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 § 112
The prior rejection of CLAIMS 1-9 under § 112(b) has been overcome by the response filed 30 June 2026, wherein Applicant amended the preamble of CLAIM 1.
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.
(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.
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.
CLAIM 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Radtke (WO 2024/150051 A1).
Radtke ‘051 (“Radtke”) shows a row cleaner assembly (Fig. 55), comprising:
a first arm (4200) having an engagement portion at a first end and an angled portion at a second end, the engagement portion is configured to couple the row cleaner assembly to at least one of an opener assembly or a seed assembly (via 4102), and the angled portion is angled with respect to at least two axes of the row cleaner assembly;
a second arm (4100) having a first end coupled to the angled portion at the second end of the first arm to form a pivot, the second arm extending from the pivot in a direction substantially counter to a traveling direction;
a pair of row cleaner blades (4060) rotationally coupled to a second end of the second arm (4200), a first row cleaner blade being mounted on a first side of the second end of the second arm and a second row cleaner blade being mounted on a second side, opposed from the first side; and
an actuator (4300) configured to pivotably transition the pair of row cleaner blades between a working position and a retracted position, the actuator further providing springing force to enable partial deflection of the pair of row cleaner blades from full engagement in the working position.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassett (US 2013/0192186 A1) in view of Wendling et al. (US 6,253,692 B1) and Mariman et al. (US 2011/0113996 A1).
CLAIM 1 Bassett ‘186 (“Bassett”) discloses an assembly, comprising:
a frame (13);
at least one opener assembly pivotally coupled to the frame, the at least one opener having at least one disk opener (15) configured to cut into the underlying soil to provide an opening for the commodity, wherein the at least one opener assembly (15) is pivotally movable between a working position and a transport position (via 14, [0024]);
at least one row cleaner assembly coupled to the frame, the at least one row cleaner having at least one cleaner blade (22, 23) pivotably movable between at least an engaged position and a lifted position, wherein the at least one cleaner blade is positioned above a plane defined by a bottom portion of the at least one opener assembly when the at least one cleaner blade is in the lifted position ([0030], Figs. 4-6).
Bassett fails to teach the row cleaner assembly movable with the opener assembly. Wendling et al. ‘692 (“Wendling”) shows (Fig. 1) an assembly (10) comprising an opener (20) and a row cleaner (18), wherein the row cleaner is selectively pivotable with the opener as it moves between a working position and a transport position (col. 6, ll. 37-47). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the row cleaner assembly pivotable with the opener assembly. The motivation for making the modification would have been to simplify operation, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Bassett fails to disclose a ground engaging mechanism. Mariman et al. ‘996 (“Mariman”) shows a seeder assembly (10, Fig. 10) including a frame (14) having at least one ground engaging mechanism (70, Fig. 2) configured to contact an underlying surface. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the prior art frame (Bassett, 13) with the addition of at least one ground engaging mechanism (Mariman, 70, Fig. 2), as suggested by Mariman. The motivation for making the modification would have been to have included means for supporting the weight of the frame, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 2 In the combination of Bassett and Mariman, the at least one row cleaner assembly includes two cleaner blades (Bassett, 22, 23) positioned in a substantially parallel arrangement.
CLAIM 3 In the combination of Bassett and Mariman, the at least one disk opener (Bassett, 15) trails the two cleaner blades (Bassett, 22, 23) relative to a traveling direction (Bassett, Fig. 1).
CLAIM 4 In the combination of Bassett and Mariman, the at least one disk opener (Bassett, 15) is partially positioned between the two cleaner blades (Bassett, 22, 23; Fig. 2).
CLAIM 5 In the combination of Bassett and Mariman, the two cleaner blades (Bassett, 22, 23) clear the at least one disk opener (Bassett, 15) in the lifted position (Fig. 2).
CLAIM 6 In the combination of Bassett and Mariman, the at least one cleaner blade (Bassett, 22, 23) is biased in the engaged positioned with a springing force (via 70).
CLAIM 7 In the combination of Bassett and Mariman, the at least one cleaner blade (Bassett, 22, 23) is partially deflectable from the engaged position responsive to an external force (Bassett, Fig. 5), and wherein the springing force returns the at least one cleaner blade to the engaged position when the external force is removed (Bassett, Fig. 6).
CLAIM 8 In the combination of Bassett and Mariman, the at least one cleaner blade (Bassett, 22, 23) trails a pivot (Bassett, 32) to which the at least one cleaner blade is coupled, and wherein the at least one cleaner blade (Bassett, 22, 23) moves towards the at least one disk opener (Bassett, 15) when transitioning from the engaged position to the lifted position.
CLAIMS 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivinski (CA 3093964 A1) in view of Rotole et al. (US 2018/0116115 A1).
CLAIM 10 Sivinski ‘964 (“Sivinski”) shows a row cleaner assembly, comprising:
a first arm (32) having an engagement portion configured to couple to at least one of an opener assembly or a seeder assembly (via 18);
a second arm (38) having at least one cleaner blade (98) rotationally coupled thereto; and
a pivot (40) formed between the first arm (32) and the second arm (38), wherein a rotational axis of the pivot is canted relative to an axis of the row cleaner assembly (e.g., the central longitudinal axis through gauge wheel 24).
Sivinski fails to show the rotational axis of the pivot canted at the engagement portion of the first arm (32). Rotole et al. ‘115 (“Rotole”) discloses an agricultural machine (Fig. 3C) comprising an upright raking assembly (50C), which is canted from a point of support to facilitate the spread and release of crop material ([0044]). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have canted the rotational axis at the engagement portion of the first arm, as suggested by Rotole. The motivation for making the modification would have been to facilitate the dispersal of crop residue from the planting row, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 11 In the combination of Sivinski and Rotole the pivot (Sivinski, 40) is configured to move the at least one cleaner blade (Sivinski, 98) between an engaged position and a retracted position;
CLAIM 12 wherein the pivot (Sivinski, 40) leads the at least one cleaner blade (Sivinski, 98) in a traveling direction (i.e., upward);
CLAIM 13 wherein the second arm (Sivinski, 38) includes a first support and a second support (Sivinski, Fig. 6B), wherein the first arm couples (Sivinski, 32) between the first support and the second support to form the pivot;
CLAIM 14 further comprising two cleaner blades (Sivinski, 98) rotationally coupled to the second arm (Sivinski, 38), wherein one blade is coupled to the first support and another blade is coupled to the second support (Sivinski, Fig. 6B);
CLAIM 15 wherein the two cleaner blades (Sivinski, 98) are angled towards each at a leading position.
CLAIM 16 wherein the first support and the second support are substantially parallel (Sivinski, Fig. 6b);
CLAIM 17 further comprising an actuator (Sivinski, 56, 58) coupled to the second arm (Sivinski, 38) and configured to pivotably move the second arm between an engaged position and a retracted position;
CLAIM 18 wherein the second arm (Sivinski, 38) rotates towards the first arm (Sivinski, 32) when brought into the retracted position and rotates away from the first arm when brought into the engaged position; and
CLAIM 19 wherein the axis of the row cleaner assembly is at least one of a vertical axis or a longitudinal axis relative to the engagement portion of the first arm (Sivinski, 32).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pp. 6-8) filed 30 June 2026, with respect to the rejections of CLAIMS 1-8 AND 10-19 under § 103 AND § 102, respectively, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wendling et al. (US 6,253,692 B1) and Rotole et al. (US 2018/0116115 A1).
With respect to CLAIM 20, Applicant's arguments filed 30 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. More specifically, Applicant argues the second arm (4100) of Radtke does not extend from the pivot in a direction substantially counter to a travel direction. The examiner disagrees and notes the second arm of the prior art assembly extends at an angle from the pivot, the angle having a vertical component that is counter to a direction of travel. Thus, the rejection of the claim is maintained.
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, Christine M. Mills can be reached at (571)272-8322. 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/
07 September 2026
Prosecution Insights