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 § 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, 2, 5, 12, 14, 16, 17 AND 22 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.
Additionally, the linkage assembly (Bland, 22, 30, 50, 80) of the prior art combination 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 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 5 In the prior art combination, the linkage assembly (Bland, 22, 30, 50, 80) comprises an actuator (Bland, 205) that is selectively repositionable to alter the row unit attitude (via both (a) elongation and contraction of 205, and (b) adjustment of nut 194 on the end of pressure rod 186).
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 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 1.
CLAIM 16 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 5.
CLAIM 17 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 5.
CLAIM 22 In the prior art combination, the linkage assembly (Bland, 22, 30, 50, 80) comprises a downforce actuator (Bland, 205) configured to selectively bias the row unit towards the underlying surface.
CLAIM 7 is 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) as applied to CLAIM 5 above, and further in view of Meyer et al. (US 2003/0110999 A1).
CLAIM 7 The prior art combination fails to disclose a bell crank.
Meyer et al. ‘999 (“Meyer”) shows planter assembly (Fig. 5) comprising:
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;
wherein the linkage assembly comprises an actuator (50) that is selectively repositionable to alter the row unit attitude; and
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.
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 planter assembly (Bland i/v/o Menezes) with the addition of a bell crank pivotally coupled to the actuator (Bland, 205), as suggested by Meyer. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for easing adjustment of the actuator, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 8 is 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) as applied to CLAIM 5 above, and further in view of Sauder et al. (US 2015/0313076 A2).
CLAIM 8 The prior art combination fails to teach a position sensor.
Sauder et al. ‘076 (“Sauder”) discloses a planter assembly (Figs. 14 and 15) comprising:
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;
wherein the linkage assembly comprises an actuator (32) that is selectively repositionable to alter the row unit attitude; and
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.
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 planter assembly with the addition of a position sensor, as suggested by Sauder. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for automating positioning of the toolbar, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over Bland (US 4,004,640 A) in view of Menezes et al. (US 2021/0059099 A1) as applied to CLAIM 1 above, and further in view of Hornung et al. (US 5,398,771 A).
CLAIM 9 The prior art combination fails to disclose a selectively engageable rockshaft arm.
Hornung et al. ‘771 (“Hornung”) discloses 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) comprises a rockshaft arm (104) that is selectively engageable to alter the attitude of the row unit.
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 planter assembly (Bland i/v/o Menezes) with the inclusion of a selectively engageable rockshaft arm, as suggested by Hornung. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for coordinating selectively the lift and downforce across multiple row units with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
CLAIMS 4, 10, 11 AND 23-26 are allowed.
CLAIMS 6 AND 21 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Independent CLAIM 1
Applicant submits Bland fails to teach the toolbar pivot distance being different from the row unit pivot distance. The examiner directs Applicant’s attention to Fig. 1 of the prior art, wherein the upper arm (Bland, 22, 30, 50) of the linkage assembly is joined directly to the lower arm (Bland, 80) on end closest to the row unit, but the upper arm is separated from the lower arm by at least the height of the toolbar at the opposing end. Thus, the distances are not equal.
The rejection of the claim is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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/
28 July 2026
Prosecution Insights