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 § 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, 3, 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bauerer et al. (US 2015/0094916 A1).
Bauerer et al. ‘916 (“Bauerer”) discloses an agricultural system (Fig. 16) comprising:
CLAIM 1 an agricultural implement (¶0031);
a monitor (110);
a plurality of networks (132) connected to the monitor (110) comprising a first network (132-1) and a second network (132-n);
first row controllers (202-1, 300-1) disposed along the first network (132-1); and
second row controllers (202-n, 300-n) disposed along the second network (132-n);
wherein each network (132- n) is configured to control equipment on each network;
wherein equipment is distributed in rows on the agricultural implement (via the implement toolbar 14); and
wherein the equipment (500-1) controlled by the first network is different than the equipment (500-n) controlled by the second network (i.e., the networks do not share equipment);
CLAIM 3 wherein the equipment is distributed in rows (500-n) on an agricultural implement;
CLAIM 5 wherein the agricultural implement is a row crop planter (¶0031); and
CLAIM 8 wherein performance of equipment is displayed on a screen on the monitor (110)(¶0081).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauerer et al. (US 2015/0094916 A1).
CLAIM 4 In the Bauerer system of Fig. 16, both the first network (132-1) and the second network (132-n) include single rows. In the system embodiment of Fig. 6B, Bauerer shows a network comprising multiple rows (per “Multi-Row Control Module”). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the second network (132-n) and the second row controller (202-n) of the Fig. 16 system in the manner suggested by the Fig. 6B embodiment, whereby the second network would have included multiple rows controlled by a single controller (202a). The motivation for making the modification would have been to have provided for uniformity of operations across rows, thereby lower operating costs and enhancing precision, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 7 In the Bauerer system of Fig. 16, the first row controllers (202-1, 300-1) of the first network (132-1) control equipment for seeding1. Bauerer fails to teach either of the second row controllers (202-n, 300-n) of the second network (132-n) having the functionality to control equipment for chemical application. However, in the system embodiment of Fig. 19, Bauerer shows a network comprising an input controller (307) having the functionality to control equipment for chemical application ([0083]). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added an input controller to the second network. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for dispensing agrochemicals during planting operations, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauerer et al. (US 2015/0094916 A1) in view of Heim et al. (US 2017/0094894 A1).
CLAIM 6 Bauerer fails to teach expressly an air seeder. Heim et al. ‘894 (“Heim”) discloses a planting machine comprising a plurality of networks (Fig. 3) and teaches the functional equivalence of row crop planters and air seeders for placing seeds at a desired depth within a plurality of parallel furrows (¶0002). Thus, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the implement in the prior art system an air seeder as suggested by Heim. The motivation for making the modification would have been to incorporate an implement having a relatively high seed capacity, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauerer et al. (US 2015/0094916 A1) in view of Carpentier et al. (US 2017/0124776 A1).
CLAIM 9 Bauerer fails to teach a split screen. Carpentier et al. (“Carpentier”) discloses the use of split screen display in an agricultural system (¶0024). It would have been an obvious modification for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the display such that it would have been split screen as suggested by Carpentier. The motivation for making the modification would have been to allow for the simultaneous display of information relating to both the first and second networks without the need for toggling by an operator, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the first and second networks of Bauerer, as shown in Figures 1 and 16, are subsets of the same network because they are connected to the same controller area network (CAN) bus. The examiner disagrees because nothing in the claims requires connection of the first and second networks to separate buses or precludes interpretation of the prior art system features as networks, and not subsets of networks. Additionally, Applicant’s own invention is disclosed as having a monitor (1000) including a CAN node to which a “first network 90-1” and a “second network 90-2” are connected ([0008]-[0010])(Fig. 1).
The rejection is maintained.
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 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/
02 March 2026
1 In Fig. 16, Bauerer identifies 300-1 as a drive module having the functionality to drive a seed meter ([0046]).