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 .
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, 12-13, 17-20, 22, 24, 27 and 29-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffen (4,085,862) in view of Wagner et al. (2021/0055730).
Regarding claims 1, 12, 13, 22 and 29, Steffen et al. discloses an electrically operated agricultural planter (Figure 1) and method and control system comprising:
One or more electronic components associated with the implement and configured to perform at least one agricultural function (figures 3-4)
A generator (20) positioned on the planter to generate electric power and supply said electric power to the one or more electronic components (pgph 0025)
A control unit (Figure 3)
Wherein the electric power is used to power the one or more electronic components, and the implement and components are operated without the need for hydraulic connection between the implement and a tow vehicle
While Steffen discloses the invention as described above, it fails to disclose the details of the bidirectional data communication and control system as claimed. Like Steffen, Wagner also discloses an agricultural implement with electronic components and a control system. Unlike Steffen, Wagner discloses a system configured to allow for bidirectional data communication (Figure 2) and control between the control unit and the agricultural planting implement (14) wherein the data communication and control between the control unit and the agricultural planting implement is performed via a wireless connection (pgph 0030) and further wherein the control unit is capable of being remote (wireless is capable) from the agricultural planting implement (pgph 0030) and the agricultural vehicle such that it is not mounted on the agricultural implement or the agricultural vehicle (pgph 0034 – discloses remote control from another vehicle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the control system of Wagner on the planter of Steffen as it would be combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results. Steffen already discloses a planter with a generator mounted thereon to provide power to the electrical components thereon. The combination would further utilize the bidirectional data communication and wireless control of Wagner.
Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses that the power is controlled/distributed by a control module (Wagner - pgph 0025).
Regarding claims 4 and 27, the generator is operatively connected to and driven by a power take off of the agricultural vehicle (Steffen – Column 3 lines 19-23).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 24, the combination discloses a toolbar wherein the control units are located in a busbar (Wagner - pgph 0026 discloses “grouped into working sets” which communicate with other control units – reads on generic “busbar” language).
Regarding claims 17 and 30, the combination discloses that the control unit comprises a user interface for operating aspects of the implement and providing output for the user to view (Wagner - pgph 0026).
Regarding claims 18 and 31, the combination discloses that the control unit comprises one or more control units wherein the one or more control units are mobile devices such that the user can remotely control/operate the implement via the one or more control units (Wagner - pgph 0026-0027).
Regarding claims 19-20 and 32-33, the combination discloses health/status monitoring (sensors) and allows for diagnosis of machine conditions viewable on a monitor (Wagner - pgph 0025).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 8-11, 21, 25-26 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffen (4,085,862) in view of Wagner et al. (2021/0055730) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Thurow et al. (2013/0211628).
Regarding claims 2, 8, 21 and 25, the combination of Steffen and Wagner discloses the invention as described above. The combination discloses a planter but fails to specifically disclose seed metering. Like the combination, Thurow also discloses an electronic control system for an agricultural implement and its actuators. Unlike Wagner, Thurow discloses that the electronic system can be used to control a seed metering mechanism. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the control system of the combination to monitor and control row unit seed meters as taught by Thurow as it would be combining prior art devices according to known methods to obtain predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 25-26, the combination discloses a planting implement including row units and a generator for providing electric energy to implements through a “working set”/busbar on the toolbar. This setup would inherently include conductive elements to transfer power from the generator through the working sets to the implements.
Regarding claims 11 and 28, the combination discloses that the control system can control electrical elements independently (Wagner - pgph 0025).
Claim(s) 5 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffen (4,085,862) in view of Wagner et al. (2021/0055730) as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Funk et al. (10,660,256).
Regarding claims 5 and 23, the combination discloses a control module and generator for supplying electric power/voltage to components of the system but fails to specifically disclose stepping up/down the voltage before supplying the power to electronic components. Like the combination, Funk discloses an agricultural planting machine having a generator (422) driven by a PTO (116) of an agricultural vehicle, wherein the generator (422) generates electrical power at a first voltage potential and a converter (418) converts the electrical power generated by the generator to a second voltage potential for supplying electrically powered components of the planting machine (Figure 4A)(Column 6 lines 27-column 7 line 8; column 12 lines 38-51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the PTO driven generator of the combination with a voltage conversion capability as taught by Funk in order to convert the electrical power generated from mechanical power supplied by the PTO to a voltage level appropriate for the electrically powered components of the planting implement as the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffen (4,085,862) in view of Wagner et al. (2021/0055730) as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Allgaier (WO2019/193481A1)
Regarding claims 14-16, the combination discloses the invention as described above including a wireless connection that includes satellites but fails to specifically describe wifi or a cellular connection with data integration. Like the combination, Allgaier discloses an agricultural machine and implement communication system wherein the implement may comprise a planter and wherein the implement communicates with the machine through a wired and/or wireless bidirectional communication system (104). Allgaier further discloses that the network interface (160) associated with the implement 140 may comprises a WLAN transceiver, such as Wi-fi, or alternatively a cellular transceiver (pgph 0012). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the wireless communication system of the combination with the wi-fi or cellular communication system as taught by Allgaier as it would be combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-33 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Steffen has been added to the rejection to show a planter with a generator for operating electrical components wherein the generator is mounted on the implement. Further the additions of Funk and Allgaier have been added solely in response to applicant’s traversal of the examiners use of Official Notice. As such this action is made Final.
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 Jamie L McGowan whose telephone number is (571)272-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00-5:00 CST.
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 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.
/JAMIE L MCGOWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights