DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 May 2026 has been entered.
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
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.
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.
CLAIMS 1 AND 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koch et al. (WO 2018/118716 A1).
Koch et al. ‘716 (“Koch”) teaches an agricultural system (300, Fig. 3) comprising:
CLAIM 1 an agricultural implement (10; [00103]);
a monitor (50);
a plurality of networks connected to the monitor comprising
a first network (400) having a first connection (62-1) to the monitor, and
a second network (1800) having a second connection (62-2) to the monitor;
first row controllers disposed along the first network ([00173]-[00179]); and
second row controllers disposed along the second network ([00173]-[00179)]);
wherein each network is configured to control equipment on each network;
wherein the equipment is distributed in rows on the agricultural implement (e.g., Fig. 4C; [00111], [00112]); and
wherein the equipment controlled by the first network (400) is configured to perform a first type of agricultural operation (e.g., seed firming) and is different than the equipment controlled by the second network (1800) is configured to perform a different second type of agricultural operation (e.g., opening a trench, Fig. 18) ([00224]-[00226]);
CLAIM 5 wherein the agricultural implement (10) is a row crop planter ([00103]);
CLAIM 6 wherein the agricultural implement (10) is an air seeder ([00268])1;
CLAIM 7 wherein the first network (400) controls equipment for the first type of agricultural operation for seeding ([00139], [00140]), and the second network (1800) controls equipment for the different second type of agricultural operation for chemical application ([00224]-[00226]);
CLAIM 8 wherein performance of equipment is displayed on a screen on the monitor (Figs. 20-22); and
CLAIM 9 wherein performance of equipment on the first network (400) and equipment on the second network (1800) are both displayed on split screen on the monitor (Figs. 20-22).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch et al. (WO 2018/118716 A1).
CLAIM 4 Koch fails to teach a number of rows in the first network (400) as different from a number of rows in the second network (1800). However, 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 distributed the equipment of the first network in a number of rows different from that of the second network, because the number of rows provided for each network would have varied directly with the number of rows desired to be worked by equipment in each network. Motivations for distributing equipment of the first and second networks across the implement in different numbers of rows include operational efficiency and cost efficiency.
Conclusion
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/
13 June 2026
1 In paragraph 00268, Koch teaches expressly use of the agricultural system (300) with planters, drills, and air seeders (Fig. 66).
Prosecution Insights