DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 April 2026 has been entered.
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 .
Drawings
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because of the following reason(s).
The quality of Figure 1 is not sufficient to permit adequate reproduction. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(l).
The use of shading in Figure 1 is not in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.84(m).
Claim Objections
CLAIM 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: misspelling.
In section (c) on line 1, change “sending” to --sensing--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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.
CLAIMS 1, 3-6, 14 AND 20 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).
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) and displace soil from the one or more sidewalls to at least partially cover a seed deposited in the trench with the displaced soil.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 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, ¶¶,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.
CLAIM 3 The combination of Waterman and Adams further teaches one or more closing wheels (Waterman, 21) disposed on the row unit configured to urge soil into the trench.
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.
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.
CLAIM 6 The combination of Waterman and Adams further comprises a rotating member (Adams, the disk) affixed to the soil engaging member (Adams, 55).
CLAIMS 14, 20 All of the limitations recited therein are taught by the combination of Waterman and Adams, as applied above.
CLAIMS 2 AND 19 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 CLAIMS 1 AND 14 above, and further in view of Barton (US 2015/0107501 A1).
CLAIMS 2, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
CLAIM 7 is objected to for a minor informality but would be allowable if amended to correct the misspelled word.
CLAIMS 8-13 AND 15-18 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
With respect to the rejection of CLAIM 1 under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Waterman (US 1,178,765 A) in view of Adams et al. (US 2012/0048159 A1), Applicant repeats the argument 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 CLAIM 1, Applicant repeats the arguments that Waterman fails to teach an opening disc capable of forming a trench, as well as the claimed soil engaging member. The examiner contends (a) the opening disc (Waterman, 75) is functions to cut and turn the major width of a furrow, and (b) the soil engaging member (Waterman, 55) operates to increase both the depth and width of the furrow (Waterman, cls. 1 and 11; and p. 3, ll. 70-5).2
With respect to Adams, 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 “the sensor assembly 97 may be configured to measure a degree of soil compaction” (Adams, ¶0045). Additionally, Adams recites a pressure gauge operatively connected to a depth control cylinder (Adams, cl. 19).
Conclusion
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 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 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/
27 June 2026
1 The examiner notes the scope of the claimed invention is exclusive of the seed.
2 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.”
Prosecution Insights