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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 line 5 “the wing force cylinder” should be –the wing fold cylinder—consistent with “a wing fold cylinder” set forth in claim 8 line 4.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 11, 15-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mayerle et al. (US 20010045294 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mayerle discloses a wing force management system of an agricultural implement (Fig. 1), comprising:
a hydromechanical linkage assembly comprising a blocking valve (74) configured to couple to a frame (“agricultural implement includes a frame”, Abstract) of the agricultural implement;
a driver (“cam or link mechanism”, para. [0034]) coupled to the frame of the agricultural implement; and
a valve assembly (Fig. 3-4) configured to control a wing fold cylinder (hydraulic wing actuators 20) of the agricultural implement, wherein the wing fold cylinder is configured to drive a wing section (10,12) of the frame to rotate relative to a center section (18) of the frame (para. [0007] hydraulic wing actuators 20 are extendable and retractable for effecting pivotal motion of wings 10,12 between raised transport positions and lowered ground-working positions), and the valve assembly is fluidly coupled to the blocking valve;
wherein the driver is configured to actuate the blocking valve in response to rotation of the wing section of the frame to control the valve assembly to adjust fluid pressure within the wing fold cylinder (para. [0034-0035] ball valve 74 is controlled by the cam or link mechanism so that it is opened in response to wings reaching a lowered position about 15 degrees up from horizontal, wherein wing down pressure may then be controlled by relief valve 76).
Regarding independent claim 8, Mayerle discloses an agricultural implement (Fig. 1), comprising:
a frame (“agricultural implement includes a frame”, Abstract) comprising a center section (18) and a wing section (either of 10,12);
one or more ground-engaging tools (“ground engaging tools”, para. [0021]) coupled to the frame;
a wing fold cylinder (either of hydraulic wing actuators 20) coupled to the center section and to the wing section, wherein the wing fold cylinder is configured to control an angular position of the wing section relative to the center section (para. [0007] hydraulic wing actuators are extendable and retractable for effecting pivotal motion of wings 10,12 between raised transport positions and lowered ground-working positions);
a hydraulic circuit (Fig. 3-4) comprising a valve assembly fluidly coupled to the wing fold cylinder, wherein the valve assembly is configured to control the wing fold cylinder;
a hydromechanical linkage assembly coupled to the frame, wherein the hydromechanical linkage assembly comprises a blocking valve (74);
a driver (“cam or link mechanism”, para. [0034]) coupled to the frame;
wherein the driver is configured to actuate the blocking valve in response to rotation of the wing section to control the valve assembly to adjust fluid pressure within the wing fold cylinder (para. [0034-0035] ball valve 74 is controlled by the cam or link mechanism so that it is opened when wings reach a lowered position about 15 degrees up from horizontal, wherein wing down pressure may then be controlled by relief valve 76).
Regarding claim 2, Mayerle discloses the wing force management system of claim 1, wherein the driver is configured to actuate the blocking valve (74) in response to rotation of the wing section (10,12) from a folded transport position toward an unfolded working position (para. [0034] cam/link mechanism opens ball valve 74 when wing is lowered from the transport position to a position about 15 degrees up from horizontal).
Regarding claim 4, Mayerle discloses the wing force management system of claim 1, wherein the driver is configured to actuate the blocking valve (74) while the wing section (10,12) is positioned at an angle between 0 and 45 degrees relative to a horizontal plane (para. [0034] cam/link mechanism opens ball valve 74 when wing is lowered from the transport position to a position about 15 degrees up from horizontal).
Regarding claim 5 and 11, Mayerle discloses the wing force management system of claim 1 and the agricultural implement of claim 8, wherein the valve assembly is configured to control downforce applied by the wing fold cylinder (20) while the blocking valve (74) is open (para. [0034-0035] relief valve 76 controls wing down pressure when ball valve 74 is open).
Regarding independent claim 15, Mayerle discloses a hydraulic circuit (Fig. 4) of an agricultural implement, comprising:
a valve assembly comprising:
a pressure reducing valve (pressure relief valve 76 meets the BRI of a pressure reducing valve, i.e. reduces pressure in line C2 when it exceeds the setting, para. [0035]) configured to control downforce applied by a wing fold cylinder (20) of the agricultural implement, wherein the wing fold cylinder is configured to drive a wing section (10,12) of a frame of the agricultural implement to rotate relative to a center section (18) of the frame of the agricultural implement (para. [0007] hydraulic wing actuators are extendable and retractable for effecting pivotal motion between raised transport positions and lowered ground-working positions);
a pilot line (C2) configured to control the pressure reducing valve (para. [0035] pressure relief valve 76 opens when pressure in line C2 exceeds the setting); and
a blocking valve (74) configured to control hydraulic fluid in the pilot line (para. [0034-0035] when opened, ball valve 74 limits the pressure in line C2 by allowing fluid to return through line D); and
a driver (“cam or link mechanism”, para. [0034]) coupled to the frame of the agricultural implement, wherein the driver is configured to actuate the blocking valve in response to rotation of the wing section to control the valve assembly to adjust fluid pressure within the wing fold cylinder (para. [0034-0035] ball valve 74 is controlled by the cam or link mechanism so that it is opened when wings reach a lowered position about 15 degrees up from horizontal, wherein wing down pressure may then be controlled by relief valve 76).
Regarding claim 16, Mayerle discloses the hydraulic circuit of claim 15, comprising:
a first hydraulic fluid input (input connecting cap ends of cylinders 20 to line C) configured to fluidly couple to a cap end of the wing fold cylinder of the agricultural implement via the valve assembly, wherein the first hydraulic fluid input is configured to supply hydraulic fluid to the valve assembly to control extension of the wing fold cylinder (Fig. 3, para. [0032] pressure applied to line C is input to cap ends of cylinders 20 to provide downward pressure for extension); and
a second hydraulic fluid input (input connecting rod ends of cylinders to line D) configured to directly fluidly couple to a rod end of the wing fold cylinder of the agricultural implement, wherein the second hydraulic fluid input is configured to supply the hydraulic fluid to the rod end of the wing fold cylinder to control retraction of the wing fold cylinder (para. [0031] pressure is applied to line D and thus to the rods ends of wing actuators 20 causing them to retract rotate wings 10 and 12 to a generally vertical position for transport).
Regarding claim 17, Mayerle discloses the hydraulic circuit of claim 15, comprising:
a supply line (C) configured to provide the hydraulic fluid from a supply pump to the valve assembly (para. [0032] tractor to pressurize line C); and
a return line (D) configured to provide the hydraulic fluid from the valve assembly to a return (para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 20, Mayerle discloses the hydraulic circuit of claim 15, wherein the hydraulic fluid provided to the valve assembly directly controls the extension of the wing fold cylinder (20) of the agricultural implement while the blocking valve (74) is closed (para. [0034] ball valve 74 is closed during cylinder extension until wings reach a position lower than about 15 degrees up from horizontal).
Claims 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Graham et al. (US 7918285 B1).
Regarding independent claim 15, Graham discloses a hydraulic circuit (100) of an agricultural implement, comprising:
a valve assembly comprising:
a pressure reducing valve (128) configured to control downforce applied by a wing fold cylinder (104) of the agricultural implement (col. 3 lines 4-6 pressure reducing/relieving valve 128 regulates pressure delivered to cap end 112 of the wing cylinder structure 104 providing active down force to wing cylinders),
wherein the wing fold cylinder is configured to drive a wing section of a frame of the agricultural implement to rotate relative to a center section of the frame of the agricultural implement (implement wing cylinder structure 104 comprises two cylinders 106 which lower the implement wings when extended, col. 2 lines 36-39, and raise the implement wings when retracted, col. 3 lines 34-37);
a pilot line (146) configured to control the pressure reducing valve (col. 3 lines 22-24 active down force pressure load is communicated to pump 124 by load sense line 146); and
a blocking valve (140) configured to control hydraulic fluid in the pilot line (valve 140 connects power beyond supply line 142 from the pump to the cap end 112); and
a driver (154) coupled to the frame of the agricultural implement, wherein the driver is configured to actuate the blocking valve in response to rotation of the wing section to control the valve assembly to adjust fluid pressure within the wing fold cylinder (col. 2 lines 12-14 only once cylinders 106 are fully extended, i.e. when wings have rotated to a substantially horizontal position relative to the center section, is increased supply pressure provided through driver 154 to open valve 140 thereby connecting, i.e. “latching”, the power beyond supply to the cap end 112 of wing cylinders 106 and providing active down force to the wing cylinders, col. 3 lines 48-59).
Regarding claim 16, Graham discloses the hydraulic circuit of claim 15, comprising:
a first hydraulic fluid input (132) configured to fluidly couple to a cap end (112) of the wing fold cylinder of the agricultural implement via the valve assembly, wherein the first hydraulic fluid input is configured to supply hydraulic fluid to the valve assembly to control extension of the wing fold cylinder (Fig. 1, col. 3 lines 51-59 oil enters cap end 112 in order to extend wing cylinders 106 and lower and/or provide down force to the wings); and
a second hydraulic fluid input (see line connecting to rod end 110, Fig. 1) configured to directly fluidly couple to a rod end (110) of the wing fold cylinder of the agricultural implement, wherein the second hydraulic fluid input is configured to supply the hydraulic fluid to the rod end of the wing fold cylinder to control retraction of the wing fold cylinder (col. 3 lines 30-36 oil enters the rod end 110 of the wing cylinders 106 in order to retract wing cylinders 106 to raise the wings).
Regarding claim 17, Graham discloses the hydraulic circuit of claim 15, comprising:
a supply line (142) configured to provide the hydraulic fluid from a supply pump (124) to the valve assembly; and a return line (144) configured to provide the hydraulic fluid from the valve assembly to a return (160) (col. 3 lines 15-21).
Regarding claim 20, Graham discloses the hydraulic circuit of claim 15, wherein the hydraulic fluid provided to the valve assembly directly controls the extension of the wing fold cylinder (104) of the agricultural implement while the blocking valve is closed (col. 2 lines 12-14 and col. 4 lines 17-20 since blocking valve 140 only opens when cylinders 106 have reached a fully extended position to provide the hydraulic latching necessary for activating down force control, extension of cylinders must occur while valve 140 is closed).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 9-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayerle as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Henry et al. (US 5687798 A).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Mayerle discloses the wing force management system of claim 1 and the agricultural implement of claim 8, wherein the driver comprises a cam/link mechanism for actuating the blocking valve (74), but does not explicitly disclose details of the cam/link mechanism (i.e. wherein the driver is configured to engage the link to actuate the blocking valve).
However, Mayerle teaches that the cam/link mechanism may be arranged as described in U.S. Pat, No. 5,687,798 to Henry et al. (see bottom of para. [0034] which references U.S. Pat, No. 5,687,798 cited in para. [0002]).
Henry et al. discloses details of the cam/link mechanism, wherein cam (34) is configured to engage a link of blocking valve (35) (see Fig. 5) when a wing position reaches a specific angle to horizontal (col. 4 lines 25-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the cam/link mechanism of Mayerle in a similar manner as taught by Henry, in which the cam engages a link to actuate the blocking valve, since Mayerle teaches the cam and link mechanism disclosed by Henry as an obvious design choice to consider and try for actuation of the blocking valve.
Regarding claim 10, Mayerle in view of Henry discloses the agricultural implement of claim 9. Mayerle further teaches wherein the driver is configured to engage the link to actuate the blocking valve while the wing section is positioned at an angle between 0 and 45 degrees relative to a horizontal plane (para. [0034] cam/link mechanism opens ball valve 74 when wing is lowered from the transport position to a position about 15 degrees up from horizontal).
Regarding claim 14, Mayerle discloses the agricultural implement of claim 8, comprising:
a second wing section (other of 10,12) of the frame;
a second wing fold cylinder (other of hydraulic wing actuators 20) coupled to the center section (18) and to the second wing section, wherein the second wing fold cylinder is configured to control an angular position of the second wing section relative to the center section (para. [0007] hydraulic wing actuators are extendable and retractable for effecting pivotal motion of wings 10,12 between raised transport positions and lowered ground-working positions);
Mayerle fails to disclose a separate hydromechanical linkage assembly for the second wing section (i.e. a second blocking valve and a second driver, wherein the second driver is configured to actuate the second blocking valve in response to rotation of the second wing section to control the valve assembly to adjust fluid pressure within the second wing fold cylinder).
Henry in the same field of endeavor discloses a similar hydraulic system for an agricultural implement (Fig. 2) comprising a center section (27M) and two wing sections (27L,27R), wherein the wing sections have independent hydromechanical linkage assemblies (see respective L,R components in Figs. 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the second wing section of Mayerle to utilize a separate hydromechanical linkage assembly from the first wing section, as taught by Henry, in order to allow for the positional setting of respective blocking valves for each wing portion to be adjusted independently as desired (Henry at col. 4 line 20-23).
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayerle as applied to claims 5 and 11 above, and further in view of Pope et al. (US 20230380316 A1).
Regarding claim 6 and 12, Mayerle discloses the wing force management system of claim 5 and the agricultural implement of claim 11, comprising a controller configured to control the valve assembly to control the downforce applied by the wing fold cylinder (“A hydraulic pressure control valve system controls the down pressure exerted by the wing actuators”, Abstract).
Mayerle fails to disclose the controller comprising a memory and a processor.
Pope discloses a similar tillage implement (Fig. 2) having a controller comprising a comprises a memory and a processor (implicit from para. [0031-0032] ECU operatively connected to ISOBUS monitor 105) configured to control a valve assembly to control the downforce applied to wings (260) and a folding operation of the wings (para. [0087-0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the controller of Mayerle to comprise a similar memory and processing system, as taught by Pope, in order to allow for transmission of instructions and sensor data between the tractor/vehicle and the implement thereby enabling adjustment of implement actuators accordingly (Pope at para. [0031-0032]).
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayerle in view of Pope as applied to claims 6 and 12 above, and further in view of Bachman (US 20140000919 A1).
Regarding claim 7 and 13, Mayerle in view of Pope discloses the wing force management system of claim 6 and the agricultural implement of claim 12. Pope further discloses a penetration depth sensor (110a) communicatively coupled to the controller, wherein the penetration depth sensor is configured to output a signal indicative of a penetration depth of one or more ground-engaging tools (205) of the agricultural implement (see Pope at para. [0043]), but does not explicitly detail wherein the controller is configured to control the downforce applied by the wing fold cylinder based on sensor feedback from the penetration depth sensor to adjust the penetration depth of the one or more ground-engaging tools.
Bachman discloses a similar agricultural implement (10) comprising wing portions (28,30) having respective down force cylinders (52) (Fig. 1A), wherein the downforce applied by the cylinders is controlled based on sensor feedback in order to adjust the penetration depth of one or more ground-engaging tools (Bachman at bottom of para. [0043] control 56 receives sensor data to adjust the downforce provided by cylinders 52 in order to provide the optimal downforce to for the ground-engaging tools to penetrate the ground at the desired depth).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the control system of Mayerle and Pope to adjust a downforce of the wing sections based on sensor feedback from the penetration sensors, as taught by Bachman, in order to adjust the ground-engaging tools to the desired depth and thus ensure optimal depth penetration amidst changing ground/soil conditions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-19 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 claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Koch et al. (US 20200137942 A1) discloses an agricultural tool bar with adjustable downforce. Blunier et al. (US 20140060868 A1) discloses a system for controlling a foldable wing tool bar. Graham et al. (US 20110253239 A1) discloses an active implement down force system with automatic latching. Bettin (US 6318477 B1) discloses toolbar wing lift control. Mayerle et al. (US 6263977 B1) discloses winged agricultural implement with lift control. Hundeby (US 6044916 A) discloses an agricultural implement with down force control. Gilmore et al. (US 4915014 A) discloses a disk harrow hydraulic wing balancing system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights