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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
CLAIMS 1 AND 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kelley (US RE26718 E).
CLAIM 1 Kelley ‘718 (“Kelley”) shows a lower shank (2) of a unit,1 the lower shank comprising:
a first end;
a second end longitudinally opposite to the first end (Fig. 2); and
at least one cable support (86) operably engaged with a main body (58) of the lower shank and having an upper planar support surface (the top side of 86) and a lower planar support surface (the underside of 86) opposite to the upper planar support surface;
wherein the at least one cable support (86) is configured to support at least one cable of the unit along one or both of the upper planar support surface and lower planar support surface and being free from interfering with the main body (58) of the lower shank; and
CLAIM 11 further comprising: an upper engagement wall (38) extending between the first end and the second end and positioned at a top end of the lower shank (2);
wherein the at least one cable support (86) is offset from the upper engagement wall (Fig. 7).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
CLAIMS 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truax (US 4,977,841 A).
CLAIM 15 Truax ‘841 (“Truax”) discloses a method of securing at least one cable (99; col. 5, l. 18) of a row planting unit (Figs. 2, 3), comprising:
introducing the at least one cable (99; col. 5, l. 18) to a lower shank (72) of the row planting unit (Figs. 2, 3);
routing the at least one cable (99) to at least one cable support (Fig. 3, the unnumbered member between 72 and 99) of the lower shank (72),
wherein the at least one cable (99) is spaced apart from a passage (Fig. 3, unnumbered; for bolt, unnumbered) defined inside of the lower shank (72); and
securing the at least one cable (99) at one attachment point (unnumbered) of the at least one cable support (the member, unnumbered, between 72 and 99 in Figure 3).
Truax fails to teach expressly the cable as integrally formed in the lower shank. However, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the cable integrally with the lower shank, since it has been held that the use of a one-piece construction is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). The motivation for making the modification would have been to enhance the strength of connection with the main body.
CLAIM 16 The step of securing the at least one cable (99) further comprises:
inserting the at least one cable (99) through the one attachment point (unnumbered).
CLAIM 17 The step of securing the at least one cable (99) further comprises:
inserting at least one fastener (bolt, unnumbered, in Figure 3) through the one attachment point (unnumbered); and
mounting the at least one cable (99), via the at least one fastener (bolt, unnumbered, in Figure 3), with the at least one cable support (the member, unnumbered, between 72 and 99 in Figure 3) at the one attachment point (unnumbered).
CLAIM 18 The step of securing the at least one cable (99) further comprises:
inserting the at least one cable (99) through the one attachment point (unnumbered); and
inserting the at least one cable (99) through another attachment point (unnumbered) of the at least one cable support (the member, unnumbered, between 72 and 99 in Figure 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
CLAIMS 12-14 are allowed.
CLAIMS 2-10, 19 AND 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of CLAIM 1 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Applicants’ arguments, see Remarks filed 18 February 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of CLAIM 1 under § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kelley (US RE26718 E).
Prior Rejection of CLAIM 15 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
With respect to the rejection of CLAIM 15, Applicant argues that the references fail to show certain features of the invention. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., at least one cable support integrally formed with a main body of the lower shank) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For clarification, the examiner notes the language added to the claim further defines the cable as being integrally formed with the main body of the lower shank, not the cable support.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/tm/
20 August 2026
1 The examiner considers the limitation “a row planting unit” to be a statement of intended use, which does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the invention of Kelley because the body of the claim fails to recite any structure specific to a row planter. See MPEP 2111.02.
Prosecution Insights