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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (document id: MD3L8420X60X142) filed 14 July 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because each non-patent literature (NPL) citation is does not included a date and/or place of publication. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
NPL citation nos. 1, 5-9, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21 and 26 have not been considered.
The information disclosure statement (document id: MD3L8420X60X142) filed 14 July 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature (NPL) publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
NPL citation no. 18 has not been considered because the copy submitted is not legible.
NPL citation no. 20 has not been considered because a copy of the publication has not been filed.
Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 10 and 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "target downforce" on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 is similarly rejected.
With regard to claim 10, the scope of the claimed invention is indefinite because it omits essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: any means capable of functioning to automatically adjust target downforce of the row unit based on soil compaction.
Claim 18 is similarly rejected.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 12-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waterman (US 1,178,765 A) in view of Adams et al. (US 2012/0048159 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Waterman ‘765 (“Waterman”) teaches an agricultural row unit (Fig. 1) comprising:
(a) one or more opening discs (75) affixed to an agricultural row unit capable of forming a trench having sidewalls in soil; and
(b) a soil engaging member (55) disposed on the row unit behind the one or more opening discs (75) relative to a forward direction of travel, the soil engaging member shaped to penetrate one or more of the sidewalls (“widens the furrow” per patent claim 1).
Waterman fails to teach at least one strain gauge. Adams et al. ‘159 (“Adams”) discloses an agricultural planting system comprising a row unit (16) and at least one sensor (97) in operative communication (via 96) with at least one soil engaging member (42, 46), wherein the at least one sensor is configured to measure one or more seed trench parameters (¶0050) and may be embodied as a strain gauge (¶0032) to measure soil compaction (¶0045). 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 row unit (Waterman, generally) such that it would have included at least one strain gauge (Adams, 97, ¶¶0032,0045,0050) in operative communication with the at least one soil engaging member (Waterman, 55) to measure sidewall compaction, as suggested by Adams. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for detecting the degree of compaction of the soil forming the sidewall, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regard to claim 3, the combination of Waterman and Adams further comprises one or more closing wheels (Waterman, 21) disposed on the row unit configured to urge soil into the trench.
With regard to claim 4, in the combination of Waterman and Adams, the one or more closing wheels (Waterman, 21) are disposed on the row unit behind the soil engaging member (Waterman, 55), with respect to the forward direction of travel.
With regard to claim 5, in the combination of Waterman and Adams, Adams further discloses at least one moisture sensor (Adams, 97, ¶0050). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the prior art row unit (Waterman, generally) with the addition of at least one moisture sensor (Adams, 97) configured to measure soil moisture about where the soil engaging member (Waterman, 55) penetrates the one or more sidewalls. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for detecting the level of soil moisture or workability of the sidewall to determine a suitable working depth for the at least one soil engaging member (Adams, ¶ 0050), and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regard to claim 6, the combination of Waterman and Adams further comprises a rotating member (Adams, the disk) affixed to the soil engaging member (Adams, 55).
With regard to claims 7-9, 12-17 and 20, all of the limitations recited therein are taught by the combination of Waterman and Adams, as applied above.
With regard to claims 10 and 18, 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 row unit taught by the combination of Waterman and Adams such that it would have included functionality to automatically adjust “target downforce” based on soil compaction, since it has been held that broadly providing mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity, which would have accomplished the same result, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192. The motivation for making the modification would have been to enhance the efficacy of soil cultivation operations performed by the row unit.
Claim(s) 2, 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waterman (US 1,178,765 A) in view of Adams et al. (US 2012/0048159 A1) as applied to claim 1, 7 and 14 above, and further in view of Barton (US 2015/0107501 A1).
With regard to claims 2, 11 and 19, the combination of Waterman and Adams fails to teach wings. Barton ‘501 (“Barton”) teaches a soil engaging member (5) associated with wings (25), which are configured to allow contact with multiple sidewalls (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the soil engaging member (Waterman, 55) of the prior art row unit with wings (Barton, 25), as suggested by Barton. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for reducing “hair-pinning” (Barton, ¶0034), and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
With respect to the rejection of claims 10 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Applicant asserts proper antecedent basis is provided for “the downforce” in both independent claims 7 and 15, from which the claims depend. The examiner agrees with this point. However, antecedent basis for the newly added limitation “target downforce” is not provided in the independent claims. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
With further regard to claims 10 and 18, the scope of the claimed invention is indefinite because it omits essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: any claimed feature capable of automatically adjusting the target downforce of the row unit in response to sidewall compaction measured by the strain gauge.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Waterman (US 1,178,765 A) in view of Adams et al. (US 2012/0048159 A1), Applicant asserts initially that Waterman fails to teach an agricultural row unit. The examiner disagrees because the prior art system (Waterman, Fig. 1) is a cultivation row unit useful for performing soil preparations prior to seeding/planting (Waterman, p. 1, ll. 29-41).
With further regard to claims 1 and 15, Applicant purports Waterman fails to teach an opening disc capable of forming a trench. The examiner contends the opening disc (Waterman, 75) is taught expressly by the prior art reference as functioning to cut a furrow (Waterman, cl. 11; and p. 3, ll. 71-5)1. The placement of soil removed from the earth after formation of the furrow does not diminish the fact that the furrow was indeed formed by the disc (Waterman, 75).
With further regard to claims 1 and 15, Applicant purports Waterman fails to teach the claimed soil engaging member. The examiner contends the soil engaging member (Waterman, 55), which is “shaped to penetrate one or more of the sidewalls.” Specifically, the prior art soil engaging member is concave (Waterman, Figs. 1 and 4) and also taught expressly as functioning to widen the furrow (Waterman, cl. 1), during which the furrow sidewall would necessarily be penetrated.
With respect to the secondary reference, Applicant argues Adams fails to teach a strain gauge. The examiner contends that while Waterman does not disclose the term “strain gauge,” the prior art sufficiently describes a sensor that functions to “output a signal indicative of the force applied by the down force cylinder” (Adams, ¶0032) and in operative communication (Adams, via 96) with a soil engaging member (Adams, 42, 46). Additionally, Adams recites a pressure gauge operatively connected to a depth control cylinder (Adams, cl. 19).
Dependent Claims
With respect to the rejection(s) of dependent claims 2-6, 8-14, and 16-20, Applicant fails to present any additional arguments for patentability.
Claims 7-9, 12-17 and 20
With respect to the rejection(s) of claims 7-9, 12-17 and 20, the limitations recited therein are substantially similar to those recited in claims 1, 3-6 and 19. Thus, the prior art combination is similarly interpreted and applied by the examiner to reject the claims.
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 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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 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 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/
19 November 2025
1 On page 3 at lines 71-75, Waterman discloses, “the front disk cutting and turning the major width of the furrow.” In claim 11, Waterman recites, “a disk for producing a furrow.”