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 Objections
Claims 1, 9 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(claim 1, line 8) “at least a first soil cultivation tool” should be changed to “at least one first soil cultivation tool”.
(claim 1, line 10) “at least a second soil cultivation tool” should be changed to “at least one second soil cultivation tool”.
(claim 1, line 22) “they” should be changed to “the first and the second connecting elements”.
(claim 9, line 4) “they” should be changed to “the first and the second harrow tines”.
(claim 12, line 4) “at least a first connecting part” should be changed to “at least one first connecting part”.
(claim 12, lines 6-7) “at least a second connecting part” should be changed to “at least one second connecting part”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a support element” in claim 7, “a first, movably designed adjusting means” in claim 12, “a second, movably designed adjusting means” in claim 12, and “at least one adjusting unit for executing a movement” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "like" in lines 18 and 20 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the depth guide wheels" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 should be dependent upon claim 6 instead of claim 1 to provide proper antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claims 2-7 and 9-15 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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, 5, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lysaght (US 2016/0157411).
As concerns claim 1, Lysaght shows a soil cultivator for mechanical weed control in rows of cultivated plants (Fig. 1 & 2), comprising: a frame (21, 22) attachable to a tractor (4) for movement along a traveling direction (3), and at least one processing unit (1) attached to the frame, wherein the at least one processing unit comprises, a frame-like element (9A, 9B), wherein an extent of the frame-like element can be changed transverse to the traveling direction (Fig. 3), at least one first soil cultivation tool (lower portion of one ground member 10) attached to the frame-like element via a first connecting element (upper portion of the one ground member 10), at least one second soil cultivation tool (lower portion of the other ground member 10) attached to the frame-like element via a second connecting element (upper portion of the other ground member 10), and a swiveling axis element (5) having a cylindrical design at least sectionally in cross section (Fig. 3), wherein the first soil cultivation tool and the second soil cultivation tool are arranged transverse to the traveling direction on different sides of the swiveling axis element (Fig. 3), wherein the first connecting element has a first annular section that encloses the swiveling axis element (Fig. 3), wherein the second connecting element has a second annular section that encloses the swiveling axis element (Fig. 3), and wherein the first and the second connecting elements are arranged so that the first and the second connecting elements can swivel around the swiveling axis element in such a way that a change in the extent of the frame-like element transverse to the traveling direction can effect a change in a distance between the first soil cultivation tool and the second cultivation tool transverse to the traveling direction (Fig. 3).
As concerns claim 5, Lysaght shows wherein the first and the second soil cultivation tools comprise a first and a second angle chopper (lower portions of the ground members 10), wherein the first angle chopper is attached to a lower section of the first connecting element (Fig. 3), and the second angle chopper is attached to a lower section of the second connecting element (Fig. 3).
As concerns claim 10, Lysaght shows wherein the frame-like element (9A, 9B) at least sectionally consists of an elastic material, wherein the elastic material comprises an elastomer, a thermoplastic, a rubber, or steel (paragraph 0108).
As concerns claim 15, Lysaght shows a plurality of processing units with a plurality of frame-like elements arranged on the frame (Fig. 5).
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.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lysaght alone.
As concerns claim 9, Lysaght discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the processing unit has at least a first and a second harrow tine, wherein the first and the second harrow tines are attached to the swiveling axis element, wherein the first and the second harrow tines are designed so that the first and the second harrow tines can be folded between a parked position and a usable position. The examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art (Applicant Admitted Prior Art; paragraph 0004 of the specification) to use harrow tines in a processing unit of a soil cultivator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized harrow tines for the expected benefit of comminuting the clods and chunks of earth loosened by the soil cultivation tools and pulling the weeds to the soil surface in order to expose the roots of the weeds such that the roots will dry out and no longer grow. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using harrow tines in the processing unit of the soil cultivator would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Lysaght to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 11, Lysaght shows a plurality of cultivation tools on the processing unit, wherein the cultivation tools are connected with the frame-like element of the processing unit via one or several connecting means (Fig. 1 & 2), wherein the cultivation tools comprise cultivator sweeps (10) and colters (12). Lysaght discloses the claimed invention except for harrow tines. The examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art (Applicant Admitted Prior Art; paragraph 0004 of the specification) to use harrow tines in a processing unit of a soil cultivator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized harrow tines for the expected benefit of comminuting the clods and chunks of earth loosened by the soil cultivation tools and pulling the weeds to the soil surface in order to expose the roots of the weeds such that the roots will dry out and no longer grow. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using harrow tines in the processing unit of the soil cultivator would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Lysaght to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6, 7-8 (with proper dependency on claim 6) and 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not appear to anticipate and/or render obvious:
a) a soil cultivator for mechanical weed control in rows of cultivated plants, comprising: a frame attachable to a tractor for movement along a traveling direction, and at least one processing unit attached to the frame, wherein the at least one processing unit comprises, a frame-like element, wherein an extent of the frame-like element can be changed transverse to the traveling direction, at least one first soil cultivation tool attached to the frame-like element via a first connecting element, at least one second soil cultivation tool attached to the frame-like element via a second connecting element, and a swiveling axis element having a cylindrical design at least sectionally in cross section, wherein the first soil cultivation tool and the second soil cultivation tool are arranged transverse to the traveling direction on different sides of the swiveling axis element, wherein the first connecting element has a first annular section that encloses the swiveling axis element, wherein the second connecting element has a second annular section that encloses the swiveling axis element, and wherein the first and the second connecting elements are arranged so that the first and the second connecting elements can swivel around the swiveling axis element in such a way that a change in the extent of the frame-like element transverse to the traveling direction can effect a change in a distance between the first soil cultivation tool and the second cultivation tool transverse to the traveling direction, wherein the first connecting element has an upper section connected with the frame-like element and with the first annular section and a lower section connected with the first annular section and with the first soil cultivation tool, and the second connecting element has an upper section connected with the frame-like element and with the second annular section and a lower section connected with the second annular section and with the second soil cultivation tool.
b) a soil cultivator for mechanical weed control in rows of cultivated plants, comprising: a frame attachable to a tractor for movement along a traveling direction, and at least one processing unit attached to the frame, wherein the at least one processing unit comprises, a frame-like element, wherein an extent of the frame-like element can be changed transverse to the traveling direction, at least one first soil cultivation tool attached to the frame-like element via a first connecting element, at least one second soil cultivation tool attached to the frame-like element via a second connecting element, and a swiveling axis element having a cylindrical design at least sectionally in cross section, wherein the first soil cultivation tool and the second soil cultivation tool are arranged transverse to the traveling direction on different sides of the swiveling axis element, wherein the first connecting element has a first annular section that encloses the swiveling axis element, wherein the second connecting element has a second annular section that encloses the swiveling axis element, and wherein the first and the second connecting elements are arranged so that the first and the second connecting elements can swivel around the swiveling axis element in such a way that a change in the extent of the frame-like element transverse to the traveling direction can effect a change in a distance between the first soil cultivation tool and the second cultivation tool transverse to the traveling direction, a first and a second depth guide wheel, wherein the first depth guide wheel and the second depth guide wheel are arranged transverse to the traveling direction on different sides of the swiveling axis element, wherein the first depth guide wheel is attached to a lower section of the first connecting element, and the second depth guide wheel is attached to a lower section of the second connecting element, wherein changing the extent of the frame-like element transverse to the traveling direction can effect a change in the distance between the first depth guide wheel and the second depth guide wheel transverse to the traveling direction.
c) a soil cultivator for mechanical weed control in rows of cultivated plants, comprising: a frame attachable to a tractor for movement along a traveling direction, and at least one processing unit attached to the frame, wherein the at least one processing unit comprises, a frame-like element, wherein an extent of the frame-like element can be changed transverse to the traveling direction, at least one first soil cultivation tool attached to the frame-like element via a first connecting element, at least one second soil cultivation tool attached to the frame-like element via a second connecting element, and a swiveling axis element having a cylindrical design at least sectionally in cross section, wherein the first soil cultivation tool and the second soil cultivation tool are arranged transverse to the traveling direction on different sides of the swiveling axis element, wherein the first connecting element has a first annular section that encloses the swiveling axis element, wherein the second connecting element has a second annular section that encloses the swiveling axis element, and wherein the first and the second connecting elements are arranged so that the first and the second connecting elements can swivel around the swiveling axis element in such a way that a change in the extent of the frame-like element transverse to the traveling direction can effect a change in a distance between the first soil cultivation tool and the second cultivation tool transverse to the traveling direction, wherein the processing unit further comprises: a first, movably designed adjusting means, wherein the first adjusting means is connected with the frame-like element via at least one first connecting part, and a second, movably designed adjusting means, wherein the second adjusting means is connected with the frame-like element via at least one second connecting part, and at least one adjusting unit for executing a movement of the first and the second adjusting means, wherein the movement of the first and the second adjusting means makes it possible to change the extent of the frame-like element transverse to the traveling direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schulte (EP 3610712) and Li et al. (CN 103081597) each show a soil cultivator for mechanical weed control in rows of cultivated plants.
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-Friday 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 3679