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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(line 7) “at least planter one row unit” should be changed to “at least one planter row unit”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoeny et al. (US 2020/0107488) and further in view of Kovach et al. (US 2018/0352718).
As concerns claim 1, Schoeny shows a planter implement (10), comprising: a frame (28; paragraph 0022) having an elongate toolbar (28; paragraph 0022) carrying a plurality of planter row units (44), each planter row unit (44) coupled to the toolbar (28) by a parallel linkage (52); a sensor (114) configured to detect residue accumulation between adjacent planter row units (62) of the plurality (Fig. 3; paragraph 0034 & 0035); and an actuator (various actuators seen in Fig. 3) configured to raise or lower at least one planter row unit of the plurality (Fig. 3). Schoeny discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the actuator is configured to raise or lower at least one planter row unit of the plurality based at least in part on the residue accumulation detected by the sensor. Kovach teaches an actuator (44) configured to raise or lower at least one row unit based at least in part on a residue accumulation detected by a sensor (108, 110; Fig. 2; paragraph 0038, 0044 & 0047-0050). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Schoeny, as taught by Kovach, to include an actuator configured to raise or lower at least one planter row unit based at least in part on the residue accumulation detected by the sensor for the expected benefit of controlling the amount of material accumulation between adjacent planter row units. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using an actuator configured to raise or lower at least one planter row unit based at least in part on the residue accumulation detected by the sensor would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the expected result of this configuration improves versatility/adaptability/efficiency of the planter implement design.
As concerns claim 2, Schoeny shows wherein the sensor comprises a camera (paragraph 0034 & 0035).
As concerns claim 3, Schoeny shows wherein the sensor is configured to detect a distance to residue (paragraph 0034 & 0035).
As concerns claim 4, Schoeny shows wherein the sensor is configured to detect a reflected electromagnetic signal (paragraph 0034 & 0035).
As concerns claim 5, Schoeny shows wherein the sensor is configured to detect a signal selected from the group consisting of laser, radar, and ultrasonic (paragraph 0034 & 0035).
As concerns claim 6, the combination teaches a controller (Kovach: 102) configured to receive information from the sensor and control the actuator based on the information (Kovach: Fig. 2; paragraph 0044 & 0047-0050).
As concerns claim 7, the combination teaches a control component (Kovach: 122) configured to drive the actuator (Kovach: 44), wherein the controller is configured to send a control signal to the control component (Kovach: Fig. 2; paragraph 0038).
As concerns claim 8, the combination teaches wherein the control component comprises a component selected from the group consisting of a control valve (Kovach: 122), an air valve, an electronic control component, a magnetic control component, and an electromagnetic control component.
As concerns claim 9, the combination teaches another sensor (Kovach: 108, 110) configured to detect additional residue accumulation between adjacent row units of the plurality (Kovach: Fig. 2; paragraph 0029, 0032 & 0033).
As concerns claim 10, Schoeny shows a control system (100) for a planter implement (10) comprising a frame (28; paragraph 0022) having an elongate toolbar (28; paragraph 0022) carrying a plurality of planter row units (44), each planter row unit (44) coupled to the toolbar (28) by a parallel linkage (52), the control system comprising: a sensor (114) configured to detect residue accumulation between adjacent planter row units (62) of the plurality (Fig. 3; paragraph 0034 & 0035); and an actuator (various actuators seen in Fig. 3) configured to raise or lower at least one planter row unit (Fig. 3). Schoeny discloses the claimed invention except for a controller configured to receive a signal from the sensor indicating residue accumulation and cause the actuator to raise or lower the at least one planter row unit based at least in part on the residue accumulation between the adjacent planter row units. Kovach teaches a controller (102) configured to receive a signal from a sensor (108, 110) indicating residue accumulation and cause an actuator (44) to raise or lower at least one row unit based at least in part on the residue accumulation between the adjacent row units (Fig. 2; paragraph 0044 & 0047-0050). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Schoeny, as taught by Kovach, to include an actuator configured to raise or lower at least one planter row unit based at least in part on the residue accumulation detected by the sensor for the expected benefit of controlling the amount of material accumulation between adjacent planter row units. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using an actuator configured to raise or lower at least one planter row unit based at least in part on the residue accumulation detected by the sensor would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the expected result of this configuration improves versatility/adaptability/efficiency of the planter implement design.
As concerns claim 11, Schoeny shows wherein the sensor comprises a camera (paragraph 0034 & 0035).
As concerns claim 12, the combination teaches a control component (Kovach: 122) configured to drive the actuator (Kovach: 44) responsive to a control signal from the controller (Kovach: Fig. 2; paragraph 0038).
As concerns claim 13, Schoeny shows a computer-implemented method (100) for operating a planter implement (10) that comprises a frame (28; paragraph 0022) having an elongate toolbar (28; paragraph 0022) carrying a plurality of planter row units (44) coupled to the toolbar (28) by parallel linkages (52), and a sensor (114) configured to detect residue accumulation between adjacent planter row units (62) of the plurality (Fig. 3; paragraph 0034 & 0035), the method comprising: receiving an indication of residue accumulation between the adjacent planter row units from the sensor (Fig. 3; paragraph 0034 & 0035); and causing an actuator (various actuators seen in Fig. 3) to raise or lower at least one planter row unit (Fig. 3). Schoeny discloses the claimed invention except for causing the actuator to raise or lower at least one planter row unit responsive to the residue accumulation. Kovach teaches causing an actuator (44) to raise or lower at least one row unit responsive to a residue accumulation (Fig. 2; paragraph 0038, 0044 & 0047-0050). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Schoeny, as taught by Kovach, to include an actuator configured to raise or lower at least one planter row unit based at least in part on the residue accumulation detected by the sensor for the expected benefit of controlling the amount of material accumulation between adjacent planter row units. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using an actuator configured to raise or lower at least one planter row unit based at least in part on the residue accumulation detected by the sensor would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the expected result of this configuration improves versatility/adaptability/efficiency of the planter implement design.
As concerns claim 14, the combination teaches alerting an operator of the residue accumulation (Kovach: paragraph 0019).
As concerns claim 15, the combination teaches wherein causing the actuator to raise or lower the at least one row unit comprises terminating forward motion of the implement while the actuator raises or lowers the at least one row unit (Kovach: paragraph 0050).
As concerns claim 16, the combination teaches wherein causing the actuator to raise or lower the at least one row unit comprises sending a control signal to a control component (Kovach: 122) associated with the actuator (Kovach: Fig. 2; paragraph 0038).
As concerns claim 17, Schoeny shows wherein receiving an indication of residue accumulation between the adjacent planter row units from the sensor comprises receiving a photograph from the sensor (paragraph 0034 & 0035).
As concerns claim 18, Schoeny shows detecting an electromagnetic signal with the sensor to identify the residue accumulation (paragraph 0034 & 0035).
As concerns claim 19, Schoeny shows wherein the actuator is configured to raise or lower the at least one planter row unit of the plurality relative to the toolbar (Fig. 3).
As concerns claim 20, Schoeny shows wherein the actuator is configured to raise or lower the toolbar relative to the frame (Fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot based on the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679