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 Interpretation
The claims utilize term that are not mirrored in the specification. For the purpose of prosecution the following terms have been interpreted in view of the drawings:
Main Frame: Figure 3 element 20A
Adjustable Frame: Figure 3 element 38A
Linkage Arm: Figure 3 element 44
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 8, 11 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pokriefke (DE 102009044898 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pokriefke discloses a method of reactively controlling ground following of a row unit (Figure 3, working units 8) of an agricultural machine that includes a main frame (1), an adjustable frame (6) coupled to the main frame and configured to pass over a portion of ground, and the row unit (8) which includes a linking arm (Figure 4, arm 10) pivotably coupled to the adjustable frame (hinge connection 11, provided translation page 2 line 4), the method including: determining an actual ground following indicator associated with an actual height of the row unit relative to the portion of ground (senor element 20 indicates an height, such as the row unit not being in contact with the ground such as shown in figure 2. The indication of a height such as the row unit not being in contact with the ground is considered to be an “actual height” in relationship to the ground. See response to arguments below. ); determining a desired ground following indicator associated with a desired height of the row unit relative to the portion of ground (The desired indicator would be equal contact of the row units with the ground as detailed in the 5th paragraph of page 2); comparing the desired ground following indicator to the actual ground following indicator (Evaluation process performed by computer 21, 5th paragraph of page 2); and adjusting the actual ground following indicator toward the desired ground following indicator, which includes adjusting an applied force output by at least one adjustable frame actuator (18) that is coupled to the adjustable frame and the main frame based on the actual ground following indicator and the desired ground following indicator (Further detailed on page 2 5th paragraph).
Regarding claim 2, Pokriefke discloses wherein adjusting the applied force output by the at least one adjustable frame actuator (18) that is coupled to the adjustable frame (6) and the main frame (1) includes: sending a first signal to the at least one adjustable frame actuator coupled to the adjustable frame and the main frame (via computer 21); and adjusting the applied force output by the at least one adjustable frame actuator (18) from a first applied force to a second applied force based on the first signal, wherein at the first applied force the actual ground following indicator is not equal to or within a predetermined threshold of the desired ground following indicator, and at the second applied force the actual ground following indicator is equal to or within the predetermined threshold of the desired ground following indicator (The force applied by the actuator 18 would change to rotate the adjustable frame 6 in relationship to the main frame 1. The force would change until the computer satisfies the condition of the row units being in equal contact with the ground as explained on page 2 the fifth paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Pokriefke discloses wherein determining [[an]]the actual ground following indicator further includes at least one of: determining a position of the row unit relative to the adjustable frame; and measuring a parameter of the row unit irrespective of the adjustable frame (sensor 20 measures deflection of the row units arm 10 in relation to the adjustable frame, abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Pokriefke discloses wherein determining the actual ground following indicator includes: determining a position of the row unit relative to the adjustable frame (sensor 20 measures deflection of the row units arm 10 in relation to the adjustable frame, abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Pokriefke discloses wherein determining the position of the row unit relative to the adjustable frame includes: measuring the distance between the adjustable frame and a portion of the linking arm of the row unit (The sensors ability to measure the deflection is considered to be representative either directly or indirectly of a distance between the two).
Regarding claim 19, Pokriefke discloses wherein determining the desired ground following indicator includes: accessing the desired ground following indicator from a memory of the agricultural machine on which the ground following indicator is stored (on-board computer 21 would utilize memory).
Regarding claim 20, Pokriefke discloses receiving a signal indicative of the desired ground following indicator from a user input device prior to accessing the desired ground following indicator stored on the memory of the agricultural machine (The device of Pokriefke utilizes a computer which would have to be programmed by a user through some form of an input device prior to functioning at a future point. For the sake of argument, it is noted that computer controls on agricultural machines that utilize computers are known to be adjustable or to allow operators variable adjustment to set machine parameters. Upon further amendment to the claim language to specifically define how the desired ground following is entered from a user input device, further prior art in data entry will be relied upon).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pokriefke (DE 102009044898 A1) in view of Houck (US 2015/0230391).
Regarding claim 9, Pokriefke discloses determining the relative position of the row unit arm pivotably attached to the adjustable frame via a sensor 20, however Pokriefke is lacking the type of sensor used capable of determining the displacement between the two elements and is lacking mention of an angle sensor.
Houck discloses agricultural equipment with one element 62 rotationally attached to the other 52 and teaches an angle sensor 220 to determine the displacement between the two (Figures 7 and 8A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pokriefke by using an angle sensor as taught by Houck as a known sensing means to determine the rotational displacement between two elements.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pokriefke (DE 102009044898 A1) in view of GATTERMANN (EP 0171719 A2).
Regarding claims 12, Pokriefke discloses determining an actual ground following indicator via a sensor 20 to maintain ground contact and penetration of the tools when traveling over uneven ground.
Pokriefke is lacking the use of ultrasonic sensors to determine the ground following indicator.
Gattermann discloses an agricultural tool and teaches the use of an ultrasonic sensor to measure the distance between the ground and a portion of the tool.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pokriefke by using an ultrasonic sensor as taught by Gattermann as a known sensing means to determine the positioning of a earth engaging tool with the ground surface.
Claim(s) 10, 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pokriefke (DE 102009044898 A1) in view of Bassett (US 2018/0116098).
Regarding claim 10, Pokriefke discloses row unit actuators (14), which are configured to adjust a position of the linking arm (10) relative to the adjustable frame (6). Pokriefke is lacking the type of sensor used capable of determining the displacement between the arm and the adjustable frame and is lacking mention of an actuator sensor.
Bassett discloses an actuator for agricultural equipment and teaches a sensor that measures an actuators pistons position within a cylinder to produce a signal indicative of positioning of elements relative to one another (¶0077).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pokriefke by using an actuator sensor as taught by Bassett as a known sensing means to determine the positioning between two elements.
Regarding claims 12 and 15, Pokriefke discloses the use of a sowing row unit but is lacking a sowing row unit that comprises an opening disc and a sensor that measures a position of the disc relative to the ground surface.
Bassett discloses a row unit with an opening disc that utilizes a distance sensor (411) that measures the position of the opening disc of the row unit relative to a surface of the ground (¶0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pokriefke by using the sowing row unit comprising an opening disc and sensor system as taught by Bassett as an alternative sowing row unit that further determines a sowing furrow depth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5-1-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the sensor 20 of Pokriefke does not measure the height of the row unit relative to the ground surface. Rather that Pokriefke measures angular positions of the elements to determine ground following. Examiner respectively understands applicant’s arguments, however disagrees. Pokriefke on page 3 paragraph 3 of the provided translation states: “when crossing a dome 19 no longer ensured that all coulters 8 in the ground 13 penetrate or even deep into the ground”. To remedy this the automatic sensor system of Pokriefke to include sensor 20 is used. Applicant’s claim language: “determining an actual ground following indicator associated with an actual height of the row unit relative to the portion of ground;” is considered broad. Pokriefke is considered to determine an actual ground following indicator through the angular measurements as they indirectly determine a condition when the coulters 8 may not be in contact with the ground such as going over a dome. This is considered an indirect measurement of an “indicator associated with” the actual height of the row unit relative to the ground, such as the row unit not being in contact with the ground when passing over a dome.
Applicant refers to their specification for support which presents more detail then what is broadly claimed. However, limitations from the specification are not read into the claim language. Applicant must amend claim 1 to provide further structure and function of how their invention differs from Pokriefke to overcome the broad claim language and for the arguments cited from the specification to apply.
Applicant’s further arguments pertain to dependent claims that do not appear to directly affect the limitations of claim 1 and are not considered pertinent to the arguments of claim 1 from which they depend. Further consideration of dependent claims in relationship to amendments to claim 1 will be considered when presented.
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 ADAM J BEHRENS whose telephone number is (303)297-4336. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-2pm MST.
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 M. 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.
/ADAM J BEHRENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights