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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 02/17/2026 is acknowledged. Furthermore, applicant’s amendment to claim 21 to depend from claim 1 is acknowledged. Thus, the subject matter of claims 21-23 overlaps with the subject matter of claim 1 and invention I and are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, claims 1-23 will be examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(claim 9, line 5) “the planter assembly” should be changed to “the furrow opener assembly”.
(claim 15, line 2) “a tool bar” should be changed to “the tool bar”, since this limitation was already recited in claim 14.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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 an 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an adjustable biasing member” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winterton (US 5,461,995).
As concerns claim 9, Winterton shows a trailing assembly of an agricultural planter (10), comprising: a first parallel linkage (16) configured to secure a furrow opener assembly (17, 21) behind a tool bar (15) of the agricultural planter (Fig. 1); and a second parallel linkage (36) configured to secure a row cleaner wheel (25, 26) in front of the furrow opener assembly (Fig. 1).
As concerns claim 10, Winterton shows a row cleaner assembly, including: a support frame (44) having a first end attachable to the tool bar and a second end opposite the first end (Fig. 1); the second parallel linkage secured to the support frame at or near the second end (Fig. 1); and a row cleaner arm (35) secured to the support frame via the second parallel linkage (Fig. 1).
As concerns claim 11, Winterton shows wherein the row cleaner arm is configured to rotatably attach to the row cleaner wheel (Fig. 1).
As concerns claim 13, Winterton shows wherein the second parallel linkage is secured (indirectly via arm 44 & component 12) to the furrow opener assembly (Fig. 1).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winterton alone.
As concerns claim 12, Winterton shows wherein the furrow opener assembly includes a furrow opener wheel (21). Winterton discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the row cleaner arm is configured to rotatably attach to a depth control wheel. It has been held that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffert et al. (US 2021/0161063) and further in view of Winterton (US 5,461,995).
As concerns claim 14, Schaffert shows a trailing assembly (100), comprising: a first frame (210) attachable to a tool bar (75) of an agricultural planter (70) via a first parallel linkage (220); and a second frame (310) attachable to the first frame via a second parallel linkage (320), wherein the second frame is configured to trail behind the first frame (Fig. 2). Schaffert discloses the claimed invention except for a third frame attachable to the trailing assembly via a third parallel linkage, wherein the third frame is configured to lead ahead of the first frame. Winterton teaches a third frame (35) attachable to a trailing assembly (Fig. 1) via a third parallel linkage (36), wherein the third frame is configured to lead ahead of a first frame (17) attachable to a tool bar (15) of an agricultural planter (10). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Schaffert, as taught by Winterton, to include a third frame having a row cleaner implement in front of the first frame for the expected benefit of clearing the row line in front of the planter assembly to allow precise depth control. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a third frame having a row cleaner implement in front of the first frame would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the expected result of this configuration improves versatility/adaptability/efficiency of the trailing assembly design.
As concerns claim 15, the combination teaches wherein the third frame is attachable to the tool bar (Winterton: 15) of the trailing assembly (Winterton: Fig. 1).
As concerns claim 16, the combination teaches wherein: the trailing assembly further includes a support frame (Winterton: 44) attachable to the tool bar; and the third parallel linkage is configured to attach the third frame to the support frame (Winterton: Fig. 1).
As concerns claim 17, the combination teaches wherein the third frame is attachable (Winterton: indirectly via arm 44 & component 12) to the first frame via the third parallel linkage (Winterton: Fig. 1).
As concerns claim 18, Schaffert shows a furrow opener assembly (200) secured to the first frame (Fig. 2 & 3).
As concerns claim 19, Schaffert shows the furrow opener assembly including a furrow opener disc (260).
As concerns claim 20, Schaffert shows a closer assembly (300) secured to the second frame (Fig. 2 & 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 21-23 are allowed over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not appear to anticipate and/or render obvious a row cleaner assembly for an agricultural planter having a tool bar, the row cleaner assembly comprising: a support frame having a first end attachable to the tool bar and a second end opposite the first end; a parallel linkage secured to the support frame at or near the second end; a row cleaner arm secured to the support frame via the parallel linkage; and a support arm extending rearward from the support frame between the first end and the second end, the support arm configured to fix the support frame to a furrow opener assembly secured to the tool bar and disposed behind the row cleaner assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bassett (US 9,107,337) and Winterton (US 5,341,754) each show a planter having a row cleaner assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672