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
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, 2, 4, 6, 9-12, 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Connell (US 2018/0325011).
With respect to claim 1, Connell disclose an agricultural implement (19), comprising: a toolbar (75, see paragraph 69); a plurality of stationary brackets (86, 186, 286) fixed to the toolbar, each stationary bracket comprising at least one lateral member (77) oriented parallel to the toolbar: a plurality of row units (93, 193, 293, 393, 493, 593, 693, see paragraph 105), each row unit coupled to a sliding bracket (89, 189, 289, 566, 605, 724), wherein each sliding bracket is carried by and configured to slide along the at least one lateral member of a corresponding stationary bracket (see bracket 724 in figures 12-15); a plurality of actuators (480, wherein brackets shown in figures 12-15 move and also include features of brackets shown in figures 5A-5F, see paragraph 150), each configured to slide a corresponding one of the sliding brackets relative to the corresponding stationary bracket (see figure 12-15 and paragraphs 151-152); and a plurality of locking mechanisms (726), wherein each locking mechanism is configured to fix a position of a corresponding one of the sliding brackets relative to the corresponding stationary bracket.
With respect to claim 2, Connell disclose wherein the at least one lateral member comprises at least one member selected from the group consisting of a cylindrical rod, angle iron, an l-beam, and a square beam (see figure 1 and figure 14).
With respect to claim 4, Connell disclose wherein the at least one lateral member comprises at least two parallel lateral members (see figure 4).
With respect to claim 6, Connell disclose wherein the plurality of locking mechanisms comprises a plurality of locking plates (726) configured to be disposed within locking channels defined by the at least one lateral member.
With respect to claim 9, Connell disclose wherein the plurality of locking mechanisms comprises a plurality of locking screws (see figure 5F, wherein the actuator locks the bracket in place via 473 until more force is applied) configured to push the row unit away from the at least one lateral member.
With respect to claim 10, Connell disclose wherein the plurality of locking mechanisms comprises the plurality of actuators coupled to the sliding bracket (see figure 12-15 and 5F and paragraph 150).
With respect to claim 11, Connell disclose a method of adjusting a spacing between row units of an agricultural implement, the method comprising: disengaging a locking mechanism (plates 726) to enable a sliding bracket carrying a row unit to travel laterally along a stationary bracket carried by a toolbar of the agricultural implement (see paragraphs 151, 152): sliding operating an actuator to move the sliding bracket laterally parallel to the toolbar of the agricultural implement (480, wherein brackets shown in figures 12-15 include features of brackets shown in figures 5A-5F, see paragraph 150); and engaging the locking mechanism to fix a position of the sliding bracket relative to the stationary bracket (see paragraph 152).
With respect to claim 12, Connell disclose wherein engaging the locking mechanism comprises providing an interfering object (726) to limit movement of the sliding bracket.
With respect to claim 14, Connell disclose wherein providing an interfering object comprises disposing a locking plate (726) partially within a channel defined by lateral member of the stationary bracket.
With respect to claim 15, Connell disclose wherein engaging the locking mechanism comprises threading a screw into a hole in the sliding bracket (see figure 5F, wherein the actuator locks the bracket in place via 473 until more force is applied).
With respect to claim 17, Connell disclose further comprising removing a second sliding bracket from a second stationary bracket, the second sliding bracket carrying a second row unit (see paragraph 164, wherein the rows are adjusted).
With respect to claim 18, Connell disclose further comprising adjusting a height of the row unit after engaging the locking mechanism (see paragraph 56, wherein the height of the arms is adjusted via 65, and see figures 9A-9C and 10).
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(s) 3 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connell in view of Davis et al. (USP 10,882,065).
With respect to claim 3, Connell disclose that the lateral support is a square beam, but does not disclose that it is cylindrical rod. Davis et al. disclose that rods, rails, cylindrical members, and beams are equivalent support members (see column 12 lines 46-52). As both Connell and Davis disclose support members, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the square beam of Connell with a cylindrical rod as taught by Davis et al. for the predictable result of providing a lateral support.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 8, and 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connell in view of Dreyer (GB 2072473).
With respect to claims 5 and 13, Connell disclose spacer plates but not spacer sleeves. Dreyer discloses spacer sleeves (11) which provide for coulters to be adjustable relative to the holders (see abstract). As both Connell and Dreyer disclose locking mechanisms, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the spacer plates of Connell with the spacer sleeve of Dreyer for the predictable result of holding the adjustable bracket in place.
With respect to claim 7, Connell disclose spacer plates but not locking pins. Dreyer discloses locking pins (11) which provide for coulters to be adjustable relative to the holders (see abstract and page 2 lines 16-20). As both Connell and Dreyer disclose locking mechanisms, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the spacer plates of Connell with the pins of Dreyer (wherein they are configured to be disposed within locking holes defined by the at least one lateral member) for the predictable result of holding the adjustable bracket in place.
With respect to claim 8, Connell disclose spacer plates but not jaw rings. Dreyer discloses jaw rings (11) which provide for coulters to be adjustable relative to the holders (see abstract and page 2 lines 16-20, wherein clamping straps are considered jaw rings). As both Connell and Dreyer disclose locking mechanisms, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the spacer plates of Connell with the jaw rings of Dreyer for the predictable result of holding the adjustable bracket in place.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE A COY whose telephone number is (571)272-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-3:30pm.
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 Thomas can be reached at 571-272-8004. 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.
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672