wider than the wheelbase of the towing vehicle).
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boetto in view of Richardson, further in view of Maenle, further in view of Grollmes.
Regarding Claim 12: Boetto in view of Richardson, further in view of Maenle teach of the apparatus described above as part of claim 11.
While Boetto does make note that cultivating discs may be used in conjunction with the apparatus described (Boetto: Col. 6, 37-46, a variety of tools, including cultivating discs, may be used in conjunction with a folding tool bar apparatus), Boetto in view of Richardson, further in view of Maenle does not teach explicitly of the apparatus comprising a coulter assembly.
Grollmes teaches of an agricultural implement comprising a marker device (Grollmes: Fig. 2, outboard arm 24 supports coulter assemblies 34 at the distal ends of arm sections 86, 88), wherein the marker device comprises a coulter assembly (Grollmes: Fig. 2, coulter assembly 34 mark the ground).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the generically referred to marking tool taught by Maenle with the specific coulter assemblies taught by Grollmes. Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of utilizing a coulter assembly as a marking device (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boetto in view of Richardson, further in view of Maenle, further in view of Holloway as part of US 5964179 A, hereinafter referred to as Holloway.
Regarding Claim 13: Boetto in view of Richardson, further in view of Maenle teaches of the apparatus described above as part of claim 11.
Boetto in view of Richardson, further in view of Maenle does not teach wherein the marker device comprises a material dispenser.
Holloway teaches of an agricultural implement comprising a marking implement disposed at the end of the work arm (Holloway: Fig. 3, discharge orifices 20 are mounted on sprayer boom 28), wherein the marker device comprises a material dispenser (Holloway: Fig. 3, orifices 20 dispense marker medium 38 to indicate the area passed over by the implement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the generically referred to marker as described by Maenle as part of Boetto in view of Richardson, further in view of Maenle with the specific material dispensing marker taught by Holloway. Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of marking the affected area of a field via discharge or dispensing of material (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EVAN ANTHONY BREGEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0922. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 Eastern, M-F.
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 J 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.
/EVAN A BREGEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671