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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-10, 12-13, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strnad et al. (US 20200068783 A1) in view of Kowalchuk et al. (US 20220000010 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Strnad discloses a row unit system (200) for a seeder, comprising:
a frame (204);
a parallel linkage (206) configured to couple the frame to a mount (designated in annotated image below) associated with a toolbar (202) of the seeder (Fig. 1);
a connector (214) coupled to a first structure (i.e. the mount, as shown below) via a first fastener and pivotally coupled to a second structure (i.e. lower link of parallel linkage 206) via a second fastener (Fig. 1, respective fasteners implicit), wherein the connector comprises a biasing member or a linkage actuator (i.e. downforce actuator 214), the first structure comprises the mount
an opener disc (222) rotatably coupled to the frame; and
a packer wheel assembly (260), comprising:
a packer wheel arm (262) pivotally coupled to the frame (para. [0049]);
a packer wheel (264) rotatably coupled to the packer wheel arm; and
a packer wheel actuator (266) pivotally coupled to the packer wheel arm and the frame, wherein the packer wheel actuator is configured to control a downforce applied by the packer wheel to soil (para. [0049] “actuator 266 is pivotally attached at one end to the arm 262 and at its other end to the row unit frame 204 to vary the amount of downforce exerted by the packer wheel 264”).
PNG
media_image1.png
592
945
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Fig. 1 of Strnad
Strnad therefore teaches wherein the connector (214) is coupled to the mount, but does not explicit detail pivotally coupled.
In the same field of endeavor, Kowalchuk discloses a row unit system comprising a similar connector (130) pivotally coupled to a mount (122) and a lower link (126) of the parallel linkage (Fig. 3, para. [0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have pivotally coupled the connector to the mount of Strnad, as taught by Kowalchuk, in order to permit relative movement at each end and thus provide a flexible connection for accommodating vibrations and/or absorbing shocks from movement of the load.
Regarding claim 2, Strnad in view of Kowalchuk discloses the row unit system of claim 1. Strnad further teaches wherein the packer wheel arm (262) is a rigid structure that positions a respective rotational axis of the packer wheel (264) rearward of the opener disc (222) relative to a forward direction of travel (as seen in Fig. 1, packer wheel 264 is rearward of opener disc 222 with respect to forward travel direction).
Regarding claim 4, Strnad in view of Kowalchuk discloses the row unit system of claim 1. Strnad further teaches wherein the parallel linkage (206) is positioned forward of the packer wheel assembly (260) relative to a forward direction of travel (as seen in Fig. 1, packer wheel 264 is rearward of parallel linkage 206 with respect to forward travel direction).
Regarding claim 8, Strnad in view of Kowalchuk discloses the row unit system of claim 1. Strnad further discloses a controller (300) configured to control the packer wheel actuator (266) to maintain a trench closing force within a desired range (para. [0071]).
Strnad does not explicitly detail maintaining the downforce within range of a target value.
In the same field of endeavor, Kowalchuk discloses a similar row unit closing system, wherein the controller (88) is configured to maintain the downforce of packer wheel actuator (100) within range of a target value (Fig. 2, para. [0035] controller 88 controls packer wheel actuator 100 such that contact force between the packer wheel 92 and the soil is within range of target contact force).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the controller of Strnad to maintain the packer wheel downforce within range of a target value, as taught by Kowalchuk, in order to provide a more versatile system for controlling various tools based on different conditions and desired outputs, thereby optimizing planting performance.
Regarding claim 9, Strnad in view of Kowalchuk discloses the row unit system of claim 8. Kowalchuk further discloses wherein the controller (88) is configured to receive sensor data indicative of field conditions and determine the target value based on the field conditions (Kowalchuk para. [0035] controller 88 determines target contact force between packer wheel and soil based on soil conditions).
Regarding claim 10, Strnad in view of Kowalchuk discloses the row unit system of claim 9. Kowalchuk further discloses a downforce sensor (103) communicatively coupled to the controller (88) and configured to generate an input signal indicative of the downforce applied by the packer wheel to the soil (para. [0036] “downforce sensor 103 configured to output a second input signal to the controller 88 indicative of a…contact force between the packer wheel 92 and the soil”).
Regarding claim 12, Strnad in view of Kowalchuk discloses the row unit system of claim 1. Strnad does not explicitly detail the type of actuator for the packer wheel actuator (266).
Kowalchuk discloses a similar packer wheel actuator (100) comprising a fluid actuator (para. [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a fluid actuator for the packer wheel actuator of Strnad, as taught by Kowalchuk, as a mere simple substitution of one known extendable actuator for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding independent claim 13, Strnad discloses a row unit system (200) for a seeder, comprising:
a frame (204);
a parallel linkage (206) configured to couple the frame to a mount (designated in annotated image above) associated with a toolbar (202) of the seeder (Fig. 1);
a connector (214) coupled to a first structure (i.e. the mount, as shown above) via a first fastener and pivotally coupled to a second structure (i.e. lower link of parallel linkage 206) via a second fastener (Fig. 1, respective fasteners implicit), wherein the connector comprises a biasing member or a linkage actuator (i.e. downforce actuator 214), the first structure comprises the mount
an opener disc (222) rotatably coupled to the frame;
a packer wheel assembly (260), comprising:
a rigid packer wheel arm (262) pivotally coupled to the frame (para. [0049]);
a packer wheel (264) rotatably coupled to the rigid packer wheel arm; and
a packer wheel actuator (266) pivotally coupled to the rigid packer wheel arm and the frame (para. [0049] “actuator 266 is pivotally attached at one end to the arm 262 and at its other end to the row unit frame 204”).; and
a controller (300) configured to control a downforce applied by the packer wheel to soil (para. [0071] controller 300 is programmed to automatically control actuator 266 to increase or decrease the amount of downforce exerted on packer wheel 264).
Strnad therefore teaches wherein the connector (214) is coupled to the mount, but does not explicit detail pivotally coupled.
In the same field of endeavor, Kowalchuk discloses a row unit system comprising a similar connector (130) pivotally coupled to a mount (122) and a lower link (126) of the parallel linkage (Fig. 3, para. [0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have pivotally coupled the connector to the mount of Strnad, as taught by Kowalchuk, in order to permit relative movement at each end and thus provide a flexible connection for accommodating vibrations and/or absorbing shocks from movement of the load.
Strnad does not explicitly detail wherein the controller controls the packer wheel downforce using a valve assembly. However, such a valve is taught for controlling downforce of similar soil-engaging components of Strnad, wherein the controller is operatively connected to a control valve for controlling a downforce applied by a closing wheel (see Strnad in claim 6).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a similar valve assembly for the packer wheel downforce controls, as Strnad teaches that the use of control valves was a known and effective means for controlling downforce of similar soil-engaging components of the row unit.
Regarding claim 15, Strnad in view of Kowalchuk discloses the row unit system of claim 13. Strnad further teaches wherein the controller (300) is configured to control the valve assembly to control the packer wheel actuator (266) to maintain a trench closing force within a desired range (para. [0071]).
Strnad does not explicitly detail maintaining the downforce applied by the packer wheel within range of a target downforce.
In the same field of endeavor, Kowalchuk discloses a similar row unit closing system, wherein the controller (88) is configured to maintain the downforce of packer wheel actuator (100) within range of a target value (Fig. 2, para. [0035] controller 88 controls packer wheel actuator 100 such that contact force between the packer wheel 92 and the soil is within range of target contact force).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the controller of Strnad to maintain the packer wheel downforce within range of a target value, as taught by Kowalchuk, in order to provide a more versatile system for controlling various tools based on different conditions and desired outputs, thereby optimizing planting performance.
Regarding claim 16, Strnad in view of Kowalchuk discloses the row unit system of claim 15. Kowalchuk further discloses wherein the controller (88) is configured to receive sensor data and determine the target downforce based on the sensor data (Kowalchuk para. [0035] controller 88 determines target contact force between packer wheel and soil based on soil conditions).
Claims 3, 11, 14, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strnad and Kowalchuk as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Bassett (US 20140116735 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 17-18, Strnad in view of Kowalchuk discloses the row unit system of claim 1 and 13. Strnad further teaches wherein a first end of the packer wheel actuator (266) is coupled to the frame (204) at a first location (upper end of actuator) adjacent a connection between the rigid packer wheel arm and the frame (Fig. 1), and a second end (lower end of actuator) of the packer wheel actuator is coupled to a center portion of the rigid packer wheel arm (262) located between the connection and an axle of the packer wheel (as seen in Fig. 1), as per claim 18.
Strnad fails to disclose wherein the packer wheel actuator (266) is positioned vertically below the connection between the packer wheel arm (262) and the frame (204), as per claim 3 and 17-18.
In the same field of endeavor, Bassett discloses a row unit system (10) comprising a similar downforce actuator arrangement (200) wherein the downforce actuator (204) is configurable vertically above (Fig. 13) or vertically below (Fig. 14) a connection between the arm (211) and the frame (210) (para. [0123-0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position the down force actuator of Strnad below a connection between the packer wheel arm and the frame instead of above it, as Bassett teaches that this is a known alternative configuration for the arrangement of a downforce actuator in the art, and since there are a limited number of choices as to where to position the actuator with respect to such an arm (e.g. above, below), it would have been obvious design choice to consider and try positioning the down force actuator below the arm as taught by Bassett. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 11 and 14, Strnad in view of Kowalchuk discloses the row unit system of claims 1 and 13, wherein the controller (300) is configured to control the valve assembly to actuate the packer wheel actuator (266) (from combination of claim 13), as per claim 14, but does not explicitly detail wherein an extension of the packer wheel actuator is configured to decrease the downforce applied by the packer wheel to the soil, and a retraction of the packer wheel actuator is configured to increase the downforce applied by the packer wheel to the soil, as per claims 11 and 14.
In the same field of endeavor, Bassett discloses a similar down force actuator (204) detailed above, wherein an extension of the actuator decreases the downforce applied by the wheel, and retraction of the actuator increases the downforce applied by the wheel (Fig. 14, para. [0125] “advancing movement of the ram 205 in the cylinder 204 tilts the linkage 211 upwardly, thereby raising the closing wheels 16…retracting movement of the ram 205 tilts the linkage 211 downwardly, thereby urging the closing wheels 16 downwardly with an increased force”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position the down force actuator of Strnad below a connection between the packer wheel arm and the frame such that an extension of the packer wheel actuator decreases the downforce and a retraction of the packer wheel actuator increases the downforce applied by the packer wheel, as Bassett teaches that this is a known alternative configuration for the arrangement of a downforce actuator in the art, and since there are a limited number of choices as to where to position the actuator with respect to such an arm (e.g. above, below), it would have been obvious design choice to consider and try positioning the down force actuator below the arm as taught by Bassett. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding independent claim 20, Strnad discloses a method of operating a row unit (200) system for a seeder, the method comprising:
linking, via a parallel linkage (206), a frame (204) of a row unit (200) to a mount (designated in annotated image above) associated with a toolbar (202) of the seeder (Fig. 1);
linking, via a biasing member (214), the mount with the frame or a lower link of the parallel linkage (Fig. 1);
positioning an opener disc (222) in contact with soil in a field, wherein the opener disc is rotatably coupled to the frame;
positioning a packer wheel (264) in contact with the soil in the field, wherein the packer wheel is rotatably coupled to a rigid packer wheel arm (262), and the rigid packer wheel arm is pivotally coupled to the frame; and
controlling a packer wheel actuator (266) that is coupled to the rigid packer wheel arm to thereby control a downforce applied by the packer wheel to the soil in the field (para. [0049]).
Strnad does not explicitly detail wherein the controller controls the packer wheel downforce using a valve assembly.
However, such a valve is taught for controlling downforce of similar soil-engaging components of Strnad, wherein the controller is operatively connected to a control valve for controlling a downforce applied by a closing wheel (see Strnad in claim 6).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a similar valve assembly for the packer wheel downforce controls, as Strnad teaches that the use of control valves was a known and effective means for controlling downforce of similar soil-engaging components of the row unit.
Strnad does not explicitly detail wherein increasing a fluid pressure of the packer wheel actuator decreases a downforce applied by the packer wheel to the soil in the field.
In the same field of endeavor, Bassett discloses a similar down force actuator (204) detailed above, wherein an extension of the actuator decreases the downforce applied by the wheel, and retraction of the actuator increases the downforce applied by the wheel (Fig. 14, para. [0125] “advancing movement of the ram 205 in the cylinder 204 tilts the linkage 211 upwardly, thereby raising the closing wheels 16…retracting movement of the ram 205 tilts the linkage 211 downwardly, thereby urging the closing wheels 16 downwardly with an increased force”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position the down force actuator of Strnad below a connection between the packer wheel arm and the frame such that an extension of the packer wheel actuator decreases the downforce and a retraction of the packer wheel actuator increases the downforce applied by the packer wheel, as Bassett teaches that this is a known alternative configuration for the arrangement of a downforce actuator in the art, and since there are a limited number of choices as to where to position the actuator with respect to such an arm (e.g. above, below), it would have been obvious design choice to consider and try positioning the down force actuator below the arm as taught by Bassett. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 5-7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strnad and Kowalchuk as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Schilling et al. (US 20110120357 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Strnad in view of Kowalchuk discloses the row unit system of claims 1 and 13, but fails to disclose an additional actuator between the mount and the toolbar configured to drive movement of the mount relative to the toolbar.
Schilling in the same area discloses a row unit system (20) comprising a toolbar (18), a mount (54), an actuator (32) (para. [0020] teaches spring 32 may be in the form of a hydraulic cylinder for applying downward pressure), and an additional actuator (56) between the mount and the toolbar (Fig. 2, actuator 56 is connected to arm 100 of toolbar 18 at one end and arm 60 of mount 54 at the other), wherein the additional actuator is configured to drive movement of the mount relative to the toolbar to provide additional downforce to the system (Figs. 2-3, para. [0023] coupling of the tool bar 18 to mount 54 defines axis about which mount 54 pivots in response to movement of additional actuator 56, such that when rod 98 of additional actuator is extended, mount 54 rotates clockwise to lower the row unit until it engages the ground, wherein further extension of the ram 98 and thus further clockwise rotation of mount 54 compresses the spring 32 to increase total downforce, para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a similar additional actuator and pivotal mounting between the tool bar and mount of Strnad, as taught by Schilling, in order to permit movement of the row units between a lowered ground-engaging position and a raised transport position, as well as to provide supplementary downforce to the system when necessary (e.g. for harder soil or deeper seed placement) (see Schilling para. [0027-0029]).
Regarding claim 6, Strnad in view of Kowalchuk and Schilling discloses the row unit system of claim 5, wherein the connector and the additional actuator are configured to affect an additional downforce applied by a gauge wheel to the soil (inherent from combination, connector + additional actuator affect downforce applied to the frame and thus the gauge wheel attached to frame), and together the packer wheel actuator, the connector, and the additional actuator are configured to affect the downforce applied by the packer wheel to the soil (inherent from combination, packer wheel actuator affects downforce of packer wheel only, while connector + additional actuator affect downforce applied to frame and thus all elements attached to the frame, including the packer wheel).
Regarding claim 7, Strnad in view of Kowalchuk and Schilling discloses the row unit system of claim 6. Strnad further teaches wherein the connector comprises the linkage actuator (214) and the row unit system comprises a controller (300) configured to control the linkage actuator (214) and the packer wheel actuator (266) in a coordinated manner (para. [0051,0098]).
Strnad fails to disclose controlling the additional actuator, linkage actuator, and packer wheel actuator in a coordinated manner to maintain the additional downforce and the downforce within respective ranges of respective target values.
In the same field of endeavor, Kowalchuk discloses a similar row unit closing system, wherein the controller (88) is configured to control the packer wheel actuator (156) and linkage actuator (130) to maintain the downforce within range of a target value (Fig. 3, para. [0068-0069])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the controller of Strnad to maintain the downforce within range of a target value, as taught by Kowalchuk, in order to provide a versatile system capable of controlling individual tools based on different conditions and desired outputs, thereby optimizing overall planting performance. It would have been further obvious to control the additional downforce provided by the additional actuator in order to apply supplementary downforce to the system as required for different soil conditions and planting parameters, as well as to facilitate transitioning between lowered operating and raised transport positions as desired.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“Strnad does not disclose all of the recitations of amended independent claim 1... independent claim 1 includes certain features recited in original dependent claim 5, which was not rejected as anticipated by Strnad. Indeed, with respect to original dependent claim 5, the examiner referred to the downforce control system 214 of Strnad and acknowledged that Strnad "does not explicitly detail pivotally coupled to the mount." Office Action, page 12. Further, original dependent claim 5 was rejected as obvious in based on Strnad in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0000010 (hereinafter "Kowalchuk"). However, the applicant submits that neither Strnad nor Kowalchuk appear to disclose or teach a biasing member or a linkage actuator with features recited in amended independent claim 1.” (See Applicant’s remarks pages 10-11).
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully points out that Strnad discloses a biasing member/linkage actuator (214) which reads on Applicant’s amendment in terms of structural attachments within the system (i.e. linkage actuator 214 is attached to the mount and to the lower link of the parallel linkage). While Strnad does not explicitly detail a pivotal coupling between the mount and the actuator (214), such deficiencies are cured by Kowalchuk. As addressed in the rejection to amended claim 1 in this office action, Kowalchuk teaches a similar linkage actuator (130, Fig. 3) pivotally coupled at one end to a mount (122) and at the other end to a lower link (126) of a parallel linkage assembly (para. [0049]). The Examiner further cites U.S. Publication No. 2014/0214284 (hereinafter "Sauder") below for an additional teaching of a substantially identical linkage actuator (32, Fig. 1A) as Strnad, Sauder’s actuator being pivotally coupled at each end to a mount of the tool bar and a lower link of the parallel linkage assembly (see Sauder para. [0029] “actuator 32 is pivotally mounted at a first end to the toolbar 2 by a mounting bracket. The actuator 32 is pivotally mounted at a second end to one of the arms of the parallel linkage 8”). Thus, such a pivotal mounting is obvious in view of the prior art for the reasons provided in the combination of independent claims 1, 13, and 20 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sauder (US 20140214284 A1) discloses a downforce control system.
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 JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (571) 272-8971. 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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights