DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This Final action is in reply to the application 18/326,595 amendment filed on 12/17/2025.
Claims 1- 6, 8, 11 are amended
Claims 7, 9-10, 12 are canceled
Claims 1 – 5 are objected to
Claims 1- 6, 8, 11 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Specification
Examiner acknowledges the applicants amendment to the specification on 12/17/2025
Response to 102
Applicant amended independent claim 1 to include:
a frame; front support wheels disposed at a front end of the frame; a first plurality of discs for mixing at a predetermined soil depth, the first plurality of discs being supported by the frame and disposed rearward of the front support wheels; depth gauging wheels supported by the frame and disposed rearward of the first plurality of discs: a second plurality of discs supported by the frame and disposed rearward of the depth gauging wheels: rear tools disposed rearward of the second plurality of discs at a rear end of the frame; a leveling linkage configured to keep the frame level between a transport position of the tillage tool and a working position of the tillage tool, a first end of the leveling linkage being attached to the frame at a location between the depth gauging wheels and the second plurality of discs in a front-rear direction of the disc tillage tool, and a second end of the leveling linkage being attached to the frame at a location forward of the depth gauging wheels in the front-rear direction of the disc tillage tool: and a stability control system including a combination of mechanical and hydraulic dynamic force control through damping of provided by a shock absorber at the leveling linkage, a first hydraulic actuator configured to provide a force on the front support wheels, and the rear tools
The examiner states that the applicant amended the claims to include detail regarding depth gauging wheels , discs, leveling linkages stability control with a force applied to front support wheels and rear tools. The arguments appear persuasive.
With regards to Claim 6, the applicants arguments are not persuasive and states that the references fail to disclose the limitation, however the applicant did not explicitly state which part the reference fails to disclose. The examiner states that this is disclosed here: (fig. 21 wherein the hydraulic actuator has a threaded screw for adjustment to hydraulic actuator has threaded rod and clevis)
With regards to Claim 8 and 11, the examiner states that a set force is maintained on the tire regardless of a relative position was cited to 149 in Bassett. Basset discloses a hydraulic valve for reducing or relieving pressure in a cylinder to maintain pressure, any pressure over a certain amount, the pressure will be released to relieve pressure and states that based on the broadness of the applicants claims, is within reason to the written claim. The applicants arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being unpatentable by US Patent 9370137 – Hennes et al. hereinafter as HENNES
Regarding Claim 6:
HENNES discloses:
A wing depth gauging wheel for a towable disc system, comprising:
a tire mounted to a hub; ( fig. 1 and col 12 line 14 and 15 – wing depth gauging wheels 15)
a movable arm connected to the hub (fig. 5 arm 32 and 31H hydraulic actuators)
a length adjustable hydraulic actuator (fig. 5 arm 32 and 31H hydraulic actuators); and
a single screw incorporated in between an end of a rod and a clevis of the hydraulic actuator for adjustment of a length of the hydraulic actuator without removing a clevis pin (fig. 21 wherein the hydraulic actuator has a threaded screw for adjustment to hydraulic actuator has threaded rod and clevis)
wherein the length of the hydraulic actuator is adjusted by removing pressure from a respective hydraulic cylinder to allow the rod to rotate freely, then rotating the rod causing the screw to extend or retract to change the length of the hydraulic actuator. ( col 6 line 20 – 27 - Another feature of the present invention is a gang angling actuator system that provides either individual manual screw gang adjustments or remotely operated hydraulic rephasing actuator adjustments. The two gangs on the front center frame 25 can be linked together by a mechanical link to move in unison with each other to allow adjustment by a single manual actuator or by a dual master-slave rephasing hydraulic system.)
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
246
380
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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(s) 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 9370137 – Hennes et al. hereinafter as HENNES in view of US PG Pubs 20220000002 – Bassett et al. hereinafter as BASSETT
Regarding Claim 8:
HENNES discloses:
8. A support wheel apparatus for a towable disc system: a tire mounted to a hub; ( fig. 1 and col 12 line 14 and 15 – wing depth gauging wheels 15)
a movable arm connected to the hub; (fig. 5 arm 32 and 31H hydraulic actuators)
the movable arm being mounted on a frame ( fig. 5 arm 32 and frame 21F)
HENNES disclose a disc tillage with hydraulics, the hydraulic actuator attached to the movable arm to control the movement of the movable arm (fig. 5 arm 32 and 31H)
BASSETT discloses:
a wheel hydraulic actuator with hydraulic flow restriction ( para. 0241 – hydraulic actuator with a restriction 2603 )
a pressure reducing valve to provide a constant pressure to the wheel hydraulic actuator as hydraulic cylinder volume increases due to a lowering of the tire via movement of the movable arm; (para. 0241 – relief valve)
a pressure relief valve located proximate to hydraulic cylinder of the wheel hydraulic actuator and used to discharge excess oil to another end of the hydraulic cylinder and back to a tank when there is a rapid raising of the tire. (para. 0241 – relief valve and sump is the tank when there is an increase in pressure) a set force on the support wheel regardless of change in the support wheel’s position relative to a frame. (para. 00149 relief valve)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention for HENNES disc tillage with hydraulic to utilize a hydraulic actuator with hydraulic flow restrictor and provide a constant pressure to the wheel hydraulic actuator as hydraulic cylinder volume increase t a lowering of the tire, and a pressure relief valve proximate to hydraulic cylinder of the wheel hydraulic actuator and used to discharge excess oil to another end of the hydraulic cylinder and back to a tank when there is a rapid raising of the tire and a set force on the support wheel regardless of change in the support wheel’s position relative to a frame as taught by BASSETT as this would allow HENNES a higher level of control for the actuation of the hydraulic cylinder by regulating flow from the source para. 0241)
Regarding Claim 11:
HENNES discloses:
11. A rear tool attachable to a towable disc system, comprising:
a soil working element; ( col 2 line 46 – 67 – disc harrows)
a positioning assembly mounted to the soil working element; (col 8 line 1 - rear gang with rotatable tillage tools)
the position assembly being mounted on a frame ( col 8 line 1 - rear gang with rotatable tillage tools and mounted on frame 21F)
the hydraulic actuator attached to the positioning assembly to control the movement of the positioning assembly. ( Col 8 line 41 – 67 - rear gang / front gang utilizes hydraulic lift actuators)
HENNES discloses of towable tillage with hydraulic actuators,
BASSETT discloses a wheel hydraulic actuator with hydraulic flow restriction ( para. 0241 – hydraulic actuator with a restriction 2603 )
a pressure reducing valve to provide constant pressure to the hydraulic actuator as hydraulic cylinder volume increases due to a lowering of the rear tool; (para. 0241 – relief valve)
a pressure relief valve located proximate to a hydraulic cylinder of the hydraulic actuator used to discharge excess oil to another end of the hydraulic cylinder and back to a tank when there is a rapid raising of the rear tool. (para. 0241 – relief valve and sump is the tank when there is an increase in pressure)
a set force on the support wheel regardless of change in the support wheel’s position relative to a frame. (para. 00149 relief valve)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention for HENNES disc tillage with hydraulic to utilize a hydraulic actuator with hydraulic flow restrictor and to utilize a pressure reducing valve to provide a constant pressure to the wheel hydraulic actuator as hydraulic cylinder volume increase t a lowering of the tire, and a pressure relief valve proximate to hydraulic cylinder of the wheel hydraulic actuator and used to discharge excess oil to another end of the hydraulic cylinder and back to a tank when there is a rapid raising of the tire and a set force on the support wheel regardless of change in the support wheel’s position relative to a frame. as taught by BENNETT as this would allow HENNES a higher level of control for the actuation of the hydraulic cylinder by regulating flow from the source para. 0241).
Allowable subject matter
Claims 1- 5 are allowable
HENNES discloses of a stability control system with a tillage implement that has a combination of mechanical and hydraulic dynamic force control through damping of the leveling linkage, front support wheels rear tools and position of the depth gauging wheels . However HENNES does not explicitly disclose at least a frame; front support wheels disposed at a front end of the frame; a first plurality of discs for mixing at a predetermined soil depth, the first plurality of discs being supported by the frame and disposed rearward of the front support wheels; depth gauging wheels supported by the frame and disposed rearward of the first plurality of discs: a second plurality of discs supported by the frame and disposed rearward of the depth gauging wheels: rear tools disposed rearward of the second plurality of discs at a rear end of the frame; a leveling linkage configured to keep the frame level between a transport position of the tillage tool and a working position of the tillage tool, a first end of the leveling linkage being attached to the frame at a location between the depth gauging wheels and the second plurality of discs in a front-rear direction of the disc tillage tool, and a second end of the leveling linkage being attached to the frame at a location forward of the depth gauging wheels in the front-rear direction of the disc tillage tool: and a stability control system including a combination of mechanical and hydraulic dynamic force control through damping of provided by a shock absorber at the leveling linkage, a first hydraulic actuator configured to provide a force on the front support wheels, and the rear tools. Such a modification would require too significant of a redesign of the blade main portion and would constitute an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent 4113024 – Van Der Lely – soul cultivating implement - leveling linkage
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-9511. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached on 5712720547. 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.
/A.H.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671