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 .
1. This application has been examined. Claims 1-4 are pending.
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the elements recited in claims 1-3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The following elements are not shown:
working height sensing means; a set of electrically excited, inductive, capacitive or optical sensors; computational means; a georeferenced position system; a GPS or DGPS system; at least one slot; means of reading a soil compaction map; flow-sizing valves of a propulsion device; a hydraulic or pneumatic cylinder; a second propulsion device; electro-mechanical actuator; an electronic circuit; an interface; electronic means; and a linear encoder.
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.
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in the Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Due to instances of indefiniteness (addressed below), it is unclear in some cases whether or not 112/(f) is being invoked, even though the claims include the term “means” and an associated function, because specific structure is also being alternatively recited (i.e., “such as …”).
4. 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 1-4 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.
A. As per claim 1, the claim is indefinite at lines 4-5 because it recites both a broad limitation (working height sensing means) and a narrow limitation (a set of electrically excited, inductive, capacitive or optical sensors). It is unclear which limitation governs the scope of the claim. Similarly at lines 5-6, both a broad limitation (georeferenced position system) and a narrow limitation (GPS or DGPS system) and at lines 9-10, both a broad limitation (propulsion device) and a narrow limitation (hydraulic or pneumatic cylinder). At line 10, “the set of ground wheels” lacks antecedence since there is no previous recitation of a set of ground wheels. At lines 12-13 “the working angle of the sections” lacks antecedence since there is no previous recitation of a working angle of the sections.
B. As per claim 2, “the propulsion means” lacks antecedence in claim 1 (note claim 1 specifically recites a propulsion device). At line 4, “the expansion or retraction of its free rod” lacks antecedence since there is no previous recitation of language supporting this limitation. Further, the claim is unclear as to the structural relationship of the electronic circuit and the computational means of claim 1.
C. As per claim 3, “the crumbling rollers” lacks antecedence since there is no recitation of crumbling rollers in claim 1. At line 2 the claim is unclear whether propulsion means is different or related to the propulsion devices recited in claim 1. Further, the claim is unclear as to what is meant by “whose free rod expansion occurs in a manner controlled by electronic means”. At lines 3-4 the claim is indefinite because it recites both a broad limitation (electronic means) and a narrow limitation (linear encoder). It is unclear which limitation governs the scope of the claim.
D. As per claim 4, “each soil preparing device” lacks antecedence since there is no previous recitation of a plurality soil preparing devices. At line 3 the claim is unclear which support is being referred to (i.e., “at least one support” or “second support”). At line 4 “the two parts” lacks antecedence since there is no previous recitation of two parts.
E. All claims dependent from a rejected claim are also rejected for the same reasons.
5. 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.
6. 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.
Claim 4, as best interpreted given the deficiencies noted above, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stoller et al. (US 2019/0159399).
As per claim 4, Stoller discloses:
A farming implement (Abs.) comprising a tool holder bar (Fig. 14:10), carrying at least one support (Fig. 13A:1310; Fig. 14:1410) for each soil preparing device (Fig. 13A), mounted on a second support (Fig. 14:1400), wherein the support is pivotable by means of an overlapping axis common to the two parts (Fig. 15A:1570) [0150- a rotating swivel 1570 or 1571 can be disposed between bar 10 and frame 1510 and/or between frame 1511 and base 1512. The degree of rotation can be any desired degree, but actual rotation will be limited by the movement in the rows. Having a rotating swivel 1570 or 1571 provides more flexibility during use to keep application unit 1500 in the row without providing too much force on the plants].
7. 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, as best interpreted given the deficiencies noted above, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry (US 2017/0172050) in view of Hulin (US 2015/0378362) and Knobloch et al. (US 2018/0077848).
A. As per claim 1, Henry discloses at least a farming implement (Fig. 10:10) for decompacting soil [0020- tilling the soil], comprising a farming implement (Fig. 10:14) couplable to a tractor unit (Fig. 10:12), endowed with a chassis (Fig. 1:16) carrying at least two sections (Fig. 1:28,30,32,34), pivotable by an eyebolt [0022- The center section 26 is pivotally connected to the inner wings 28 and 30 by pivotal interconnections at 36. The right inner wing section 28 and right outer wing section 32 are pivotally interconnected at 38. The left inner wing section 30 and outer left wing section 34 are interconnected at pivotal joints 40], relative to each other. Henry further uses hydraulic cylinders [0029- actuators described above are shown as hydraulic and for this purpose a hydraulic control unit 94 is mounted in the tractor 12 and has a pump 100 for pressurizing hydraulic fluid to control the actuators] to enable pivoting of the various sections relative to one another [0023- actuator assemblies 42 are connected between the center section 26 and inner wing sections 28 and 30 to enable pivoting] as well as control the height of the implement frame at the wheel sets of the implement [0027- wheel sets 72 are pivotally mounted on frame members 66 to support and variably position outer wing sections 32 and 34 at a variable distance relative to the soil. Actuators 74 and 76 manipulate wheel sets 68 to establish the distance of center section 26 relative to the soil. Actuators 78 and 80 support and variably position sections 28 and 32 relative to the soil. Finally, actuator assemblies 82 and 84 support and variably position sections 30 and 34 relative to the soil]. Henry further provides working height sensing means [0034- a displacement detecting device may be employed to provide a signal reflecting the position of the carrier frame relative to the soil at the frame supports] and provides the information to a computational means (Fig. 1:96- ECU) to control the actuators (hydraulic cylinders) to adjust the height relative to pre-stored set points [0037- the readings of the individual actuators are determined and, if they deviate from the set point initially established, the hydraulic control system provides appropriate hydraulic fluid to achieve the same set point]. The claimed invention essentially differs in that a compaction map is used in conjunction with a position determining device to adjust the actuators (hydraulic cylinders) to obtain the desired tillage depth. Hulin is in the same field of endeavor of agricultural implements for working soil [0001]. Hulin discloses: a tilling unit having a support frame and a tilling member (Fig. 5) mounted to the support frame; a positioning system (Fig. 4:39) ; map data (Fig. 4:41) relating to a field to be tilled, said map data including data identifying areas of compacted ground in the field; and a control system (Fig. 4:17) for adjusting the position of the tilling member with respect to the support frame (Fig. 4:37), wherein said control system is arranged to receive signals from the control system, to access the map data, and to automatically adjust the position of the tilling member with respect to the support frame when the control system determines that the tilling member is located at an area of compacted ground (Abs.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the agricultural art prior to the effective filing date to modify the controlling of the height of the implement frame based on predetermined set points as disclosed by Henry with the positioning system/map data control scheme as taught by Hulin as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would have provided a more accurate tillage of the soil in real time and less burden on the operator by eliminating the need to establish set points. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate such a modification for at least the reasons suggested by Hulin [0009- a desire to provide an improved means of tilling that takes into account the soil conditions; 0012- mitigates at least one of the aforementioned problems, or at least provides an alternative to existing apparatus and methods; 0014- enables the tilling depth of the tilling member to be adjusted when the tilling member is in an area of compacted soil. Thus the position of the tilling member is adjustable during a tilling operation. Typically the tilling depth is increased in areas of compacted soil].
B. As per claim 2, as above whereby the combination of references further disclose/suggest that the actuators (hydraulic cylinders) of Henry would have necessarily been controlled based on the information accessed from the map data to raise or lower the implement frame to obtain the desired depth of tillage rather than using the prestored set points.
C. As per claim 3, the combination of references are applied as noted above for claim 1. Claims 3, as can best be determined given the 112b issues noted above, differs in that crumbling rollers are associated with the implement and are controlled through the same type of actuators used for pivoting the sections and/or adjusting the height of the implement. However, Henry discloses that the implement may incorporate various known soil working tools which would have been controlled in the same manner using actuators [0020- a tillage apparatus 10 which generally includes a tractor 12 shown schematically and an agricultural tillage implement 14 for tilling the soil prior to seeding. It should be noted that many different tools may be employed with the tillage implement 14 beyond the embodiment shown]. For example, Knobloch is in the same field of endeavor of soil working equipment and discloses an implement similar to Henry (see Fig. 1) with the addition of a crumbler (Fig. 1:60) [0023- finishing tools 60 have a second set of smoothing tools 275 and are shown here as formed bar baskets 280, such as crumbler baskets that are arranged trailing behind respective harrow sections]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the agricultural art prior to the effective filing date to modify the implement as disclosed by Henry to include a crumbler as taught by Knobloch, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Henry suggests that many different tools may be employed with the tillage implement beyond the embodiment shown (supra).
D. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular,
• Schoeny et al. (US 2019/0373801)- agricultural implement having a chassis and tool bar which includes a plurality of soil preparing tools mounted thereon (Figs. 1, 2); orientation of the tools may be controlled by actuators connected to a controller (processor).
• Sudbrink et al. (US 2017/0181367)- tools attached to implement for working soil (i.e., crumbler).
• Andrejuk et al. (US 2019/0320574)- system for creating soil compaction map which may be subsequently used during tillage of a field.
• Henry et al. (US 2010/0300338)- soil preparing device which comprises a blade and packing wheel; the device is mounted on a tool bar which may support a plurality of devices in parallel.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J. ZANELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-6969. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 9-4; Th 9-2.
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, Ramya P. Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/MICHAEL J ZANELLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661