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 .
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowed.
Claims 18-19 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.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassett (Pub. No.: 2012/0060731) in view of Paladino (Pat. No.: 4,219,947).
Regarding independent claim 17, Bassett discloses a planter for use in an agricultural operation comprising: a toolbar (13) supported above an underlying surface; a row unit (10) coupled (at least operably) to the toolbar (13) and configured to distribute commodity to the underlying surface (See para. [0034] for general disclosure of the agricultural operation); a linkage assembly (15) including an upper arm and a lower arm positioned below the upper arm (See para. [0034] where it discloses the linkage assembly is a four-bar/parallel-bar linkage which is a conventional and well-known linkage, the upper and lower arm can be seen in at least Fig. 3); and an actuator (19), wherein the actuator is configured to retract to urger the row unit (10) downward relative to the underlying surface (See para. [0037] where it discloses retracting movement of the piston rod 25 [of the cylinder 19] tilts the linkage assembly 15 downwardly, as depicted in Fig. 3, thereby lowering the row unit).
Like Bassett, Paladino discloses a depth adjustment system for an agricultural operation comprising: a toolbar (20) supported above an underlying surface; an agricultural unit (10) coupled (at least operably) to the toolbar (20); a linkage assembly (16) including an upper arm (23) and a lower arm (25) positioned below the upper arm (23); and an actuator (35 and 37).
Unlike Bassett, Paladino specifically teaches the upper arm (23) including a forward end pivotably coupled (directly) to the toolbar (20) at a first coupling point (22) and a rearward end pivotably coupled (at least operably) to the agricultural unit (10) at a third coupling point (27), and the lower arm (25) including a forward end pivotably coupled (directly) to the toolbar (20) at a second coupling point (24) and a rearward end pivotably coupled (at least operably) to the agricultural unit at a fourth coupling point (28); and the actuator (35 and 37) including a first end (end near 35 in Fig. 1 below generally corresponds to the claimed actuator first end) pivotably coupled (at least operably) to the agricultural unit (10) and a second end (end near 37 in Fig. 1 below generally corresponds to the claimed actuator second end) pivotably coupled (at least operably) to the lower arm (25) at a fifth coupling point (39) located between (See Fig. 1 where the fifth coupling point 39 is between coupling points 24 and 28 in the direction of travel) the second coupling point (24) and the fourth coupling point (28); wherein the actuator (35 and 37) is configured to retract to urge the agricultural unit downward relative to the underlying surface (See col. 3, lns. 50-52 where it discloses “inward retraction of the piston 37 will drive the blade mechanism into the ground”). Figure 1 of Paladino is provided for immediate reference of the above elements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the linkage assembly and actuator of Bassett, to include the details discussed above by Paladino, as substituting depth adjustment mechanisms is well within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
580
841
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassett (Pub. No.: 2012/0060731) in view of Yamazaki (Pub. No.: 2015/0152623).
Regarding independent claim 20, Bassett discloses a method of moving a row unit (10) that is configured to distribute commodity during an agricultural operation (See para. [0034] for general disclosure of the agricultural operation), the method comprising:
moving a planter that has a toolbar (13) over underlying soil during the agricultural operation such that a linkage assembly (15) coupled between the toolbar (13) and the row unit (10) pivots relative to the toolbar (13) and the row unit (10, See Figs. 3-4 where the relative pivoting of the linkage assembly is depicted);
retracting an actuator (19) to urge the row unit (10) downward relative to the underlying surface (See para. [0037] where it discloses retracting movement of the piston rod 25 [of the cylinder 19] tilts the linkage assembly 15 downwardly, as depicted in Fig. 3, thereby lowering the row unit); and
extending the actuator (19) to urge the row unit (10) upward away from the underlying surface into a position for travel independent of the agricultural operation (See para. [0037] where it discloses advancing/extending movement of the piston rod 25 [of the cylinder 19] tilts the linkage assembly 15 upwardly, as depicted in Fig. 4, thereby raising the row unit).
Like Bassett, Yamazaki discloses a method of moving an agricultural unit (10) during an agricultural operation, the method comprising: moving a toolbar (11) over underlying soil during the operation such that a linkage assembly (13 and 14) coupled between the toolbar (11) and the agricultural unit (10) pivots relative to the toolbar and agricultural unit (See relative pivoting of linkage assembly in Figs. 8a-8d); retracting an actuator (12) to urge the unit (10) downward (position in Fig. 8d, note the complete cylinder retraction, See para. [0080] for corresponding disclosure), and extending the actuator to urge the unit (10) upward into a position for travel independent of the agricultural operation (position depicted in Fig. 8a, note the cylinder extension, See para. [0080] for corresponding disclosure).
Unlike Bassett, Yamazaki teaches the actuator (12) including: a first end pivotably coupled (at least operably) to the unit (10) and an upper arm (14) of the linkage assembly (13 and 14) at a coupling point (See annotated Fig. 3) where the row unit (10) is pivotably coupled (via 15a as seen in Fig. 3) to the upper arm (14), and a second end pivotably coupled (at least operably) to a lower arm (13) of the linkage assembly (13 and 14) at a coupling point (See annotated Fig. 3) located between the unit (10) and the toolbar (11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the actuator mounting configuration of Bassett, to include the details discussed above by Yamazaki, as such a modification directed towards actuator mounting configurations is well within the scope of one having ordinary skill in the art. Further, it appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Bassett.
PNG
media_image2.png
641
695
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references disclose similar depth/pressure adjusting mechanisms and are considered reasonably pertinent: Kelley (Pat. No.: 2,797,629); Stedman (Pat. No.: 3,552,497); Lazure (Pat. No.: 4,142,817); and, Gartenmaier et al. (Pat. No.: 9,027,663). Additional references relevant but not cited here can be found in the attached 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Audrey L Lusk whose telephone number is (571)272-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8am-5pm.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. 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.
/JAMIE L MCGOWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/A.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3671