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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the instant application contains the phrase “first adjusting means” and “second adjusting means”. Appropriate action is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 10-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wright et al as part of US 5669452 A, hereinafter referred to as Wright.
Regarding Claim 1: Wright teaches of a soil cultivator for mechanical weed control between rows of cultivated plants, comprising:
a frame attachable to a tractor for movement along a traveling direction (Wright: Fig. 1, tongue 26 connecting hitch 28 and hinge assembly 29),
at least one soil processing unit attached to the frame, wherein the at least one soil processing unit comprises a deformable sub-frame made of an elastic material (Wright: Fig. 1, blades 70 are coupled to frame sections 12, 14, and 16 as part of the flexible contouring system of the implement, which are connected to tongue 26),
a first, movably configured, adjusting means, wherein the first adjusting means is connected to the deformable sub-frame via at least a first connecting element, and a second, movably configured, adjusting means, wherein the second adjusting means is connected to the deformable sub-frame via at least a second connecting element (Wright: Fig. 1, hydraulic depth control cylinders 75 and 85 constitute blade adjustment mechanism for frame sections, 12, 14, and 16), and
at least one adjusting unit for carrying out a movement of the first and the second adjusting means (Wright: Col. 8, Line 20-30, the hydraulic system that controls the blade adjustment mechanisms comprises a hydraulic take-off (not shown) of the tractor), the deformable sub-frame being elastically deformable by the movement of the first and the second adjusting means such that an extent of the deformable sub-frame changes transverse to the traveling direction (Wright: Col. 7, Line 11-30, the deformation and flexing of frame sections 12, 14, and 16 are related to the depth of the blades and therefore perpendicular/transverse to the direction of travel).
Regarding Claim 3: Wright teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
Wright further teaches wherein the deformable sub-frame comprises a one-piece design, or several sub-elements which are immovable relative to one another and fixedly connected to one another (Wright: Col. 5, line 55-64/Col 6, line 14-23, flexible contorting system comprises frame sections 12, 14, and 16, which are connected to one another via hinges 48, 49, 51, 61, 63, and 63).
Regarding Claim 4: Wright teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
Wright further teaches wherein the deformable sub-frame has an open or closed design (Wright: Col 5, line 39-43/Col. 5, line 65-Col. 5, line 1, both sides of the flexible contouring system comprise rectangular frames as defined by frame sections 12, 14, 16, and transverse frame members 46, 47, 58, and 59, as well as cross members 44, 45, 56, and 57 , thus are closed in design).
Regarding Claim 5: Wright teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
Wright further teaches wherein the deformable sub-frame runs in a plane, wherein the deformable sub-frame comprises at least one loop, wherein the loop runs in the plane of the deformable sub-frame or perpendicular to the plane of the deformable sub-frame (Wright: Fig. 1, the rectangular frames defined by the flexible contouring system described in claim 4 exist within a plane parallel to the ground, and each closed rectangle exists within this reference plane).
Regarding Claim 6: Wright teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
Wright further teaches wherein the first connecting element comprises at least one joint, and the second connecting element comprises at least one joint (Wright: Fig. 1; Col. 7, line 27-30, Control cylinder 75 is connected at the pivot point of the linkage 73 on one end and to bottom strut 74 on the other end; Col. 7, line 62-65, control cylinder 85 is coupled at the pivot point of linkage 84 at one end and to bottom strut 82 on the other end).
Regarding Claim 10: Wright teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
Wright further teaches wherein a plurality of soil processing units with a plurality of deformable sub-frames are arranged on the frame (Wright: Fig. 1, frame members 12, 14, and 16 comprise a plurality of sub frame units, a plurality of blades 70 are present).
Regarding Claim 11: Wright teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 10.
Wright further teaches wherein movement of the first and the second adjusting means deforms the plurality of deformable sub-frames such that the extent of the deformable sub-frames transverse to the traveling direction changes in the same way (Wright: Col. 9, line 20-48, control of cylinders 75 and 85 controls the cutting depth of the blades into the soil, which flexes the frame members 12, 14, and 16).
Regarding Claim 15: Wright teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
Wright further teaches of the apparatus further comprising at least one movement transmission means for carrying out a movement of the first adjusting means and the second adjusting means (Wright: Col. 8, Line 20-30, the hydraulic system that controls the blade adjustment mechanisms comprises a hydraulic take-off (not shown) of the tractor), wherein the at least one adjusting unit is connected to the first adjusting means and the second adjusting means via the at least one movement transmission means in order to execute a movement of the first and the second adjusting means (Wright: col. 8, line 20-30, the hydraulic take-off is connected to the control cylinders 75 and 85 to supply them with hydraulic fluid for operation, as is known in the art).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright in view of Warming et al as part of US 20220022359 A1, hereinafter referred to as Warming.
Regarding Claim 2: Wright teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
Wright does not teach of specific materials used in the construction or manufacture of the frame members.
Warming teaches of a soil cultivation apparatus, wherein flexible members are comprised of spring steel and steel (Warming: Paragraph 19/paragraph 44, elements required to be flexible to avoid breakage under strain are commonly made from resilient types of steel or spring steel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the unspecified material for the flexible members of Wright with steel or spring steel as taught by Warming, to the predictable result of the flexible frame members being comprised of a flexible yet resilient material that allows for deflection or deformation (Warming: Paragraphs 19/44). Such a modification would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of the frame members being comprised of flexible steel or spring steel (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Claim 12 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright in view of Disberger et al as part of US 20210212249 A1, hereinafter referred to as Disberger.
Regarding Claim 12: Wright teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
Wright does not teach of the inclusion of a first and second harrow tine as part of the soil processing units.
Disberger teaches of a soil working implement with multiple, rectangular subframes of individual soil working units (Disberger: Fig. 24 shows a top down view of the rectangular frame and plurality of soil working units as part of implement 14), wherein it is noted that implements such as harrows can be utilized in place of fixed blades (Disberger: Paragraph 47, implement 14 may comprise a variety of tools to modify the ground soil, such as harrows, fixed blades, tillers, scrapers, and the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the fixed blade structures taught by Wright with the harrow structures taught by Disberger to create an implement that utilizes a different soil working tools to cultivate an agricultural field (Disberger: Paragraph 47, it is known to utilize multiple, different soil working tools as part of a single implement or framework). Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of utilizing a plurality of harrow tines on a flexible frame (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding Claim 14: Wright teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
Wright does not teach of the inclusion of a first and second harrow tine as part of the soil processing units.
Disberger teaches of a soil working implement with multiple, rectangular subframes of individual soil working units (Disberger: Fig. 24 shows a top down view of the rectangular frame and plurality of soil working units as part of implement 14), wherein it is noted that implements such as coulter discs can be utilized in place of fixed blades (Disberger: Paragraph 47, implement 14 may comprise a variety of tools to modify the ground soil, such as rippers, tillers, coulters, harvesters, and the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the fixed blade structures taught by Wright with the coulter structures taught by Disberger to create an implement that utilizes a different soil working tools to cultivate an agricultural field (Disberger: Paragraph 47, it is known to utilize multiple, different soil working tools as part of a single implement or framework). Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of utilizing a plurality of coulter discs on a flexible frame (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
While Disberger does not specify the auxiliary connecting means for each coulter disc, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to utilize some method of connecting each disc to the larger flexible subframe, either individually or in groups of multiple discs on the same auxiliary attachment. Such methods of attaching soil working coulter discs would have been within the technical grasp of one of ordinary skill in the art and would lead to the anticipated result of securing the coulter discs to the flexible subframe via an auxiliary connecting means (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, E).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 13 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.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, while adjustment systems are well known in the art, such as those taught by Wright, upon a complete and thorough search of prior art, no such detail was found that comprised a pipe arranged transverse to the traveling direction, including guide sleeves and force transmission means positioned between the deformable sub-frame structures and the movable adjustment means. Including or modifying existing structures of Wright to include such details would rely on improper hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 9, while linear movement of adjustment members are common in prior art, such as the linear hydraulic cylinders taught by Wright, no such examples were found that included a first and second adjustment member as described, wherein the adjustment members were oriented antiparallel. Wright does teach of two hydraulic cylinders that are arranged transverse to the traveling direction and oriented antiparallel to one another (Wright: Fig. 1, hydraulic cylinders 52 and 62); however, these two cylinders transition the implement between a folded transport condition and an extended working condition, separate from adjustment of the deformable members as claim 1 requires.
Regarding claim 13, while cultivator sweeps are well known in the art, and the use of various ground engaging tools being utilized with a single frame of an implement as taught by Disberger, as well as the use of a plurality of such elements in conjunction with one another for the purposes of agricultural work such as those taught by Serrurier as part of US 20180192570 A1, no such examples were found that included a first, second, and third cultivator sweep element, offset relative to each other in the direction of travel of the implement and transverse to the direction of travel, in such a way as to form an isosceles triangle arrangement relative to the direction of travel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Harden as part of US 5398770 A teaches of a cultivator comprising a sub-frame comprised of flexible members, carrying a plurality of subsoil working tools.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN ANTHONY BREGEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0922. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 Eastern, M-F.
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, Christopher J Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. 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.
/EVAN A BREGEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671