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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 20 April 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The new limitations are disclosed by at least Swetnam and/or Blackwell as detailed in the rejection below.
2. Applicant argues that Swetnam does not disclose a track removal component attached to the implement and pulled behind both the implement and the mobile power unit, that Warner does not disclose that such a track eraser is used to remove tracks created by drive mechanisms that provide tractive power to the tractor or the implement, that Blackwell does not appear to teach any type of track removal component, and that Guo similarly fails to disclose a track removal component.
These arguments are not found persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
More specifically, Swetnam was not relied upon to disclose a track removal component attached to the implement and pulled behind both the implement and the mobile power unit, Warner was not relied upon to disclose that such a track eraser is used to remove tracks created by drive mechanisms that provide tractive power to the tractor or the implement, Blackwell was not relied upon to teach any type of track removal component, and Guo was not relied upon to disclose a track removal component. See the rejection below for a detailed explanation of which references were relied upon to teach each limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
4. Claims 1-3 and 8-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swetnam et al. (U.S. Patent # US 4,540,054) in view of Warner et al. (U.S. Patent # 5,095,997), and further in view of Blackwell et al. (U.S. Patent # 10,111,373).
Regarding claim 1, Swetnam discloses an agricultural system (abstract, figs, etc) comprising:
a mobile power unit including a power supply (motor 14) and a drive mechanism (at least one of wheels 16A-C), wherein the drive mechanism of the mobile power unit is powered by the power supply and is configured to provide tractive power to the power unit (figs 2, 7: motor 14 and wheels 16A-C operatively connected to motor by means of chain drive 19, col 2: 60-68, etc);
an implement (such as cultivator 100 that includes soil tilling tools 105-107 and/or 115-117) releasably (abstract, col 1: 14-15, col 1: 45- col 2: 5, etc) secured to said mobile power unit, wherein said implement includes a drive mechanism (wheels 103 and/or 113, figs 1-4 and 6-7, col 3: 13-27, claim 1, etc), wherein the drive mechanism of the implement is configured to provide tractive power to the implement (abstract, figs 1-4 and 6-7, col 3: 13-27, claim 1, etc); and
a track removal component configured to follow behind said mobile power unit to modify ground soil to remove tracks formed in the ground soil by said drive mechanism of said mobile power unit or said implement (figs 2-4, 6-7, col 2: 9-12, col 5: 18-29: “The soil tiling tools 105, 106 and 107 are positioned behind the front wheel 16C to cultivate and remove the track from the left front wheel. The soil tilling tools 115, 116 and 117 are positioned in the central portion of the crop harvester to cultivate the soil disposed between the two front wheels. The spring toothed scratcher 180 is disposed behind the right front wheel 16B to remove the track from the front right wheel. Similarly, the spring toothed scratcher 181 is disposed behind the rear wheel 16A to remove the track of the rear wheel. Thus, no tire tracks are left”, etc),
wherein said mobile power unit is configured to transport said implement, and wherein said mobile power unit is further configured to provide power from said power supply to said implement (abstract, col 3: 56- col 4: 43, etc) such that the drive mechanism of the implement is configured to be powered by the power supply of the mobile power unit (col 4: 2-7, col 4: 22-33, etc: motor 14 supplies power to hydraulic pump 152 which raises and lowers the wheels 103, 113 and soil tilling tools 105-107, 115-117),
wherein said track removal component is configured to be attached to the implement (figs, etc: at least indirectly) and pulled behind the mobile power unit (figs 2-4, 6-7, col 2: 9-12, col 5: 18-29, etc).
Swetnam fails to disclose that the agricultural system is autonomous; or that said track removal component is pulled behind the implement.
In the same field of endeavor, Warner discloses that said track removal component is pulled behind the implement (figs 1-4, etc: track removal component 20 pulled behind implement 12-14). Warner also discloses that said track removal component is configured to be attached to the implement (figs 1-4, etc: track removal component 20 attached to implement 12-14) and pulled behind the mobile power unit (figs 1-4, etc: track removal component 20 pulled behind mobile power unit in tractor 10).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Swetnam to pull the track removal component behind the implement, as taught by Warner, in order to immediately and efficiently remove tracks formed by the implement, with predictable results.
In the same field of endeavor, Blackwell discloses that the agricultural system is autonomous (abstract, etc).
Blackwell also discloses a mobile power unit including a power supply and a drive mechanism, wherein the drive mechanism of the mobile power unit is powered by the power supply and is configured to provide tractive power to the power unit (abstract, fig 5, etc); an implement secured to said mobile power unit, wherein said implement includes a drive mechanism, wherein the drive mechanism of the implement is configured to provide tractive power to the implement (fig 44, col 20: 15-21, etc); that said mobile power unit is configured to transport said implement, and wherein said mobile power unit is further configured to provide power from said power supply to said such that the drive mechanism of the implement is configured to be powered by the power supply of the mobile power unit (fig 44, col 20: 15-21, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Swetnam to make the system autonomous, as taught by Blackwell, in order to improve the safety, convenience, and/or accuracy of an agricultural operation, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Swetnam in view of Blackwell further discloses that the tracks comprise impressions and/or indentions formed in the ground soil, and wherein said track removal component is configured to remove the tracks by smoothening or covering the tracks (figs 2-4, 6-7, col 2: 9-12, col 5: 18-29, etc).
Regarding claim 3, Swetnam in view of Blackwell further discloses that said track removal component comprises a blade (figs 2-4, 6-7, col 2: 9-12, col 5: 18-29, etc).
Regarding claim 8, Swetnam in view of Blackwell further discloses that said drive mechanism of said mobile power unit comprises a wheel or a track (figs: wheels 16A-C, etc).
Regarding claim 9, Swetnam in view of Blackwell further discloses that said drive mechanism of said implement comprises a wheel or a track (figs: can be mapped to wheel 16A or wheel closest to implement, etc).
Regarding claim 10, Swetnam in view of Blackwell further discloses that said mobile power unit is autonomously controlled based on a location-determining element associated with said mobile power unit (Blackwell abstract, col 21: 48-50, col 22: 20-33, claims 18-19, etc).
Regarding claim 11, Swetnam in view of Blackwell further discloses that said mobile power unit is configured to transport said implement by pulling said implement (abstract, figs, etc).
Regarding claim 12, Swetnam in view of Blackwell further discloses that said implement is an agricultural implement configured to modify the ground soil (abstract, figs, etc: tiller).
Regarding claim 13, Swetnam in view of Blackwell further discloses that said implement comprises a tiller (abstract, figs, etc).
Regarding claim 14, Swetnam in view of Blackwell further discloses that said implement is an agricultural implement configured to apply material into or onto the ground soil (Blackwell col 8: 18-36, claim 1, etc).
Regarding claim 15, Swetnam in view of Blackwell further discloses that the implement is a seeder configured to deposit seed into or onto the ground soil (Blackwell col 8: 18-36, etc).
Regarding claim 16, Swetnam in view of Blackwell further discloses that said implement is an agricultural implement configured to harvest crop from the ground soil (abstract, figs, col 1: 13-25, col 1: 53 - col 2: 8, col 2: 56- col 3: 3, etc).
Regarding claim 17, Swetnam in view of Blackwell fails to discloses that a position of said power supply is configured to be shifted with respect to a frame of said mobile power unit to optimize traction or soil compaction of said autonomous agricultural system.
However, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a position of a component to be shifted with respect to a frame to optimize traction or soil compaction. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Swetnam to do so, as well known in the art, in order to improve safety and/or effectiveness of an agricultural operation by optimizing traction or soil compaction, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, Swetnam in view of Blackwell further discloses that said power supply comprises an electric generator or one or more batteries (col 2: 60-68, col 4: 1-7, etc).
Regarding claim 19, Swetnam in view of Blackwell further discloses that said mobile power unit is configured to provide electrical power from said power supply to said implement (col 2: 60-68, col 3: 56- col 4: 43, etc).
Regarding claim 20, Swetnam in view of Blackwell further discloses that wherein said mobile power unit is configured to provide hydraulic power from said power supply to said implement (abstract, col 3: 56- col 4: 43, etc).
5. Claims 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swetnam et al. (U.S. Patent # US 4,540,054) in view of Warner et al. (U.S. Patent # 5,095,997), and Blackwell et al. (U.S. Patent # 10,111,373), and further in view of Guo et al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication # CN 107875550).
Regarding claim 17, Swetnam in view of Blackwell fails to discloses that a position of said power supply is configured to be shifted with respect to a frame of said mobile power unit to optimize traction or soil compaction of said autonomous agricultural system.
In the same field of endeavor, Guo discloses that a position of said power supply is configured to be shifted with respect to a frame of said mobile power unit to optimize traction or soil compaction of said autonomous agricultural system (P84-85, claim 10, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Swetnam to do so, as taught by Guo and/or well known in the art, in order to improve safety and/or effectiveness of an agricultural operation by optimizing traction or soil compaction, with predictable results.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1330. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone. 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Shelley Chen/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3665
June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights