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 Non-Final action is in reply to the application 18/426,582 filed on 01/30/2024.
Claims 1-4,7-14 and 17 – 20 are rejected
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are objected
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on was filed after the mailing date of the 05/30/2024 are fully considered by examiner The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 16 objected to because of the following informalities: The claim limitation cites “approximate the diameter” which the applicant may mean that to be “approximately”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim limitation cites “framed configured” which the applicant may mean that to be “frame configured”. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)(a2) is unpatentable by US PG Pub 20160066497 – Whalen et al. hereinafter as WHALEN
Regarding Claim 20
20. A crop debris clearing device for severing and displacing crop debris from a planting row, the crop debris clearing system comprising:
a mounting plate used for mounting the clearing device; ( para. 0025, 0027 - inclined plate – 76)
a frame configured to be coupled to the mounting plate; (para. 0025 - wherein the brackets of 18 and 19 to the arms form a support frame)
first and second clearing disc that are rotatably connected to the frame, (para. 0025 - wherein the brackets of 18 and 19 to the arms form a support frame)
the clearing discs being generally planar and formed to include a plurality of backswept teeth that extend radially outwardly from the clearing discs, the teeth being configured to sever crop debris, each tooth of the clearing disc formed to include a curved leading edge, a curved trailing edge and a crown interconnecting the leading edge to the trailing edge, the teeth being tapered from a base of the tooth to the crown and are non-uniform in width; ( Fig. 14 - wherein the disc have a continuous radius of curvature from tooth to tooth)
the clearing discs being formed to include recesses located between the teeth that form a continuous radius of curvature from a trailing edge of a first tooth to a leading edge of an adjacent tooth, wherein the teeth of the clearing discs are configured to sever crop debris and remove the debris from the planting row without the area between the teeth becoming clogged with soil. ( Fig. 14 – wherein the disc have a continuous radius of curvature from tooth to tooth)
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) 1 – 4, 7 – 14, and 17 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 is unpatentable by US PG Pub 20200214192 – Martin et al. hereinafter as MARTIN in further view of US Patent 10624252 – Nance et al. hereinafter as NANCE
Regarding Claim 1 and 11
MARTIN discloses:
A crop debris clearing device for severing and displacing crop debris from a planting row, the crop debris clearing system comprising:
a mounting plate used for mounting the clearing device;( See figure 9 – mounting plate)
first and second arms that are secured to the mounting plate; (See figure 9 – first arms and second arms)
first and second clearing disc that are rotatably connected to the first and second arms, the clearing discs being generally planar and formed to include a plurality of teeth that extend radially outwardly from the clearing discs, the teeth being configured to sever crop debris; ( fig. 9 – first clearing disc and second clearing discs are connected to the first arms and second arms, teeth extend outward radially)
a plurality of recesses formed between the teeth of the clearing discs;(fig. 9 - Recess between the teeth of the clearing discs)
a first floater wheel positioned adjacent the first clearing disc and a second floater wheel positioned adjacent the second clearing disc, the floater wheels include a side wall and an annular skirt that extends from the side wall, the annular skirt including a plurality of tines separated by a plurality of recess (Fig. 9 – Floater wheel – 500, annular skirt pointed below)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Disc teeth)][AltContent: textbox (Disc recess)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (second clearing discs)][AltContent: textbox (First clearing discs)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Arms)][AltContent: textbox (First Arms)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Mounting Plate)][AltContent: textbox (Recess)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Tines)][AltContent: textbox (Annular Skirt)]
PNG
media_image1.png
856
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
MARTIN disclose a clearing disc and a first floater wheel positioned adjacent the first clearing disc and a second floater wheel positioned adjacent the second clearing disc, the floater wheels include a side wall and an annular skirt that extends from the side wall, the annular skirt including a plurality of tines separated by a plurality of recesses wherein some tines align with some teeth of the clearing discs and the some of the recesses of the annular skirt align with some of the recesses in the clearing discs, NANCE discloses wherein the tooth recess on the disc and the bar guide element as disclosed for measuring depth are aligned 1 to 1 such that for each tooth recess there is an equivalent bar guide element that lines up , NANCE further discloses:
wherein the tooth recess align with the bar guide element such that there is an equal number of teeth recess to bar guide element, such that each element of the tooth and the bar that is used for measuring depth are aligned 1 to 1 such that a majority of the teeth and bar element would line up (Col 9 – 55 – 67 - Wherein the tooth recess align with the bar guide element such that there is an equal number of teeth recess to bar guide element, such that each element of the tooth and the bar that is used for measuring depth are aligned 1 to 1)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention for the crop debris clearing device with a clearing disc and a first floater wheel positioned adjacent the first clearing disc and a second floater wheel positioned adjacent the second clearing disc, the floater wheels include a side wall and an annular skirt that extends from the side wall, the annular skirt including a plurality of tines separated by a plurality of recesses wherein some tines align with some teeth of the clearing discs and the some of the recesses of the annular skirt align with some of the recesses in the clearing discs of MARTIN to wherein the tooth recess align with the bar guide element such that there is an equal number of teeth recess to bar guide element, such that each element of the tooth and the bar that is used for measuring depth are aligned 1 to 1 such that a majority of the teeth and bar element would line up as taught by NANCE. It would be an obvious design choice known to one of skill in the art to have an equal number of tooth to bar guiding elements of the floater elements. As a result, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the floater wheel with tines to have an equal number of tines to teeth ratio, as this has been held to be an obvious design choice provided that the rearrangement does not meaningfully change the operation of the device, wherein NANCE further supports the ratio of teeth to tines being a design choice (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection VI, C).
Regarding Claim 2 and 12
MARTIN / NANCE disclose claim 1
MARTIN disclose a clearing disc and a first floater wheel positioned adjacent the first clearing disc and a second floater wheel positioned adjacent the second clearing disc, the floater wheels include a side wall and an annular skirt that extends from the side wall, the annular skirt including a plurality of tines separated by a plurality of recesses wherein some tines from the floater wheels align with some teeth of the clearing discs and the some of the recesses of the annular skirt align with some of the recesses in the clearing discs, NANCE discloses a indexed alignment of tooth of disc to bar guide element for measuring depth , NANCE further discloses:
a indexed alignment of tooth of disc to bar guide element for measuring depth. (Col 9 – 55 – 67, Col 10 line 3 – 13 - Wherein the tooth recess align with the bar guide element such that there is an equal number of teeth recess to bar guide element, such that each element of the tooth and the bar that is used for measuring depth are aligned 1 to 1)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention for the crop debris clearing device with a clearing disc and a first floater wheel positioned adjacent the first clearing disc and a second floater wheel positioned adjacent the second clearing disc, the floater wheels include a side wall and an annular skirt that extends from the side wall, the annular skirt including a plurality of tines separated by a plurality of recesses wherein some tines align with some teeth of the clearing discs and the some of the recesses of the annular skirt align with some of the recesses in the clearing discs of MARTIN to a indexed alignment of tooth of disc to bar guide element for measuring depth as taught by NANCE. It would be an obvious design choice known to one of skill in the art to have an equal number of blades to guiding elements of the floater elements. As a result, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the floater wheel with tines to have an equal number of tines to teeth ratio, as this has been held to be an obvious design choice provided that the rearrangement does not meaningfully change the operation of the device, wherein NANCE further supports the ratio of teeth to tines being a design choice (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection VI, C).
Regarding Claim 3 and 14
MARTIN / NANCE disclose claim 2
MARTIN disclose a clearing disc and a first floater wheel positioned adjacent the first clearing disc and a second floater wheel positioned adjacent the second clearing disc, the floater wheels include a side wall and an annular skirt that extends from the side wall, the annular skirt including a plurality of tines separated by a plurality of recesses wherein some tines align with some teeth of the clearing discs and the some of the recesses of the annular skirt align with some of the recesses in the clearing discs, NANCE discloses wherein all of the recesses of the floater wheels align with all of the recesses of the clearing discs, NANCE further discloses:
wherein all of the recesses of the floater wheels align with all of the recesses of the clearing discs. (Col 10 line 3 – 13 Wherein the teeth are aligned with the bar guiding elements in a 1 to 1 ratio )
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention for the crop debris clearing device with a clearing disc and a first floater wheel positioned adjacent the first clearing disc and a second floater wheel positioned adjacent the second clearing disc, the floater wheels include a side wall and an annular skirt that extends from the side wall, the annular skirt including a plurality of tines separated by a plurality of recesses wherein some tines align with some teeth of the clearing discs and the some of the recesses of the annular skirt align with some of the recesses in the clearing discs of MARTIN to wherein all of the recesses of the floater wheels align with all of the recesses of the clearing discs as taught by NANCE. It would be an obvious design choice known to one of skill in the art to have an equal number of tooth to bar guiding elements of the floater elements. As a result, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the floater wheel with tines to have an equal number of tines to teeth ratio, as this has been held to be an obvious design choice provided that the rearrangement does not meaningfully change the operation of the device, wherein NANCE further supports the ratio of teeth to tines being a design choice (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection VI, C).
Regarding Claim 4 and 14
MARTIN / NANCE disclose claim 1
MARTIN disclose a clearing disc and a first floater wheel positioned adjacent the first clearing disc and a second floater wheel positioned adjacent the second clearing disc, the floater wheels include a side wall and an annular skirt that extends from the side wall, the annular skirt including a plurality of tines separated by a plurality of recesses wherein some tines align with some teeth of the clearing discs and the some of the recesses of the annular skirt align with some of the recesses in the clearing discs, NANCE discloses wherein the outermost extent of the tines terminate at a base of the teeth of the clearing discs, NANCE further discloses:
wherein the outermost extent of the tines terminate at a base of the teeth of the clearing discs. (Col 10 line 3 – 13 Wherein the teeth are aligned with the bar guiding elements at the end of the profile of the teeth )
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention for the crop debris clearing device disclose a clearing disc and a first floater wheel positioned adjacent the first clearing disc and a second floater wheel positioned adjacent the second clearing disc, the floater wheels include a side wall and an annular skirt that extends from the side wall, the annular skirt including a plurality of tines separated by a plurality of recesses wherein some tines align with some teeth of the clearing discs and the some of the recesses of the annular skirt align with some of the recesses in the clearing discs of MARTIN to wherein the outermost extent of the tines terminate at a base of the teeth of the clearing discs as taught by NANCE. It would be an obvious to design choice known to one of skill in the art to have an equal number of blades to guiding elements of the floater elements. As a result, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the floater wheel with tines to have an equal number of tines to teeth ratio, as this has been held to be an obvious design choice provided that the rearrangement does not meaningfully change the operation of the device, wherein NANCE further supports the ratio of teeth to tines being a design choice (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection VI, C).
Regarding Claim 7
MARTIN / NANCE disclose claim 1
MARTIN further discloses:
wherein the recesses of the floater wheels have a radius wherein during operation of a
row planter the parallel lines are essentially parallel with a ground surface when rotating and exiting the ground surface so as to deter debris and soil material from collecting on the surface of the tooth. Since the teeth are shaped such that it needs to deter debris and soil material from collection on the surface of the tooth( para. 0011), the radius can be a results effective variable.
As a result, the range of the radius for 0.70 inches to about 0.90 inches for the floater wheel is a results effective variable. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention to utilize the range of 0.70 inches to about 0.90 inches as it has been held that routine optimization of a results effective variable is obvious, in this case to achieve a desired angle for operating in a specific condition to effectiveness and efficiency. .
Regarding Claim 8 and 19
MARTIN / NANCE disclose claim 1
MARTIN disclose a clearing disc and a first floater wheel positioned adjacent the first clearing disc and a second floater wheel positioned adjacent the second clearing disc, the floater wheels include a side wall and an annular skirt that extends from the side wall, the annular skirt including a plurality of tines separated by a plurality of recesses wherein some tines align with some teeth of the clearing discs and the some of the recesses of the annular skirt align with some of the recesses in the clearing discs wherein some of the floating wheels with some of the clearing discs align, NANCE discloses indicia to allow indexing of the disc to the bar guide elements line up 1 to 1, NANCE further discloses:
indicia to allow indexing of the number of tooth on the disc to the bar guide elements (Col 10 line 3 – 13 Wherein the teeth are aligned with the bar guiding elements at the end of the profile of the teeth )
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention for the crop debris clearing device discloses a clearing disc and a first floater wheel positioned adjacent the first clearing disc and a second floater wheel positioned adjacent the second clearing disc, the floater wheels include a side wall and an annular skirt that extends from the side wall, the annular skirt including a plurality of tines separated by a plurality of recesses wherein some tines align with some teeth of the clearing discs and the some of the recesses of the annular skirt align with some of the recesses in the clearing discs of MARTIN to indicia to allow indexing of the floating wheels with the clearing discs as taught by NANCE. It would be an obvious to design choice known to one of skill in the art to have an equal number of blades to guiding elements of the floater elements. As a result, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the floater wheel with tines to have an equal number of tines to teeth ratio, as this has been held to be an obvious design choice provided that the rearrangement does not meaningfully change the operation of the device, wherein NANCE further supports the ratio of teeth to tines being a design choice (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection VI, C).
Regarding Claim 9 and 17
MARTIN / NANCE disclose claim 1
MARTIN discloses:
9. The crop debris clearing device of claim 1, wherein the clearing discs each include from about 12 to about 14 teeth per disc. (Fig. 12 disc 1200 - has 14 teeth)
Regarding Claim 10 and 18
MARTIN / NANCE disclose claim 9
MARTIN disclose a clearing disc with an annular skirt and a plurality of tines and a plurality of teeth and 12 teeth , NANCE discloses wherein the clearing disc has same number of teeth as to the bar guide element, NANCE further discloses:
wherein the clearing disc has same number of teeth as to the bar guide element (Col 10 line 3 – 13 Wherein the number of teeth to guide element is equal )
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention for the crop debris clearing device disclose a clearing disc and a first floater wheel positioned adjacent the first clearing disc and a second floater wheel positioned adjacent the second clearing disc, the floater wheels include a side wall and an annular skirt that extends from the side wall, the annular skirt including a plurality of tines separated by a plurality of recesses wherein some tines align with some teeth of the clearing discs and the some of the recesses of the annular skirt align with some of the recesses in the clearing discs of MARTIN to wherein the clearing disc has same number of teeth as to the bar guide element as taught by NANCE. It would be an obvious to design choice known to one of skill in the art to have an equal number of blades to guiding elements of the floater elements. As a result, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the floater wheel with tines to have an equal number of tines to teeth ratio, as this has been held to be an obvious design choice provided that the rearrangement does not meaningfully change the operation of the device, wherein NANCE further supports the ratio of teeth to tines being a design choice (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection VI, C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 – 6 and 15 – 16 are allowable
Claims 5 – 6 and 15 – 16 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 claim.
MARTIN / NANCE disclose of crop debris clearing device but doesn’t explicitly disclose of wherein the diameters of the recesses of the floater wheels is approximate the diameter of the recesses of the clearing discs and wherein the width of the tines are approximately the same width as the base of the teeth of the clearing discs. Such modification would require too significant modifications and would constitute an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights