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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strnad et al. (US 10,679,341).
As concerns claim 1, Strnad shows a method comprising: a. loading a row cleaner prescription map into a monitor (col 6, ln 22-30), wherein the monitor is associated with controlling a row cleaner (270) on an agricultural implement (col 3, ln 28-30; col 3, ln 58 – col 4, ln 4); b. traversing the agricultural implement across a field (abstract); and c. adjusting a force (276) applied to the row cleaner according to the prescription map as the agricultural implement traverses the field (col 5, ln 5-10; col 5, ln 46-61).
As concerns claim 2, Strnad shows wherein there are a plurality of row cleaners (270) and each row cleaner is adjusted independent from other row cleaners (Fig. 7).
As concerns claim 3, Strnad shows wherein there are a plurality of row cleaners (270), and the row cleaners are grouped into sections, and each section is adjusted independent from other sections (Fig. 7).
As concerns claim 4, Strnad shows measuring (238) and recording (300) an applied force for each row cleaner (270) at a location in the field (Fig. 7 & 8).
As concerns claim 5, Strnad shows wherein the agricultural implement is a planter (col 3, ln 28-30).
As concerns claim 6, Strnad shows wherein the agricultural implement is a strip till implement (col 7, ln 32-34; col 7, ln 54 – col 8, ln 20).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a prescription map is an action stored in memory by GPS location such that when an implement reaches the GPS coordinates, the action for those GPS coordinates are executed by the implement itself; the action is based only on reaching the GPS coordinates; there is no action taken by an operator of the implement, and there are no sensor measurements used to take the action; it is simply the implement executing an action stored in memory at a specified location) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim recites loading a row cleaner prescription map into a monitor, and adjusting a force applied to the row cleaner according to the prescription map as the agricultural implement traverses the field. These limitations correspond to loading visual information into a monitor, and adjusting a force applied to the row cleaner according to the information as the agricultural implement traverses the field. Strnad discloses an agricultural implement with on-the-go monitoring, comprising: at least one sensor adapted to generate a work layer image of disturbed soil in a field and a reference image of undisturbed soil in the field based on a generated electromagnetic field as the agricultural implement traverses the field to disturb a soil layer of interest, thereby creating the disturbed soil; a monitor in communication with the at least one sensor; at least one actuator adapted to be automatically actuated based on a comparison of the work layer image and the reference image as the agricultural implement continues traversing the field, the monitor being configured for: estimating a soil property based on the work layer image; causing displaying the estimated soil property as a numerical value associated with a geo-referenced location in the field to define a spatial map of the field based on the estimated soil properties, the monitor being configured to compare at least one characteristic of the reference image with at least one characteristic of the work layer image and generates a characterized image of the seed trench, the at least one characteristic of the work layer image being related to crop residue in the seed trench, and the monitor being configured for: determining from the work layer image that the crop residue in the seed trench is above a predetermined threshold, actuating a row cleaner actuator of the at least one actuator to increase row cleaner downforce (claims 1, 2, 5 & 6). Thus, Strnad teaches or suggests loading visual information into a monitor, and adjusting a force applied to the row cleaner according to the information as the agricultural implement traverses the field. Therefore, Strnad meets the claim language.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 3672