Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/193,519

Hydraulic Top Link

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Mar 30, 2023
Examiner
BREGEL, EVAN ANTHONY
Art Unit
3671
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Digga Australia Pty. LTD.
OA Round
2 (Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
22 granted / 33 resolved
+14.7% vs TC avg
Strong +41% interview lift
Without
With
+40.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
52
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
48.7%
+8.7% vs TC avg
§102
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
§112
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 33 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 Amendment Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 12/17/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 14-16 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. In light of the amendments made, the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn. Further, in light of amendments made, the rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(2) and 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Friesen as part of US 9351437 B2, hereinafter referred to as Friesen have been withdrawn. However, after further search and consideration, a new grounds of rejection is presented over Nielsen as part of US 20180317373 A1, hereinafter referred to as Nielsen. 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)(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 1-3, 7-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nielsen. Regarding Claim 1: Nielsen teaches of a device for configuring a plough between a use configuration and a transport configuration (Fig. 1-2, carrier arm assembly transitions an agricultural machine 102 between a lifted transport position and a working position; Paragraph 44, agricultural machine 102 may comprise soil working machines, which includes ploughs), the device comprising: an elongated support (Fig. 4a-4b, carrier arm 112); And an actuator connected with the elongated support, wherein the elongated support is for substantially translational sliding connection with the plough (Fig. 2, actuator 118 is connected to base part 120 of carrier arm 112; carrier arm 112 comprises guide slot 168 which allows a translational sliding connection with the soil working tool), and the actuator is for actuating connection with the plough (Fig. 2, actuator 118 is operatively connected with carrier arm 112), and wherein when the elongated support and the actuator are connected with the plough, actuation of the actuator can substantially translational slide the plough relative to the elongated support to configure the plough between the use configuration and the transport configuration (5) Paragraph 66 and 67, guide slot 168 allow pins 166 to extend and retract part 122 of the carrier arm 112 as the arm 112 extends and retracts, facilitated by actuator 118 extends and retracts between a transport and operative position). Regarding Claim 2: Nielsen teaches of a system comprising a plough; and a device for configuring the plough between a use configuration and a transport configuration (Fig. 1-2, carrier arm assembly transitions an agricultural machine 102 between a lifted transport position and a working position; Paragraph 44, agricultural machine 102 may comprise soil working machines, which includes ploughs), the device comprising: an elongated support (Fig. 4a-4b, carrier arm 112); and an actuator connected with the elongated support, wherein the elongated support is in substantially translational sliding connection with the plough (Fig. 2, actuator 118 is connected to base part 120 of carrier arm 112; carrier arm 112 comprises guide slot 168 which allows a translational sliding connection with the soil working tool), and the actuator is in actuating connection with the plough (Fig. 2, actuator 118 is operatively connected with carrier arm 112), and wherein actuation of the actuator slides the plough relative to the elongated support to thereby configure the plough between the use configuration and the transport configuration (Paragraph 66 and 67, guide slot 168 allow pins 166 to extend and retract part 122 of the carrier arm 112 as the arm 112 extends and retracts, facilitated by actuator 118 extends and retracts between a transport and operative position). Regarding Claim 3: Nielsen teaches of an apparatus capable of accomplishing a method of configuring a plough between a use configuration and a transport configuration (Fig. 1-2, carrier arm assembly transitions an agricultural machine 102 between a lifted transport position and a working position; Paragraph 44, agricultural machine 102 may comprise soil working machines, which includes ploughs), the method including a step of actuating an actuator connected to the plough, wherein the actuator is connected with an elongated support and the elongated support is connected with the plough (Fig. 2, actuator 118 is connected to base part 120 of carrier arm 112; carrier arm 112 comprises guide slot 168 which allows a translational sliding connection with the soil working tool), and wherein actuation of the actuator slides the plough relative to the elongated support, to thereby configure the plough between the use configuration and the transport configuration (Paragraph 66 and 67, guide slot 168 allow pins 166 to extend and retract part 122 of the carrier arm 112 as the arm 112 extends and retracts, facilitated by actuator 118 extends and retracts between a transport and operative position). Regarding Claim 7: Nielsen teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1. Nielsen further teaches wherein the elongated support is for substantially translational sliding connection with the plough via a guide plate (Fig. 4a-4b, base part 120 is in a translationally sliding connection with the ground engaging tool). Regarding Claim 8: Nielsen teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 7. Nielsen further teaches wherein the guide plate comprises a channel or slot for sliding connection with slide connectors of the elongated support (Fig. 4a-4b, base part 120 comprises guide slot 168). Regarding Claim 9: Nielsen teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1. Nielsen further teaches wherein a body of the actuator is pivotally connected with the elongated support (Fig. 3, actuator 118 is pivotally connected with carrier arm 112 via pin162). Regarding Claim 10: Nielsen teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1. Nielsen further teaches wherein a shaft of the actuator is for pivotal connection with the plough (Fig. 3, the shaft of actuator 118 is pivotally connected with carrier arm 112 via pin 162). Regarding Claim 11: Nielsen teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1. Nielsen further teaches wherein the actuator is a linear actuator (Fig. 3, actuator 118 is a linear actuator). Regarding Claim 12: Nielsen teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1. Nielsen further teaches wherein the actuator is a hydraulic actuator (Paragraph 46, actuator 118 is a hydraulic ram). Regarding Claim 13: Nielsen teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1. Nielsen further teaches wherein a second end of the elongated support is for multiaxial connection with a towing vehicle, such as a tractor (Paragraph 44-45; Fig. 1, mounting system 109 comprises a three point mounting hitch to carrier vehicle 104, where mounting system 109 connects to the proximal end of carrier arm 112). Regarding Claim 14: Nielsen teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 13. Nielsen further teaches wherein the second end of the elongated support is connected with a first end of a towing brace, such as an A-frame towing brace, wherein a second end of the towing brace is for connection with the plough (Fig. 1-2, mounting system 109 is connected to the proximal end of the carrier arm 112 via mounting structure 110, wherein the second end of mounting system 109 is for connecting the operating unit 106 to the carrier vehicle 104.). Regarding Claim 19: Nielsen teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 2. Nielsen further teaches wherein the plough is relatively lowered in the use configuration, and relatively raised in the transport configuration. Regarding Claim 20: Nielsen teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 3. Nielsen further teaches wherein the plough is relatively lowered in the use configuration, and relatively raised in the transport configuration (Fig. 1-2, the operating unit 106 is raised in the transport configuration and lowered in the operational configuration). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-6 and 15-18 are 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. Regarding claims 4-6, while examples of elongated supports that comprise three distinct sections that may be defined as a body support portion, a head support portion, and a linking support portion are known in the art, such as those taught by Friesen and detailed in the previous office correspondence, to modify the apparatus taught by Nielsen to include such structures would fundamentally alter the operation and function of Nielsen in a way that would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed. Such a modification would rely on an improper degree of hindsight reasoning. Regarding claim 15, while pivotal connections to towing braces are known in the art, such as those taught by Friesen, to modify the apparatus taught by Nielsen to include such a pivotal connection at the second end of the towing brace as it has defined in the rejection of claim 14 would fundamentally alter and potentially impede the function of the mounting structure 109 of Nielsen. Such a modification would rely on an improper degree of hindsight reasoning and would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed. Regarding claims 16-18, while Nielsen does teach of a system for pivotally moving the plough while in operation, Nielsen also explicitly states that the operating unit 106 does not move laterally relative to the carrier arm 112. To make such an alteration that would cause movement of the operating unit relative to the carrier arm 112, as is required by the language of claims 16-18, would fundamentally alter the purpose and intended function of Nielsen, and therefore would be improper. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Barnett et al as part of US 20130284469 A1 teaches of a device for configuring a plough between a use and transport configuration, comprising an elongated support, an actuator connected with the elongated support, the actuator operatively connected to the plough, wherein the actuator transitions the plough between the use and transport configurations with a substantially translational sliding motion. 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. /EVAN A BREGEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3671 /CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 30, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Dec 17, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Final Rejection — §102
Mar 30, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588575
Weeding Unit and Method for Treating an Agricultural Field
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12568870
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETECTING BENT GROUND-ENGAGING SHANKS ON AN AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12559902
Add-on milling unit with cross-cutting heads at an angle to each other and output gears with Belevoid toothing
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12553223
MATERIAL HANDLING IMPLEMENT WITH DISPLACEABLE WEAR COMPONENT ABUTMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12550800
DIVERTER SYSTEM FOR A CLOSING ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+40.7%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 33 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month