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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/25/2026 has been entered. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1 and 3-21 are pending in this application.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows: The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 16/470,472, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The language of the newly amended claim 1 includes “an actual ground following indicator associated with an actual height of the row unit relative to the ground” and “a desired ground following indicator that is associated with a desired height of the row unit relative to the ground”. Examiner notes the commonly understood meaning of the word “indicator”, which is defined as an element or value that serves as a sign or indication of a condition. In terms of the claim language, this means that “an actual ground following indicator associated with an actual height of the row unit relative to the ground” is understood as an element or value that indicates or has some relation to the actual height of the row unit relative to the ground, and “a desired ground following indicator that is associated with a desired height of the row unit relative to the ground” is understood as an element or value that indicates or has some relation to the desired height of the row unit relative to the ground. It is recognized that “a claim which encompasses two or more embodiments or species within the scope of the claim is analyzed as a claim drawn to a genus” (see MPEP 2163). Therefore, as the dependent claims describe two or more embodiments or species of these indicators, it is interpreted that these indicators in the independent claim 1 constitute a genus of values that serve as a sign or indication of the height of the row unit relative to the ground.
The actual and desired ground following indicators are not supported in applicant’s disclosure with respect to the plain meaning and interpretation described above. The disclosure of the prior-filled application 16/470,472 does not clearly define an actual or a desired ground following indicator, but instead describes how the contouring toolbar system uses a sensor “to sense the position of the toolbar 38A (and hence the position of the row unit 33B) relative to the ground” ([0028]) and attempts to “control the ‘X’ dimension to keep the row unit 33B engaged with the ground” ([0023]) using the data from the sensor, and does this by “keep[ing] the ‘X’ dimension relatively constant relative to the ground” ([0028]). This prior disclosure supports a direct measurement of an actual height of the row unit relative to the ground, and controls the toolbar so that this actual height of the row unit relative to the ground is kept relatively constant at a certain height of the toolbar relative to the ground. This is patentably distinct from the language of claim 1, which instead determines actual and desired ground following indicators that are respectively associated with an actual and desired height of the row unit relative to the ground.
Further regarding the indicators of the independent claim 1, it is recognized that that a claim “may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated” (emphasis added, see MPEP 2163.03). A genus can be found to lack adequate written description in a disclosure “if a representative number of adequately described species are not disclosed for a genus” (see MPEP 2163). As the actual and desired ground following indicators are presently interpreted as a genus of values that serve as a sign or indication of the height of the row unit relative to the ground, examiner recognizes that applicant’s disclosure supports a species of this value being measured as “the position of the toolbar 38A (and hence the position of the row unit 33B) relative to the ground” ([0028]). This species is described in claim 6’s recitation of “measuring a distance between the ground and the adjustable frame.” However, applicant’s prior disclosure lacks any description of further species of these actual or desired ground following indicators as exemplarily described in the presently filed dependent claims. The prior disclosure additionally lacks any support or evidence that the “position of the toolbar…relative to the ground” is to be construed as one of many species of an actual and desired ground following indicator, nor does it describe an actual and desired ground following indicator such that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed.
Additionally, the claimed use of “predetermined thresholds” also does not find support in the disclosure of the previously filed application. As stated prior, the toolbar described in the disclosure of the previous application attempts to “control the ‘X’ dimension to keep the row unit 33B engaged with the ground” ([0023]) and does this by “keep[ing] the ‘X’ dimension relatively constant relative to the ground” ([0028]). This supports the toolbar being controlled so that the actual height of the row unit is constantly being manipulated to closely match the desired height of the row unit. This is distinct from the present claims, which describe how the claimed movement only occurs when the actual and desired ground following indicator differ by a predetermined threshold. A predetermined threshold is only defined with respect to a “defined threshold degree value away from a zero degree reference” ([0030]), and is not defined in reference to a difference between a desired and actual ground following indicator.
Accordingly, claim 1 is not entitled to the benefit of the prior application. Claims 3-21 are also not entitled to the benefit due to their dependency on claim 1.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 1 introduces new terms not found in applicant’s specification, including but not limited to “a main frame”, “an adjustable frame”, “an actual ground following indicator”, “a desired ground following indicator”, “a first position”, and “a second position”. These terms and other terms that also lack antecedent basis in the specification are also found in the dependent claims 3-21. Appropriate correction of the specification is required in order to sufficiently introduce these terms.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 includes “determining the position of the adjustable frame relative to the main frame based on the difference between the distance between the ground and the adjustable frame and the distance between the ground and the adjustable frame and the distance between the ground and the main frame.” The underlined portion is repeated twice, which renders the claim indefinite. Examiner recognizes this as a typographical error, and is interpreting the claim as though the position is determined based on “the difference between the distance between the ground and the adjustable frame and the distance between the ground and the main frame.”
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.
Claims 1 and 3-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being clearly anticipated by Wonderlich et al. (US 12058945 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Wonderlich teaches a method of reactively controlling ground following of a row unit of an agricultural machine,
where the agricultural machine includes an adjustable frame having a forward end pivotably coupled to a main frame of the agricultural machine and a rearward end coupled to a linking arm of the row unit, (see claim 1 of Wonderlich) the method comprising:
measuring via a sensor an actual ground following indicator associated with an actual height of the row unit relative to the ground (see claim 1 of Wonderlich);
receiving via a controller the actual ground following indicator measured by the sensor; comparing via the controller the actual ground following indicator to a desired ground following indicator that is associated with a desired height of the row unit relative to the ground (see claim 1 of Wonderlich);
and sending a signal via the controller to at least one adjustable frame actuator coupled to the adjustable frame and the main frame in response to determining that the actual ground following indicator is not equal to or within a predetermined threshold of the desired ground following indicator, the signal causing movement of the at least one adjustable frame actuator from a first position to a second position to pivot the adjustable frame relative to the main frame (see claim 1 of Wonderlich);
wherein in the first position the actual ground following indicator is not equal to or within the predetermined threshold of the desired ground following indicator and in the second position the actual ground following indicator is equal to or within the predetermined threshold of the desired ground following indicator (see claim 1 of Wonderlich).
Regarding claim 3, Wonderlich teaches wherein measuring via a sensor an actual ground following indicator includes: measuring a position of the adjustable frame relative to the main frame (see claim 2 of Wonderlich).
Regarding claim 4, Wonderlich teaches wherein measuring the position of the adjustable frame relative to the main frame includes:
measuring a position of the at least one adjustable frame actuator coupled to the adjustable frame and the main frame (see claim 3 of Wonderlich).
Regarding claim 5, Wonderlich teaches wherein measuring the position of the adjustable frame relative to the main frame includes:
measuring an angle formed between the adjustable frame and the main frame (see claim 4 of Wonderlich).
Regarding claim 6, Wonderlich teaches wherein measuring the position of the adjustable frame relative to the main frame includes:
measuring a distance between the ground and the adjustable frame (see claim 5 of Wonderlich).
Regarding claim 7, Wonderlich teaches wherein measuring the position of the adjustable frame relative to the main frame further comprises:
measuring a distance between the ground and the main frame (see claim 6 of Wonderlich); and
determining the position of the adjustable frame relative to the main frame based on the difference between the distance between the ground and the adjustable frame and the distance between the ground and the main frame (see claim 6 of Wonderlich).
Regarding claim 8, Wonderlich teaches wherein measuring the distance between the ground and the adjustable frame includes:
measuring, with an ultrasonic sensor, the distance between the ground and the adjustable frame (see claim 7 of Wonderlich).
Regarding claim 9, Wonderlich teaches wherein measuring via a sensor an actual ground following indicator includes:
measuring a reactive force applied by the ground to a gauge wheel coupled to the adjustable frame (see claim 8 of Wonderlich).
Regarding claim 10, Wonderlich teaches wherein measuring via a sensor an actual ground following indicator includes:
measuring a position of the row unit relative to the adjustable frame (see claim 9 of Wonderlich).
Regarding claim 11, Wonderlich teaches wherein measuring a position of the row unit relative to the adjustable frame includes:
measuring an angle formed between the linking arm and at least one of: a portion of the adjustable frame and a portion of the row unit coupled to the linking arm (see claim 10 of Wonderlich).
Regarding claim 12, Wonderlich teaches wherein measuring a position of the row unit relative to the adjustable frame includes:
measuring a position of a row unit actuator, which is configured to adjust the position of the linking arm relative to the adjustable frame (see claim 11 of Wonderlich).
Regarding claim 13, Wonderlich teaches wherein measuring a position of the row unit relative to the adjustable frame includes:
measuring a distance between the adjustable frame and a portion of the linking arm of the row unit (see claim 12 of Wonderlich).
Regarding claim 14, Wonderlich teaches wherein determining measuring an actual ground following indicator includes:
measuring a parameter of the row unit irrespective of the adjustable frame (see claim 13 of Wonderlich).
Regarding claim 15, Wonderlich teaches wherein measuring a parameter of the row unit irrespective of the adjustable frame includes at least one of:
measuring the position of a gauge wheel of the row unit relative to a shank of the row unit, wherein the gauge wheel is coupled to the shank (see claim 14 of Wonderlich);
and measuring, with an ultrasonic sensor, the distance between the ground and a portion of the row unit (see claim 14 of Wonderlich).
Regarding claim 16, Wonderlich teaches wherein measuring a parameter of the row unit irrespective of the adjustable frame includes:
measuring the position of a closing wheel of the row unit relative to a shank of the row unit, wherein the closing wheel is pivotably coupled to the shank (see claim 15 of Wonderlich).
Regarding claim 17, Wonderlich teaches wherein measuring a parameter of the row unit irrespective of the adjustable frame includes:
measuring the position of an opening disc of the row unit relative to a surface of the ground (see claim 16 of Wonderlich).
Regarding claim 18, Wonderlich teaches wherein measuring a parameter of the row unit irrespective of the adjustable frame includes:
measuring a reactive force applied by the ground to a gauge wheel of the row unit (see claim 17 of Wonderlich).
Regarding claim 19, Wonderlich teaches wherein measuring a parameter of the row unit irrespective of the adjustable frame includes:
determining a ground contact value indicative of a percentage of time that a gauge wheel of the row unit is in contact with the ground (see claim 18 of Wonderlich).
Regarding claim 20, Wonderlich teaches:
receiving via the controller a signal indicative of the desired ground following indicator from a user input device operatively coupled to the controller (see claim 19 of Wonderlich).
Regarding claim 21, Wonderlich teaches wherein measuring the distance between the ground and the adjustable frame includes:
measuring a position of a ground engaging mechanism relative to the adjustable frame (see claim 20 of Wonderlich);
wherein the ground engaging mechanism is coupled to the adjustable frame (see claim 20 of Wonderlich).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues against the given objection over the specification because they contend that the terms find “implicit antecedent basis” in the specification. This argument is unpersuasive as the nomenclature used throughout the claims does not match the nomenclature used throughout the disclosure. Per MPEP § 608.01(o), “while an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification.” Applicant is required to amend the specification to match the nomenclature of the claims.
In regards to the present application’s priority to previous application 16/470,472, applicant argues that the presently amended claims should not be considered new matter as they are supported by the presently filed disclosure (which is recognized as the same as the previous disclosure of application 16/470,472). This argument is unpersuasive. As stated previously, given the plain meaning of “indicator” and the lack of any subsequent recitation in the specification, there is no support for the actual and desired ground following indicators, nor is there support for comparing the difference between these indicators to a predetermined threshold as required by the claims. The paragraphs cited by applicant as locations in the specification where support can be found instead refer to how the toolbar is controlled directly from the sensed height of a row unit relative to the ground, which is distinct from the control based on sensed indicators associated with this height. Therefore, the presently filed application is still not granted the earlier priority date of the stated priority application.
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 JACK R BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK R BREWER/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights