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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments drawn to Shoup appear to be focused on the new limitations. In view of the amendments, the claims now distinguish the invention over the reference Shoup; therefore, the arguments drawn to Shoup are considered moot.
The noted claims are now rejected in view of Spicer. While Spicer may not expressly disclose the exact radius of the rounded end of the projection or the exact angle of the projection relative to the outer periphery, it is considered obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the rounded ends of the projections and/or the angle of the projections relative to the outer periphery could be within the claimed ranges or values. The fact that the claims include multiple values for these radii and angles leads the examiner to conclude that any particular radius and/or angle for a single disc is not a core inventive concept on its own. Therefore, any similar radius or angle of the projections for a single disc is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Spicer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, row cleaner blades are well-known in the agricultural implement art. For example, Shoup and Spicer present different designs of agricultural row cleaner discs. However, neither of these references, nor any other reference, teach multiple row cleaner discs each with their projections/teeth at differing angles relative to the outer periphery of each disc. In view of the prior art of record, any obvious combination to include multiple discs with projections at different angles as currently claimed would require improper hindsight reasoning. For this reason, the claim is allowable.
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, 3, 6-10, 13-14, 16-18 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.
The claims are replete with approximations that are not defined in the specification. Claims 1, 10, 14, 17-18 contain some form of “about 60 degrees”. In this case, it is unclear how close to 60 degrees infringement may take place. Similarly, claims 1, 10, and 14 contain the phrase “approximately bisecting” and it is unclear how close to bisecting the projection infringement may take place. The examiner does not see how these limitations can be read with any definiteness. The claims are rendered indefinite for this reason. Claims 3, 6-9, 13, and 16 are rejected due to their dependency on the noted claims. See MPEP 2173.05(d), section III.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-7, 14, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spicer (US 7540245).
Regarding claim 1, Spicer discloses an agricultural row cleaner blade (36), comprising:
a plurality of projections having a rounded end extending from an outer periphery, each projection of the plurality of projections having a center line approximately bisecting each projection (see Annotated Figure 1); and
a plurality of depressions having a rounded inside edge (see Annotated Figure 1),
wherein each projection of the plurality of projections is aligned with a tangent line of the outer periphery where the center line crosses the outer periphery at an angle against a direction of rotation of the agricultural row cleaner blade during use (see Annotated Figure 1).
Spicer appears to disclose the agricultural row cleaner blade wherein the angle against the direction of rotation is about 60 degrees (claim language is broad; the projections appear to be “about 60 degrees” relative the tangent).
For the sake of argument that Spicer does not expressly disclose the angle against the direction of rotation is about 60 degrees, it does disclose the discs being used for trash cleaning (Spicer; col 2, line 65 – col 3, line 1) and as a result of this, the angle of the projections is considered to be a results effective variable in so far as the angle may be adjusted slightly as long as the wheels adequately clear trash during operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the relative angle to be about 60 degrees, as it has been held that the optimization of a results effective variable would have been obvious so as to achieve an optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Spicer also appears to disclose the rounded end of the projections having a radius of about 3/8" to about 3/4" (claim language is broad; the rounded end appears to have a radius near this range).
For the sake of argument, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the radius of the rounded ends within the range of about 3/8” to about 3/4”, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose and because the ends of the teeth already appear to be rounded. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by adjusting the radii of the rounded ends of the projections to any reasonable radii as long as the projections still function as teeth on trash wheels to help clear trash (Spicer; col 2, line 65 – col 3, line 1). Further, as a result of the radius of each projection directly working to clear trash, the radius is considered to be a results effective variable in so far as the radius may be adjusted in order to most effectively clear trash as desired. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the radius to be between about 3/8” to about 3/4", as it has been held that the optimization of a results effective variable would have been obvious so as to achieve an optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
PNG
media_image1.png
451
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 3, Spicer discloses the agricultural row cleaner blade further comprising one or more openings configured for mounting the agricultural row cleaner blade on an implement (see Annotated Figure 1; six openings are depicted for mounting of the blade).
Regarding claim 6, Spicer discloses the agricultural row cleaner blade wherein the number of projections equals the number of depressions (see Annotated Figure 1; ten each).
Regarding claim 7, Spicer discloses the agricultural row cleaner blade wherein the agricultural row cleaner blade is flat (Fig 2 and Fig 3 depict the blade as flat).
Regarding claim 14, Spicer discloses a method of removing debris from a field comprising:
passing over the field a plurality of agricultural row cleaner blades (36) comprising
a plurality of projections having a rounded end extending from an outer periphery, each projection of the plurality of projections having a center line approximately bisecting each projection (see Annotated Figure 1); and
a plurality of depressions having a rounded inside edge (see Annotated Figure 1),
wherein each projection of the plurality of projections is aligned with a tangent line of the outer periphery where the center line crosses the outer periphery at an angle against a direction of rotation of the agricultural row cleaner blade during use (see Annotated Figure 1),
wherein the angle against the direction of rotation is about 75 degrees (claim language is broad; the projections appear to be “about 75 degrees” relative the tangent).
For the sake of argument that Spicer does not expressly disclose the angle against the direction of rotation is about 75 degrees, it does disclose the discs being used for trash cleaning (Spicer; col 2, line 65 – col 3, line 1) and as a result of this, the angle of the projections is considered to be a results effective variable in so far as the angle may be adjusted slightly as long as the wheels adequately clear trash during operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the relative angle to be about 75 degrees, as it has been held that the optimization of a results effective variable would have been obvious so as to achieve an optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Regarding claim 16, Spicer discloses the method further comprising one or more openings configured for mounting the agricultural row cleaner blade on an implement (see Annotated Figure 1; six openings are depicted for mounting of the blade).
Regarding claim 17, Spicer discloses the method wherein the rounded end has a radius of about 3/8" to about 3/4" (claim language is broad; the rounded end appears to have a radius near this range).
For the sake of argument, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the radius of the rounded ends within the range of about 3/8” to about 3/4”, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose and because the ends of the teeth already appear to be rounded. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by adjusting the radii of the rounded ends of the projections to any reasonable radii as long as the projections still function as teeth on trash wheels to help clear trash (Spicer; col 2, line 65 – col 3, line 1). Further, as a result of the radius of each projection directly working to clear trash, the radius is considered to be a results effective variable in so far as the radius may be adjusted in order to most effectively clear trash as desired. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the radius to be between about 3/8” to about 3/4", as it has been held that the optimization of a results effective variable would have been obvious so as to achieve an optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Regarding claim 18, Spicer discloses the method wherein the rounded end has a radius of about 1/2" (claim language is broad; the rounded end appears to have a radius near this value).
For the sake of argument, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the radius of the rounded ends about 1/2", as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose and because the ends of the teeth already appear to be rounded. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by adjusting the radii of the rounded ends of the projections to any reasonable radii as long as the projections still function as teeth on trash wheels to help clear trash (Spicer; col 2, line 65 – col 3, line 1). Further, as a result of the radius of each projection directly working to clear trash, the radius is considered to be a results effective variable in so far as the radius may be adjusted in order to most effectively clear trash as desired. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the radius to be about 1/2", as it has been held that the optimization of a results effective variable would have been obvious so as to achieve an optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spicer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 5704430).
Regarding claim 8, Spicer fails to specifically disclose the agricultural row cleaner blade wherein the agricultural row cleaner blade is convex.
However, Smith discloses a similar agricultural row cleaner blade (Figs 1-4; 43/44) and teaches the blade being convex (Figs 3-4). The claim language is broad, a convex blade could also be considered concave.
Spicer and Smith are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of agricultural row cleaner blades. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shoup to incorporate the teachings of Smith and modified the row cleaner blade to be convex. One would have made this modification to provide improved trash and other residue cleaning with a minimum of soil disturbance (Smith; col 2, lines 44-45).
Regarding claim 9, Spicer fails to specifically disclose the agricultural row cleaner blade wherein the agricultural row cleaner blade is concave.
However, Smith discloses a similar agricultural row cleaner blade (Figs 1-4; 43/44) and teaches the blade being concave (Figs 3-4).
Spicer and Smith are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of agricultural row cleaner blades. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shoup to incorporate the teachings of Smith and modified the row cleaner blade to be concave. One would have made this modification to provide improved trash and other residue cleaning with a minimum of soil disturbance (Smith; col 2, lines 44-45).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BLAKE SCOVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30-6 (ET).
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571) 272-0547. 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.
/BLAKE E SCOVILLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
