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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Menezes et al. (US 2021/0059099 A1).
Menezes et al. ‘099 (“Menezes”) shows a planter assembly comprising:
CLAIM 1 a toolbar (40) configured to be coupled to a work machine (“tractor” [0017]);
a row unit (12) configured to selectively open a trench (76), deposit a commodity therein (86), and close the trench (90) as the planter assembly is moved along an underlying surface; and
a linkage assembly (62 and 70, collectively) coupling the row unit (12) to the toolbar (40) such that the row unit is movable relative to the toolbar;
wherein, the linkage assembly (62, 70) alters a row unit attitude relative to the toolbar (40) as the row unit moves relative thereto to enhance row unit ground following; and
CLAIM 5 wherein the linkage assembly (62, 70) comprises an actuator (62) that is selectively repositionable to alter the row unit attitude (direction 64 [0020]).
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 12, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hughes (US 2023/0270041 A1).
Hughes ‘041 (“Hughes”) a planter assembly comprising:
CLAIM 1 a toolbar (104) configured to be coupled to a work machine (100);
a row unit (106) configured to selectively open a trench (212), deposit a commodity therein (210), and close the trench (214) as the planter assembly is moved along an underlying surface; and
a linkage assembly (204a) coupling the row unit (106) to the toolbar (104) such that the row unit is movable relative to the toolbar;
wherein, the linkage assembly (204a) alters a row unit attitude relative to the toolbar (104) as the row unit moves relative thereto to enhance row unit ground following ([0028]);
CLAIM 5 wherein the linkage assembly (204a) comprises an actuator (216) that is selectively repositionable to alter the row unit attitude; and
CLAIM 6 wherein the actuator (216) is pivotally connected to the row unit (106) on one end and pivotally connected to the toolbar (104) on an opposite end (Fig. 2), the linkage assembly further comprising a base bar (204b) that is pivotally coupled to the row unit (106) on one end and pivotally coupled to the toolbar (104) on an opposite end.
CLAIM 12 The method steps recited therein are inherent to use of the assembly taught by Hughes, as applied above to claim 1.
CLAIM 16 The method steps recited therein are inherent to use of the assembly taught by Hughes, as applied above to claim 1.
CLAIM 17 The method steps recited therein are inherent to use of the assembly taught by Hughes, as applied above to claim 5.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meyer et al. (US 2003/0110999 A1).
Meyer et al. ‘999 (“Meyer”) shows planter assembly (Fig. 5) comprising:
CLAIM 1 a toolbar (16) configured to be coupled to a work machine;
a row unit (24) configured to selectively open a trench (32), deposit a commodity therein (“seed tube” [0021]), and close the trench (36) as the planter assembly is moved along an underlying surface; and
a linkage assembly (44, 48, 50, 42, 56, collectively) coupling the row unit (24) to the toolbar (16) such that the row unit is movable relative to the toolbar;
wherein, the linkage assembly alters a row unit attitude relative to the toolbar as the row unit moves relative thereto to enhance row unit ground following;
CLAIM 5 wherein the linkage assembly comprises an actuator (50) that is selectively repositionable to alter the row unit attitude; and
CLAIM 7 wherein the actuator (50) is pivotally coupled to a bell crank (48) of the linkage assembly to selectively pivot the bell crank to alter the attitude of the row unit.
CLAIM 12 The method steps recited therein are inherent to use of the assembly taught by Meyer, as applied above to claim 1.
CLAIM 18 Meyer further teaches a rockshaft arm (44).
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sauder et al. (US 2015/0313076 A2).
Sauder et al. ‘076 (“Sauder”) discloses a planter assembly (Figs. 14 and 15) comprising:
CLAIM 1 a toolbar (520) configured to be coupled to a work machine;
a row unit (1400) configured to selectively open a trench (20), deposit a commodity therein (“seed tube” [0070]), and close the trench (34) as the planter assembly is moved along an underlying surface; and
a linkage assembly (14, 32) coupling the row unit (1400) to the toolbar (520) such that the row unit is movable relative to the toolbar;
wherein, the linkage assembly alters (14, 32) a row unit attitude relative to the toolbar (520) as the row unit (1400) moves relative thereto to enhance row unit ground following;
CLAIM 5 wherein the linkage assembly comprises an actuator (32) that is selectively repositionable to alter the row unit attitude; and
CLAIM 8 further comprising a position sensor (1340, 1362) that is configured to identify the orientation of the toolbar ([0078], [0082]), wherein the actuator (32) is repositioned based on the orientation of the toolbar identified by the position sensor.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hornung et al. (US 5,398,771 A)
Hornung et al. ‘771 (“Hornung”) shows a planter assembly (1) having a row unit (Fig. 4), comprising:
CLAIM 19 a toolbar (26) configured to move the row unit along an underlying surface as the planter assembly moves there along; and
a linkage assembly (100 and 104, collectively) having a plurality of linkages coupled between the toolbar (26) and the row unit (Fig. 4) to allow the row unit to move relative to the toolbar
wherein, the plurality of linkages (100, 104) are sized so an attitude of the row unit is altered as the row unit moves relative to the toolbar; and
CLAIM 20 wherein at least one of the plurality of linkages is an actuator (100).
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 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bland (US 4,004,640 A) in view of Menezes et al. (US 2021/0059099 A1).
CLAIM 1 Bland ‘640 (“Bland”) shows an assembly comprising:
a toolbar (20) configured to be coupled to a work machine;
a row unit configured to selectively open a trench (160) as the assembly is moved along an underlying surface;
and a linkage assembly (22, 30, 50, 80, collectively) coupling the row unit to the toolbar (20) such that the row unit is movable relative to the toolbar (Fig. 3);
wherein, the linkage assembly alters a row unit attitude relative to the toolbar as the row unit moves relative thereto to enhance row unit ground following.
Bland fails to teach the row unit configured to deposit a commodity into the trench and close the trench. Menezes et al. ‘099 (“Menezes”) shows a planter assembly comprising a row unit (12) configured to selectively open a trench (76), deposit a commodity therein (86), and close the trench (90) as the planter assembly is moved along an underlying surface. 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 such that it would have further been configured to deposit a commodity in the trench and to close the trench, as suggested by Menezes. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for planting and covering seed in the trench with a single pass of the assembly, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 2 In the combination of Bland and Menezes, the linkage assembly (Bland, 22, 30, 50, 80) comprises an upper arm (Bland, 22, 30, 50) and a lower arm (Bland, 80), each pivotally coupled to the toolbar (Bland, 20) on one end and pivotally coupled to the row unit on another end respectively (Bland, Fig. 3), wherein the upper arm and lower arm have different lengths.
CLAIM 3 In the combination of Bland and Menezes, the linkage assembly (Bland, 22, 30, 50, 80) comprises an upper arm (Bland, 22, 30, 50) and a lower arm (Bland, 80) each pivotally coupled to the toolbar (Bland 20) at a toolbar pivot distance and the upper and lower arms are each pivotally coupled to the row unit at a row unit pivot distance, the toolbar pivot distance being different from the row unit pivot distance.
CLAIM 12 The method steps recited therein are inherent to use of the assembly taught by the combination of Bland and Menezes, as applied above to claim 1.
CLAIM 13 The method steps recited therein are inherent to use of the assembly taught by the combination of Bland and Menezes, as applied above to claim 2.
CLAIM 14 The method steps recited therein are inherent to use of the assembly taught by the combination of Bland and Menezes, as applied above to claim 3.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hornung et al. (US 5,398,771 A) in view of Menezes et al. (US 2021/0059099 A1).
CLAIM 1 Hornung et al. ‘771 (“Hornung”) shows a planter assembly (1) comprising:
a toolbar (26) configured to be coupled to a work machine;
a row unit (Fig. 4) configured to selectively open a trench (55) and deposit a commodity therein (50) as the planter assembly is moved along an underlying surface; and
a linkage assembly (100 and 104, collectively) coupling the row unit (Fig. 4) to the toolbar (26) such that the row unit is movable relative to the toolbar;
wherein, the linkage assembly (100, 104) alters a row unit attitude relative to the toolbar (26) as the row unit moves relative thereto to enhance row unit ground following.
Hornung fails to teach the row unit configured to close the trench. Menezes et al. ‘099 (“Menezes”) shows a planter assembly comprising a row unit (12) configured to selectively open a trench (76), deposit a commodity therein (86), and close the trench (90) as the planter assembly is moved along an underlying surface. 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 such that it would have further been configured to close the trench, as suggested by Menezes. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for covering the seed in the trench to prevent it from being dislodged, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 5 In the combination of Hornong and Menezes, the linkage assembly (Hornong, 100, 104) comprises an actuator (Hornong, 100) that is selectively repositionable to alter the row unit attitude (Hornong, Figs. 5 and 7).
CLAIM 9 In the combination of Hornong and Menezes, the linkage assembly (Hornong, 100, 104) comprises a rockshaft arm (Hornong, 104) that is selectively engageable to alter the attitude of the row unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 10, 11 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kirsch (US 5,431,232 A) shows a row unit comprising a selectively repositionable actuator assembly (13, Fig. 2).
Horn (US 7,111,566 B2) shows a planter assembly comprising a linkage assembly positioned between a toolbar (22) and a row unit (36), the linkage assembly configured to alter an attitude of the row unit (Figs. 2 and 4).
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/
11 February 2026