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 .
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “coulter blade is arranged to vertically penetrate the soil to a depth deeper than the knife assembly”, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the recited claim 3, according to claim 16 is improper claim numbering. Appropriate correction is required.
With regards to claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the recited “the collection spool is rotatable between a first position (as there is no description illustrating and / or where this position is initiated) in which the collection cavity is shielded ( from the soil, and a second position in which the collection cavity is outwardly exposed to the soil to collect the soil sample” is unclear as to what is being referred to here. The DETAILED DESCRIPTION does not define, disclose or suggest these above limitations and or their function as to how these are to be performed. Appropriate correction is required.
With regards to claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the recited “collection spool is further vertically movable in the rear blade element” is unclear as to what is being referred to as the DETAILED DESCRIPTION does not define, disclose or suggest this above limitation.
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)(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, 7, & 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scheider et al. [PG. Pub. No.: US 2014/0251032 A1].
With regards to claim 1, Scheider discloses a soil sample collection system (ABSTRACT) comprising: a support frame configured for mounting to a vehicle (10, tractor, Fig. 1-7, ¶0029); a collection apparatus (¶0002) comprising: a coulter blade rotatably coupled to the support frame (14, leading in-line disk, Fig. 1-7, ¶0030); a knife assembly coupled to the support frame proximate to and at the rear of the coulter blade (18, soil collection knife, Fig. 1-4, ¶0030), the knife assembly comprising a front blade element (70, knife blade, Figs. 11-13, ) and a rear blade element coupled to the front blade element (83, housing of knife collection blade 18, Figs. 11-13, ¶0036); wherein the rear blade element is configured to engage the soil and collect the soil sample as the vehicle travels along a surface of the soil (Claim 6).
With regards to claim 2, Scheider discloses the rear blade element is pivotably movable (the soil collection knife 18 is part of a collection knife assembly 19, and the assembly 19 is mounted on a tubular member 21c that is pivotably supported by the soil sampler frame. A hydraulic cylinder 22 mounted on the soil sampler frame is selectively extended to rotate the collection knife assembly 19 toward tractor 10 and thereby raise the soil collection knife 18, or retracted to rotate the collection knife assembly 19 away from tractor, ¶0033).
With regards to claim 3, Scheider discloses the rear blade element is hingedly coupled to the front blade element (A hydraulic cylinder 22 mounted on the soil sampler frame is selectively extended to rotate the collection knife assembly 19 toward tractor 10 and thereby raise the soil collection knife 18, or retracted to rotate the collection knife assembly 19 away from tractor, ¶0033).
With regards to claim 4, Scheider discloses, wherein the rear blade element is angularly moveable relative to the front blade element in opposing lateral directions about a substantially vertical pivot axis (the soil collection knife 18 is part of a collection knife assembly 19, and the assembly 19 is mounted on a tubular member 21c that is pivotably supported by the soil sampler frame, Fig. 3, 4, & 7, ¶0031-0033).
With regards to claim 7, Scheider discloses, wherein the rear blade element comprises a movable collection spool, the collection spool being selectively rotatable axis (the soil collection knife 18 is part of a collection knife assembly 19, and the assembly 19 is mounted on a tubular member 21c that is pivotably supported by the soil sampler frame, Fig. 3, 4, & 7, ¶0031-0033) and comprising a collection cavity configured to capture the soil sample (the knife blade 70 of soil collection knife 18 incorporates a series of four sampling chambers 72, 74, 75, 76 inboard of the soil capture slot 90. The sampling chambers 72, 74, 75, 76 are disposed at different soil depths to collect samples of topsoil at different soil depths, and the canted press wheel 20 urges soil into the sampling chambers 72, 74, 75, 76 as the knife blade 70 is drawn through the soil by the forward movement of the tractor 10, Figs. 11-14, ¶0036).
With regards to claim 8, Scheider discloses, further comprising a spool drive mechanism (25, carousel, Figs. 5-9, ¶0045) operably coupled to the collection spool and operable to rotate the collection spool (Figs. 5-9, ¶0038-0045).
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.
Claims 11, 12, & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Scheider et al. [PG. Pub. No.: US 2014/0251032 A1] in view of O’Neall et al. [PG. Pub. No.: US 2023/0151810 A1].
The applied reference has a common Inventor and Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
With regards to claim 11, Scheider disclose the claimed invention as cited above in claim 1, however is silent on the collection apparatus includes at least one guide ski disposed adjacent to the coulter blade and configured to ride along the surface of the soil.
O’Neall ‘1032 teaches of collection apparatus (8002, soil sample collection apparatus, Fig. 44-82, ¶0229) includes at least one guide ski (8060, at least one guide ski, Fig. 46, ¶0229) disposed adjacent to the coulter blade (8021, coulter blade Fig. 46, ¶0229) and configured to ride along the surface of the soil (Fig. 53, ¶0238).
At the timer of filing, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to modify Scheider’s soil sample collection system with a at least one guide ski based upon O’Neall ‘1032 teachings. When modifying Scheider one would have readily concluded to provide the guide ski to substantially limits the insertion depth of the knife assembly into the soil, (¶0239).
With regards to claim 12, O’Neall ‘1032 teaches wherein the at least one guide ski comprises an upturned wedge-shaped front-end portion, (Figs 46-48, ¶0239).
With regards to claim 15, O’Neall ‘1032 teaches coulter blade is arranged to vertically penetrate the soil to a depth deeper than the knife assembly
Claims 16 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Scheider et al. [PG. Pub. No.: US 2014/0251032 A1] in view of Kornecki et al. [PG. Pub. No.: US 2020/0100418 A1].
With regards to claim 16, Scheider disclose the claimed invention as cited above in claim 1, however is silent on the coulter blade is coupled to and rotated by a motor.
Kornecki teaches of coulter blade (20, active coulter component, Fig. 2, ¶0011) is coupled to and rotated by a motor, (21, active external mechanical power means like a hydraulic motor, a tractor power take-off, an electric motor, or the like, Fig. 2, ¶0011).
At the timer of filing, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to modify Scheider’s soil sample collection system having 14, leading in-line disk having a mechanical power means to power the active coulter component based upon Kornecki teachings. When modifying Scheider one would have readily concluded to provide the active external mechanical power means as this structure enables the active coulter component to be vertically adjusted quickly and efficiently, ¶0014)
With regards to claim 17, Kornecki teaches further comprising an overrunning clutch operably coupled between the motor and the coulter blade (The active coulter component is directly driven by an active external mechanical power means, like a hydraulic motor, a tractor power take-off, an electric motor, or the like, ¶0011).
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Scheider et al. [PG. Pub. No.: US 2014/0251032 A1] in view of Renyer et al. [PG. Pub. No.: US 2012/0241180 A1].
With regards to claim 18, Scheider disclose the claimed invention as cited above in claim 1, however is silent on the further comprising a drive wheel coupled to the coulter blade and operable to rotate the coulter blade, the drive wheel configured to roll on the surface of the soil when the collection apparatus is pulled through the soil.
Renyer teaches of (10, a farm implement, Fig. 1, ABSTRACT) comprising a drive wheel (16, a pair of ground wheels secured by means of conventional implement height adjustment mechanisms, 0036) coupled to the coulter blade (26, rotatable coulter blades, being coupled to 12, frame Figs. 1 & 2, 0036-0039) and operable to rotate the coulter blade, the drive wheel (16) configured to roll on the surface of the soil when the collection apparatus is pulled through the soil (Figs. 1 & 2).
At the timer of filing, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to modify Scheider’s soil sample collection system having a pair of ground wheels based upon Renyer teachings. When modifying Scheider one would have readily concluded to provide the a pair of ground wheels secured by means of conventional implement height adjustment mechanisms, ¶0036).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 13, & 14 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.
With regards to claim 5, the prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “a pair of rudder actuators operably coupled to the rear blade element, the rudder actuators operable to pivot the rear blade element in opposing lateral directions” in combination with the remaining claimed elements as set forth in claim 5 from which it depends. Claim 6 depends therefrom claim 5.
With regards to claim 13, wherein the knife assembly further comprises a plurality of low friction pads disposed adjacent to the at least one guide ski on lateral side surfaces of the knife assembly.
With regards to claim 14, wherein the at least one guide ski is spaced apart from the coulter blade by a gap between less than a thickness of the coulter blade and no more than five times the thickness, or optionally twice the thickness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS C GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3348. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/FRANCIS C GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852