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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09 October 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Foreign patent document citation no. 3 (DE 4235389 A1) has not been considered by the examiner because a copy has not been filed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the lines, numbers and letters shown in Figures 3 and 4 are not sufficiently dense and well-defined so as to permit adequate reproduction. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(l).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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.
Claims 13-17 are 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.
CLAIM 13 On line 5, the limitation “the actuator” renders the scope of the claimed invention indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of prosecution on the merits, the examiner has considered the recitation to mean --the biasing device--.
CLAIM 14 On line 2, the limitation “the actuator” renders the scope of the claimed invention indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of prosecution on the merits, the examiner has considered the recitation to mean --the biasing device--.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected because they depend from claim 14.
CLAIM 15 On line 1, the limitation “the actuator” renders the scope of the claimed invention indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of prosecution on the merits, the examiner has considered the recitation to mean --the biasing device--.
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)(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, 8, 9 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leimkuehler et al. (US 2019/0029165 A1).
Leimkuehler et al. ‘165 (“Leimkuehler”) shows an assembly (Fig. 4) for an agricultural planter (10), comprising:
CLAIM 1 a mounting bracket (42) configured for attachment to a frame (16) of the agricultural planter;
an implements frame (36) configured for mounting rotatable implements (38) of the agricultural planter;
a parallel linkage (32) pivotally connecting the mounting bracket (42) to the implements frame (36); and
a biasing device (48) having a first end and a second end, the first end associated with the mounting bracket, and the second end associated with the parallel linkage (at lower arms 34) such that the biasing device selectively loads the rotatable implements with a threshold load (i.e., a first load applied via pressurization of the biasing device with hydraulic fluid), wherein the biasing device is configured to manipulate the parallel linkage and load the rotatable implements with additional load in excess of the threshold load1;
CLAIM 2 wherein the assembly further comprises a coupling assembly (35, 51) connecting the second end of the biasing device (48) to the parallel linkage (32); and
the coupling assembly is configured to selectively define a position of the second end of the biasing device relative to the parallel linkage ([0064]);
CLAIM 3 wherein in a first configuration (i.e., one position along the lower arms 34), the coupling assembly (35, 51) is configured to define a first position of the second end of the biasing device (48) relative to the parallel linkage (32); the first position of the second end of the biasing device relative to the parallel linkage establishes the threshold load as having a first value;
in a second configuration (i.e., a second position along the lower arms 34), the coupling assembly (35, 51) is configured to define a second position of the second end of the biasing device (48) relative to the parallel linkage (32); and
the second position of the second end of the biasing device relative to the parallel linkage establishes the threshold load as having a second value that is different than the first value;
CLAIM 4 wherein the biasing device (48) comprises a shaft (50), the shaft is associated with one of the first end or the second end, and the shaft is extendable to cause the biasing device (48) to load the rotatable implements (38) with the additional load in excess of the threshold load;
CLAIM 8 wherein the biasing device (48) comprises a pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder assembly ([0063]) including a first cylinder (49) and a second cylinder (50) extending from the first cylinder, and the shaft comprises the second cylinder; and
CLAIM 9 wherein the parallel linkage (32) comprises a four bar linkage; two upper bars (33) of the four bar linkage are both attached to a first pivot bearing at first ends and are both attached to a second pivot bearing at second ends; and
two lower bars (34) of the four bar linkage are both attached to the mounting bracket (via element 31) at a third pivot bearing at the first ends and are both attached to a rigid frame at a fourth pivot bearing at the second ends (Figs. 13-15).
CLAIM 18 The method steps recited therein are inherent to use of the assembly taught by Leimkuehler, as applied above to claims 1-3.
CLAIM 19 The method steps recited therein are inherent to use of the assembly taught by Leimkuehler, as applied above to claims 1-3.
CLAIM 20 The method steps recited therein are inherent to use of the assembly taught by Leimkuehler, as applied above to claim 3.
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schaffert et al. (US 2021/0168994 A1).
CLAIM 10 Schaffert et al. ‘994 (“Schaffert”) shows an assembly for an agricultural planter (Fig. 6C), comprising:
a mounting bracket (110) configured for attachment to a frame (60) of the agricultural planter;
an implements frame (210) configured for mounting rotatable implements (260, 265) of the agricultural planter;
a parallel linkage (220) pivotally connecting the mounting bracket (110) to the implements frame (210), the parallel linkage comprises an upper bar (226) having a mounting region (250) with a plurality of engagement features ([0085]); and
a biasing device (240) having a first end and a second end, the first end associated with the mounting bracket (110)(via 114), and the second end associated with an engagement feature of the plurality of engagement features (250);
CLAIM 11 wherein the upper bar further includes a bar region extending integrally from the mounting region (250) and pivotally connecting the mounting bracket (110) to the implements frame (210) with a first pivot bearing connecting the mounting bracket to the bar region and a second pivot bearing connecting the bar region to the implements frame;
CLAIM 12 wherein the bar region and the mounting region are regions of a common plate (Fig. 6C);
CLAIM 13 wherein the assembly further comprises a coupling assembly (242) connecting the second end of the biasing device (240) to the parallel linkage (220); and
the coupling assembly (242) is configured to selectively define a position of the second end of the biasing device (240) relative to one or more of the plurality of engagement features; and
CLAIM 14 wherein the biasing device (240) is configured to load the rotatable implements (260, 265) with a first threshold load when the coupling assembly (242) selectively defines the position of the second end of the biasing device relative to the engagement feature (250); and
the biasing device (240) is configured to load the rotatable implements (260, 265) with a second threshold load when the coupling assembly (242) selectively defines the position of the second end of the biasing device relative to a second engagement feature of the plurality of engagement features (250).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leimkuehler et al. (US 2019/0029165 A1) in view of Isaac et al. (US 2023/0255142 A1).
CLAIM 7 Leimkuehler fails to teach a linear screw actuator. Isaac et al. ‘142 (“Isaac”) shows an agricultural assembly and teaches the functional equivalence of biasing devices embodied as hydraulic cylinders, mechanical springs, and motor-driven lead screws ([0036]). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted a motor-driven linear screw actuator for the hydraulic biasing device (Leimkuehler, 48) of the prior art assembly (Leimkuehler, Fig. 4), as suggested by Isaac. The motivation for making the modification would have been to have provided the assembly with a relatively more efficient biasing device, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffert et al. (US 2021/0168994 A1) in view of Isaac et al. (US 2023/0255142 A1).
CLAIM 15 Schaffert fails to teach a linear screw actuator. Isaac et al. ‘142 (“Isaac”) teaches the suitability of various biasing devices embodied as double-acting cylinders and motor-driven lead screws ([0036]). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted a motor-driven linear screw actuator for the hydraulic biasing device (Schaffert, 240) of the prior art assembly (Schaffert, Fig. 6C), as suggested by Isaac. The motivation for making the modification would have been to have provided the assembly with a biasing device having greater controllability, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffert et al. (US 2021/0168994 A1) in view of Kovach et al. (US 2010/0059238 A1).
CLAIM 16 In the assembly of Schaffert, the mounting region (250) is defined by a portion of a metal plate (Fig. 6C), and the plurality of engagement features comprises a hole extending through the portion of the metal plate, and the coupling assembly (242) comprises a locator assembly configured to selectively engage the hole, such that the locator assembly selectively defines the position of the second end of the biasing device (240) relative to the parallel linkage (220).
Schaffert fails to teach a plurality of holes. Kovach et al. ‘238 (“Kovach”) shows a finishing assembly comprising a biasing member (12) connected to a linkage (14) at a first end for limiting the extension of an implement, wherein the first end of the biasing member includes a locator (16) for engaging with one of a plurality of holes (17) integral to the linkage (14), by which the extension limit may be varied. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted a plurality of holes (Kovach, 17) for the plurality of detents (Schaffert, 250) in the prior art assembly. The motivation for making the modification would have been to preclude slippage of the locator during use of the assembly, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6 and 17 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rawson et al. (US 5,623,997 A) shows a soil working assembly comprising a biasing device (112) connected at one end to a mounting region (124) provided on the upper arm (30) of a parallel linkage (34).
Kurz (US 7,401,561 B1) shows a planter row unit (14) comprising a biasing device (46) associated with a parallel linkage (32).
Andres (US 10,986,772 B2) shows a planter assembly comprising a parallel linkage (17, 18) , a biasing device (44) and means (45) for adjusting the biasing device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 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 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/tm/
03 February 2026
1 In [0064], Leimkuehler teaches adjust of the second end of the biasing device 48 along the length of lower arms 34, whereby an additional load, or second load, in excess of the threshold load.