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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, from claim 17 the “hub portion”, the “at least two bearings”, and the “at least two stop portions” must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: The terms “first bracket” and “second bracket” from claims 18 and 19 do not have clear antecedent basis in the specification. In this regard, the specification recites a “mounting bracket 60” and an “actuator bracket 70.” However, those brackets do not seem to be part of the lower planting arm, as claimed in claims 18 and 19. Instead, it is best understood that the first and second brackets (as claimed in claims 18 and 19) are the members that respectively include the “first mount 56A” and “the second mount 56B.” However, the specification and record should be clarified to ensure that the record is clear as regards which elements form the respective “first bracket” and “second bracket” from claims 18 and 19.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1 lines 5-6 and in claim 20, lines 7-8, “adapted to operably engaged” should be changed to --adapted to be operably engaged--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-6, 16, and 20 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.
Claims 2-6 and 20 recite the phrase “substantially triangular cross-section”, which on its face would seem to be reasonably clear; however, when the term “substantially triangular cross-section” is read in context of the disclosure there is an unreasonable degree of uncertainty as to what falls within the metes and bounds of the phrase “substantially triangular cross-section.”
Specifically, Applicant’s disclosure states “intermediate portion 14 defines a triangular-shaped cross-section and/or substantially V-shaped cross section when viewed from a cross-sectional view (see FIG. 8).” (Quoting, Applicant’s Specification, Page 14, Para. 0034). Applicant further provides “[a]s best seen in FIG. 8, the outer wall 14C and the inner wall 14D of the intermediate portion 14 collectively define a triangular-shaped cross-section for lower shank 10 when viewed from a front elevation view. In the present disclosure, the triangular-shaped cross-section of the intermediate portion 14 is defined along the entire length of the intermediate portion 14 between the first end 14A and the second end 14B.” (Quoting, Id.) However, when viewed in Figure 8, “the outer wall 14C and the inner wall 14D of the intermediate portion 14” appear to simply amount to two diverging walls that are closer together at a lower end and further apart at an upper end. It is unclear how such diverging walls would reasonably be construed as triangular or substantially triangular.
Regarding the above, “the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification – the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms.” Quoting, MPEP 2111.01(III) (citing In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149-50, 104 USPQ2d 1337, 1342-43 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). However, Applicant’s specification does not provide a special definition of the term “substantially triangular.” Likewise, Applicant’s specification does not provide enough explanation to act as a glossary to explain the scope of the term “substantially triangular.” Also, neither the claims, nor the specification, nor the prosecution history offer sufficient clarity on what is meant by the term “substantially triangular”. Accordingly, in this case it is reasonable to rely on extrinsic evidence to facilitate claim interpretation of the term “substantially triangular”. See, MPEP 2111.01(III).
The plain and ordinary meaning of the term “triangular” in context is something “shaped like a triangle”, “of, relating to, or having the form of a triangle”, or something “having a triangular base or principal surface” as evidenced by the Cambridge and Merriam-Websters dictionaries respectively.1,2 The plain and ordinary meaning of a triangle in context is understood to be a “a flat shape with three straight sides”, “anything that has three straight sides”, or a “polygon having three sides” as evidenced by the respective dictionaries.3,4 Some examples of triangles provided by those dictionaries are shown below for reference:
PNG
media_image1.png
399
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is unclear how Applicant’s described and depicted structure would be consistent with what is ordinarily understood to be “triangular” and/or “substantially triangular.” Further, based on Applicant’s use of the term “substantially triangular” it is unclear what shapes would or would not fall within the metes and bounds of the claims. Specifically, while terms like “substantially” can often be used in ways that are definite5, the phrase “substantially triangular” as used in claims 2-6 and 20 of the present application causes “an unreasonable degree of uncertainty,” since the disclosed invention does not resemble a triangle. Quoting, MPEP 2173.03, see also, MPEP 2173.05(b). Specifically, “the outer wall 14C and the inner wall 14D of the intermediate portion 14” do not collectively show something: “shaped like a triangle”; “of, relating to, or having the form of a triangle”; or something “having a triangular base or principal surface.” (see below annotated copy of Applicant’s figure 8 – note shaded areas). Among other things, the outer wall 14C and the inner wall 14D of the intermediate portion 14 do not collectively define a “a flat shape with three straight sides”, “anything that has three straight sides”, or a “polygon having three sides.” Likewise, Applicant’s figure 8 is inconsistent with what is shown as examples of triangles in the respective dictionaries provided above.
PNG
media_image2.png
605
834
media_image2.png
Greyscale
MPEP 2173.03 discusses a number of cases where “[a] claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.” Quoting, MPEP 2173.03, which in turn cites In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). Additionally, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (predecessor to the PTAB) addressed a very similar situation in a non-precedential decision that is helpful in understanding the definiteness issues presented here. Specifically, the Board reviewed the claim limitation “banana-shaped unitary body” and noted that Applicant’s disclosure showed a figure (Fig. 4) which was not consistent with the understood shape of a banana. Ex Parte John A Sazy, Appeal No. 2009-007953, Serial No. 10/655,571, TC 3700 (BPAI June 9, 2010). Based on this inconsistency the Board raised a New Ground of Rejection determining that the claims were indefinite. Id. at p. 4-5. Specifically, the Board concluded that “banana-shaped as used in the claims, when construed in view of Appellant’s Figure 4, lacks sufficient precision so that one endeavoring to practice the invention could not determine the metes and bounds thereof.” Id. As applicable here, one viewing Figure 8 of the present application would be similarly unclear on the scope of the phrase “substantially triangular cross-section” since the shape shown by Applicant is not consistent with what someone having ordinary skill in the art would understand as “substantially triangular.”
It is further noted that the metes and bounds of the term “substantially triangular cross-section”, as used by Applicant in the present context, is subjective and does not provide an objective standard for determining the scope of the claim, which causes a lack of definiteness. Per MPEP 2173.05(b) (IV), “[s]ome objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claim. A claim term that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite.” Based on this reason, the scope of “substantially triangular cross-section” is likewise indefinite.
In the interests of compact prosecution, for the purpose of applying prior art, the phrase “substantially triangular cross-section” is being construed to require structure having two diverging walls that are closer together at a lower end and further apart at an upper end.
Claim 16 is also indefinite because the phrase “the leg operably engages each opening disk of the pair of opening disks at an angle of about 12 degrees” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what angle is being discussed. In this regard, it is unclear which frame of reference is being used as a basis for the claimed angle. In this regard, it is unclear whether this angle is being measured from the leg vertical axis (i.e. element 17C in Figure 8B), from the respective side surfaces of the leg (“first lateral wall 17D” or “second lateral wall 17E”), or from some other point of reference. Further, it is unclear what surface or axis of the opening disks (20) are being used as a reference point for the claimed angles (i.e. it is unclear whether the claim is referencing the radial surface of the disks, the rotational axis, etc.). In this regard, a review of the disclosure also does not seem to clearly define how the claimed angle is measured.
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.
Claims 1 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US Pub. App. 20140190374) in view of Stanhope (US Pub. App. 20200045869) and Schilling (US Pub. App. 20130000536).
Anderson teaches a row planting unit, comprising:
a lower shank (see annotated figure6 below);
a head frame operably engaged with the lower shank (see annotated figure below);
a pair of upper planting arms pivotably engaged with the head frame (see annotated figure below);
a lower planting arm pivotably engaged with the head frame (see annotated figure below).7
The Office takes the position that the limitation “wherein each of the lower shank, the head frame, the pair of upper planting arms, and the lower planting arm is casted from a single metal material” amounts to a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself.” Quoting, MPEP 2113. Based on the current record, the Office takes the position that formation of Anderson’s lower shank, head frame, pair of upper planting arms, and lower planting arm via casting from a single metal material would not result in a structural difference over what is taught by Anderson. See, MPEP 2113. “If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” Quoting, MPEP 2113 and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Accordingly, the limitation “wherein each of the lower shank, the head frame, the pair of upper planting arms, and the lower planting arm is casted from a single metal material” does not define over what is taught by Anderson.
PNG
media_image3.png
599
808
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Anderson does not specifically teach that the lower planting arm pivotably is adapted to be operably engaged with an actuating device.
Stanhope teaches using a pair of upper planting arms (24) pivotably engaged with a head frame (22) and a lower planting arm (26) pivotably engaged with the head frame (22) and further teaches that the lower planting arm (26) pivotably is adapted to operably engaged with an actuating device (28). Specifically, Stanhope teaches that “actuator load pin 74 may couple the down force actuator 28 to the lower arms 26.” (Quoting, Stanhope, Para. 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson such that the pair of upper planting arms pivotably engaged with a head frame and the lower planting arm is pivotably engaged with the head frame, and where the lower planting arm is adapted to operably engaged with an actuating device, in view of Stanhope, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of allowing for down force to be adjusted so as to further improve control of the planting unit (See at least, Stanhope, Paras. 0019, 0024-25 and 0032). Among other things, this would achieve the benefit of providing “a generally consistent planting depth, yet prevent[ing] or reduc[ing] compaction.” (Quoting, Stanhope, Para. 0019)
Additionally, while the Office takes the position that the limitation “wherein each of the lower shank, the head frame, the pair of upper planting arms, and the lower planting arm is casted from a single metal material” is a product-by-process limitation that does not structurally define over what is taught by Anderson, as an alternative, should one determine that casting each of the lower shank, the head frame, the pair of upper planting arms, and the lower planting arm from a single metal material, does create a structural difference over Anderson, an alternative teaching reference, Schilling, is applied further below to show that formation via casting from a single metal material would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Schilling teaches that it is known in the art to cast various components as a single structure as an alternative to welding them together. (Para. 0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the device taught by the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope, such that each of the lower shank, the head frame, the pair of upper planting arms, and the lower planting arm is casted from a single metal material, in view of Schilling, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of allowing for the use of a formation method that is well understood in the art which would have less manufacturing steps since separate components would not need to be separately attached (e.g. via welding). Moreover, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to cast the respective components from single metal material, based on the types of manufacturing equipment available to them. In this regard, a manufacturer that already owned casting equipment would find it beneficial to use casting rather than individually welding together separate components, since the manufacturer would not need to go and purchase and maintain welding and cutting equipment in addition to their already existing casting equipment. Further, forming the lower shank, the head frame, the pair of upper planting arms, and the lower planting arm via casting from a single metal material, would have been obvious as the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in that the prior art contained the lower shank, the head frame, the pair of upper planting arms, and the lower planting arm (as taught by Anderson) and the prior art also contained a known technique that is applicable to the base device formation via casting from a single metal material (as taught by Schilling) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique (casting) would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system (in that the components would have been formed via a known technique in the art which would yield the improvement of not needing a welding step).
Regarding claim 11, Anderson as part of the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope and Schilling further teaches that the lower shank comprises: a first end; a second end longitudinally opposite to the first end; and a mounting portion positioned at the second end and having a substantially triangular-shape configuration (see annotated figure 5 below; additionally, other figures of Anderson likewise contain the same structure).
PNG
media_image4.png
595
857
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Anderson as part of the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope and Schilling further teaches that the head frame comprises: a first end; a second end transversely opposite to the first end; and a mounting surface positioned between the first end and the second end along a base wall inside of a recess defined in the head frame and configured to operably engaged with the mounting portion; wherein the mounting surface has a substantially triangular-shape configuration matching the mounting portion (see annotated figure below; additionally, other figures of Anderson likewise contain the same structure).
PNG
media_image5.png
834
1124
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Anderson as part of the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope and Schilling further teaches that the lower shank further comprises: a first projection of the mounting portion extending outwardly from the second end of the lower shank and engaging with the head frame; and a second projection of the mounting portion extending outwardly from the second end of the lower shank and engaging with the head frame; wherein the first projection and second projection directly oppose one another to define the substantially triangular-shape configuration (see annotated figures 3 and 5 above; additionally, other figures of Anderson likewise contain the same structure).
Regarding claim 14, Anderson as part of the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope and Schilling further teaches that the head frame further comprises: a first section of the mounting surface that is configured to operably engage with the first projection; and a second section of the mounting surface from the first section and is configured to operably engage with the second projection; wherein the first section and second section directly oppose one another to define a substantially triangular-shape configuration for the mounting surface that matches the substantially triangular-shape configuration of the mounting portion (see annotated figures 3 and 5 above, additionally, other figures of Anderson likewise contain the same structure).
Regarding claim 15, Anderson as part of the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope and Schilling further teaches a mounting bracket operably engaged with the pair of upper planting arms and the lower planting arm (see annotated figures above, specifically figure 2; additionally, other figures of Anderson likewise contain the same structure).
Claims 2-4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope and Schilling, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clark et al. (US D284669).8
Regarding claims 2 and 20, Anderson as part of the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope and Schilling further teaches that the lower shank comprises a main body having a first end and a second end longitudinally opposite to the first end (see at least annotated figure 5 of Anderson above, additionally, other figures of Anderson likewise contain the same structure).
However, the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope and Schilling does not clearly further teach that a portion of the main body defines a substantially triangular cross-section between the first end and the second end.
Clark teaches a main body having a first end and a second end longitudinally opposite to the first end; wherein a portion of the main body defines a substantially triangular cross-section between the first end and the second end (See, Clark, Figs. 2-4 – note in particular annotated figure 4 of Clark below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope and Schilling, so as to utilize a main body having a first end and a second end longitudinally opposite to the first end; wherein a portion of the main body defines a substantially triangular cross-section between the first end and the second end, in view of Clark, since doing so would have amounted to the obvious simple substitution of one known frame cross-sectional shape for another in a manner that yields predictable results. Specifically, the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope and Schilling teaches a planting unit with a frame and Clark teaches another known planting unit frame – a planting unit frame with a main body having a first end and a second end longitudinally opposite to the first end; wherein a portion of the main body defines a substantially triangular cross-section between the first end and the second end. One having ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known frame configuration for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (i.e. the predictable use of a known planting unit that utilizes a known planter frame cross sectional shape).
Regarding claim 3, Clark as part of the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope, Schilling, and Clark, further teaches at least one pair of inner walls extending between the first end and the second end and defined at a first angle measured between each inner wall of the at least one pair of inner walls; and at least one pair of outer walls extending between the first end and the second end and defined at a second angle measured between each outer wall of the at least one pair of outer walls (see annotated figure of Clark below). It is noted that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims do not require any specific degree angle for the first and second angles, nor does claim 3 specifically require that the first and second angles are necessarily different from one another.
Regarding claim 4, Clark as part of the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope, Schilling, and Clark, further teaches that the at least one pair of inner walls and the at least one pair of outer walls collectively defines a first portion of the substantially triangular cross-section (see annotated figure of Clark below).
PNG
media_image6.png
537
721
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Stanhope and Schilling, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson (US Pub. App. 20170215333).
Regarding claim 7, Anderson as part of the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope and Schilling further teaches that the lower shank further comprises: a first end and a second end longitudinally opposite to the first end (see annotated figure in rejection of claim 11 further above in Office action; additionally, other figures of Anderson likewise contain the same structure). Additionally, Anderson, as part of the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope and Schilling, further teaches the use of “a network of hoses/conduits.” (Quoting, Anderson, Para. 0013).
However, the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope and Schilling does not clearly further teach at least one cable support operably engaged with the lower shank; wherein the at least one cable support is configured to support at least one cable of the row planting unit free from interfering with the lower shank.
Johnson teaches at least one cable support (100) operably engaged with the lower shank (Figs. 4 and 5 – note also, engaged under the broadest reasonable interpretation can encompass both indirect and direct engagement relationships9); wherein the at least one cable support (100) is configured to support at least one cable of the row planting unit free from interfering with the lower shank (See, Para. 0029). Johnson further teaches that the cable support is “configured to facilitate passage of a conduit 102 (e.g., an electrical conduit, an electrical wire, an electrical cable, an electrical wiring harness, a pneumatic conduit, a hydraulic conduit, etc.).” (Quoting, Para. 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope and Schilling, so as to include at least one cable support operably engaged with the lower shank; wherein the at least one cable support is configured to support at least one cable of the row planting unit free from interfering with the lower shank, in view of Johnson, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of providing an effective way to ensure that the hoses/conduits are secured so as to provide decreased risk of these hoses/conduits being damaged (i.e. if the hoses/conduits were not secured they would be more likely to get caught on other objects and get damaged). Additionally, the above modification would have been understood to be advantageous since it would have reduced vibration based on Johnson’s ability to hold the hoses / conduits from side to side movement within the channel.
Regarding claim 8, Johnson as part of the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope, Schilling, and Johnson, further teaches that the at least one cable support comprises: a first end; a second end longitudinally opposite to the first end; an inner side operably engaged with the lower shank; and at least one attachment point defined in the at least one cable support between the first end and the second end; wherein the at least one attachment point enables at least one cable of the row planting unit to be supported by the at least one cable support (See, Johnson Figure 4 as annotated below).
Regarding claim 9, Johnson as part of the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope, Schilling, and Johnson, further teaches at least one fastener operably engaging the at least one cable with the at least one cable support at the at least one attachment point (in this regard, the “u-shaped” channel can reasonably be construed as a hook or channel which is a fastener under the broadest reasonable interpretation as it serves as a holding mechanism. Moreover, Johnson’s support 106 can also be construed to be a fastener as claimed (since it is at least near the attachment point).10 It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included this support from Johnson, as part of the device taught by the combined teachings of the references, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of further improved securement of the hoses/conduits.
Regarding claim 10, Johnson as part of the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope, Schilling, and Johnson, further teaches at least another cable support operably engaged with the lower shank transversely opposite to the at least one cable support; wherein the at least another cable support is configured to support at least another cable of the row planting unit free from interfering with the lower shank. (Specifically, Para. 0029 of Johnson, further provides “while the illustrated embodiment includes one channel 100, it should be appreciated that in alternative embodiments, the mount may include more or fewer channels (e.g., 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or more)”).
PNG
media_image7.png
839
590
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Stanhope and Schilling, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hodel (US Pub. App. 20190254226) and Gent (US 10,159,174).11
Regarding claim 16, Anderson as part of the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope and Schilling broadly further teaches a leg of the lower shank (see annotated figure 5 of Anderson below – note additionally, other figures of Anderson likewise contain the same structure) and an opening disk rotatably engaged (at least indirectly) with the leg of the lower shank under the broadest reasonable interpretation (Anderson, Para. 0002 and 0014 discuss opener discs).12
PNG
media_image8.png
586
823
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Anderson is however silent on the use of a pair of opening disks. Anderson is also silent on any specific mounting structure between the leg and a pair of opening disks. Similarly, Anderson does not specifically teach that the leg operably engages each opening disk of the pair of opening disks at an angle of about 12 degrees.
Hodel teaches using a leg (15) of the lower shank; and a pair of opening disks (62-1 and 62-2) rotatably engaged with the leg of the lower shank; wherein the leg operably engages each opening disk of the pair of opening disks at an angle – to the extent the claim is best understood in light of the 112(b) issue above. (Hodel, Paragraph 0070 – “opening disc assembly 60 includes two angled opening discs 62-1, 62-2 rollingly mounted to a downwardly extending shank 15 of the frame 14 and disposed to open a v-shaped trench 3 (i.e., furrow, seed furrow) in a soil surface 7 as the row unit traverses a field in direction 8000.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope and Schilling, so as to utilize a pair of opening disks rotatably engaged with a leg of the lower shank; wherein the leg operably engages each opening disk of the pair of opening disks at an angle, in view of Hodel, since doing so would have achieved the desirable result of allowing for the effective opening of a v-shaped trench, which would have been beneficial for providing effective seed furrows. Also, this modification amounts the obvious combination of familiar elements (i.e. a known opener arrangement for a planter and a known planter), according to known methods (i.e. use of the known opener arrangement for planters on a known planter) in a manner that yields predictable results (i.e. result of a known planter that uses a known planter opener disk arrangement).
It is recognized that the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope and Schilling, further in view of Hodel does not specifically mention a 12 degree angle (i.e. the combination does not specifically mention that the leg operably engages each opening disk of the pair of opening disks at an angle of about 12 degrees). However, Gent teaches that a large range of angles may be used for disks including angles ranging from about 10 degrees to 50 degrees. (Gent, Col. 3, Lines 12-24 and Col. 5, Lines 52-60). Gent goes on to teach that “[c]hoice of angle may depend on soil conditions.” (Gent, Col. 5, Lines 60-61 – note subsequent to Col. 5, Line 61 Gent goes on to describe the effect of angle relative to various soil conditions in greater detail). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope and Schilling, further in view of Hodel, such that the leg operably engages each opening disk of the pair of opening disks at an angle of about 12 degrees, in view of the teachings of Gent, since doing so would have allowed for the optimal choice of angle depending on soil conditions. It is noted that Gent’s teaching that “[c]hoice of angle may depend on soil conditions” amounts to a teaching that angle is a recognized result-effective variable (i.e. angle is a variable that is known to be adjusted to optimize performance for given soil conditions). In this regard, it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Stanhope and Schilling, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Steinke (US Pub. App. 20190350120).
Regarding claim 17, Anderson as part of the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope and Schilling further teaches a pair of gauge wheel arm assemblies (40 or 63) operably engaging with the lower shank, each gauge wheel arm assembly comprises: an arm portion (middle portion of arms) and a hub portion (end portion of arms that are rotatably mounted).
The combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope and Schilling does not clearly further teaches that the hub portions receive at least two bearings that are spaced apart from one another by at least two stop portions.
Steinke however, teaches using hub portions operably engaged with an arm portion for receiving at least two bearings (14, 16) that are spaced apart from one another by at least two stop portions (each side of 46 in Fig. 6(c) is reasonably construed as an individual stop portion – also Steinke in paragraph 0024 refers to stops in the plural form “stops 46” indicating that there are at least two stop portions). Steinke teaches that “[t]he gauge arms of the invention have sealed bearings so that they do not require greasing and will not in ordinary operation get full of dust or dirt. Furthermore, the bearings stay tight and in adjustment under normal use.” (Quoting, Steinke, Para. 0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Anderson in view of Stanhope and Schilling, so as to utilize a hub portion operably engaged with the arm portion for receiving at least two bearings that are spaced apart from one another by at least two stop portions, in view of Steinke, since doing so would have provided the benefit of a bearing arrangement that would not requiring greasing and also one which would not in ordinary operation get full of dust or dirt. Additionally, there would be the added benefit of allowing for the use of a bearing arrangement that would stay tight and in adjustment under normal use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 and 6 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.
Claims 18 and 19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Joseph M Rocca at telephone number (571)272-8971.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
1 Definition of triangular from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary © Cambridge University Press, available at https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/triangular (last visited July 23, 2026).
2 Definition of triangular from Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/triangle, (last visited July 23, 2026).
3 Definition of triangle from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press, available at https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/triangle (last visited July 23, 2026).
4 Definition of triangle from Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/triangle, (last visited July 23, 2026).
5 As an example, the term “substantially triangular-shape configuration” is clear in context as used by Applicant in claims 11-14. Specifically, regarding claims 11-14, the shape of Applicant’s “mounting portion 18” is readily understood as being substantially triangular. In contrast (as provided in detail in the present rejection) claims 2-6 and 20 refer to a structure that would not be understood as consistent with the ordinary understanding of something that is substantially triangular. In summary, the distinction between claims 11-14, relative to claims 2-6 and 20, is that one having ordinary skill in the art would understand the meaning of “substantially triangular” as used in the context of the structure corresponding to claims 11-14 where in contrast one having ordinary skill in the art would not understand the meaning of “substantially triangular” as used in the context of the corresponding structure described for claims 2-6 and 20. Thus, substantially triangular is definite in the context of claims 11-14, but is however indefinite in the context of claims 2-6 and 20.
6 Although, figure 2 of Anderson has been annotated, it is noted that other figures of Anderson also show the same structure as well and would likewise be applicable to the rejections. Also, a reference must be considered for everything it teaches by way of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is describing and attempting to protect. EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
7 It is further observed that Anderson describes the respective arms as forming a “parallel linkage” which would be understood to require pivotable engagement with the head frame.
8 Please note these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 to the extent the claim scope is best understood in light of the indefiniteness issues giving rise to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
9 E.g., Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The term ‘engagement’ connotes a connection between two objects in which the motion of one object is constrained by the other. This connection can be indirect, such as where a motor is engaged with a gear through a second, intermediate gear.”).
10 Definition of at from Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/at, (last visited July 29, 2026) (“1 - used as a function word to indicate presence or occurrence in, on, or near").
11 Please note this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 to the extent the claim scope is best understood in light of the indefiniteness issues giving rise to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
12 E.g., Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The term ‘engagement’ connotes a connection between two objects in which the motion of one object is constrained by the other. This connection can be indirect, such as where a motor is engaged with a gear through a second, intermediate gear.”).
Prosecution Insights