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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03 August 2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
CLAIMS 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Green et al. (US 2012/0232691 A1).
CLAIM 10 Green et al. ‘691 (hereinafter, Green) discloses a method of operating an agricultural seeding implement (10, [0024]) comprising an implement frame (16), a load sensor ([0017]), and a product tank (28, 30), the method comprising the steps of:
applying a load using a force device (40) of an air seeder row unit on the implement frame (16) of an air seeder (Fig. 1)([0016]); and
measuring the applied load of the force device (40) with the load sensor (16)([0017]);
wherein measuring the load comprises measuring a total force of the air seeder row unit on the frame;1 and
comparing the measured load to a threshold (i.e., FR=0) to determine a position of a gauge wheel of the implement relative to ground 2; and
CLAIM 12 transferring seeds from the product tank (28) to the air seeder row unit when the measured load is greater than the threshold (namely, when FR>0).
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.
CLAIMS 1, 2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (US 5,092,255 A) in view of Baugher et al. (US 5,802,995 A) and Pierce et al. (US 5,713,238 A).
CLAIM 1 Long et al. ‘255 (“Long”) shows a seeding row unit (10, capable of use with an air seeder), comprising:
a bracket (supporting structure around frame member 12, Fig. 1) configured to be attached to a frame (12) of an air seeder;
a support arm (22) coupled to the bracket, the support arm carrying an opener disc (18) and a gauge wheel (42), wherein the opener disc is configured to open a seed trench in a soil surface as the row unit travels in a forward direction (F) of travel; and
a force device (32) connected to the bracket and the support arm (22).
Long shows a connection between the support arm (22) and the bracket but fails to disclose the same as pivotal. Baugher et al. ‘995 (“Baugher”) shows a row unit (282, Fig. 17) comprising a support arm (286) pivotally coupled (via 42) to a bracket assembly (30 and 34, collectively). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the connection between the support arm (Long, 22) and the bracket (Long Fig. 1) pivotal, as suggested by Baugher. The motivation for making the modification would have been to facilitate movement of the support arm and the bracket relative to one another during use to prevent fracture or failure of the joint, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Long shows connections between the force device (32) and both the bracket and support arm (22) but fails to disclose either member as pivotal. Baugher shows a row unit (Fig. 17) comprising a force device (46) pivotally connected (via 48) to a bracket assembly (30 and 34, collectively) and a support arm (286; via 92). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the connections between the force device (Long, 32) and both the bracket (Long, Fig. 1) and the support arm (Long, 22) pivotal, as suggested by Baugher. The motivation for making the modification would have been to facilitate movement between the force device and both the bracket and support arm relative to each other during use to prevent fracture or failure of the joints, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Long fails to teach a load sensor. Pierce et al. ‘238 (hereinafter, Pierce) shows a load sensor (50) disposed adjacent a force device (28) and configured to measure a load of the force device, wherein the load sensor (50) has a front face with a through-hole (60, 70) that is configured to receive an alignment member (34). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have positioned a load sensor (Pierce, 50) adjacent the force device (Long, 32), as suggested by Pierce. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for measuring the downforce on the support arm to ensure that it is operating withing design parameters (Pierce, col. 1, ll. 37-8) , and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
[AltContent: textbox (bracket)]LONG, FIG. 1 (annotated)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (connection of force device to bracket)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (connection of force device to support arm)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (connection of support arm to bracket)]
PNG
media_image1.png
576
789
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 2 In the prior art combination, the load sensor (Pierce, 50) comprises a compression cell.
CLAIM 4 In the prior art combination, the seeder row unit further comprises a firming implement (Long, 51) carried by the support arm (Long, via connection through arm 53).
CLAIM 5 In the prior art combination, the seeder row unit further comprises a closing wheel (Long, 52) carried by the support arm (Long, via connection through arm 54).
CLAIM 6 In the prior art combination, Long shows a frame (Long, 12) configured to be pulled through an agricultural field, and Baugher describes a plurality of row units (Baugher, 24) that are attachable to the frame (Baugher, 12) of an air seeder unit (Baugher, col. 5, ll. 47-51). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added a plurality of the prior art row units (Baugher, 24) to a seeding implement, as suggested by both Baugher. The motivation for making the modification would have been to perform agricultural operations on a wider area of an agricultural field, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 7 In the prior art combination, Baugher discloses a frame (Baugher, 12) supported by a plurality of support wheels (14, “wheels 14” col. 5, ll. 30-3). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have supported the frame (Long, 12) by a plurality of wheels. (Baugher, 14), as suggested by Baugher. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include readily available and inexpensive means for supporting and transporting the frame across an agricultural field, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 8 In the prior art combination, Long further discloses a product tank carried by the frame (Long, col. 2, ll. 41-4), the product tank configured to deliver seeds to the row units.
CLAIM 9 In the prior art combination, Pierce further teaches an implement monitor (Pierce, 114) in communication with the load sensor (Pierce, 50).
CLAIM 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (US 5,092,255 A), Baugher et al. (US 5,802,995 A), and Pierce et al. (US 5,713,238 A) as applied to CLAIM 2 above, and further in view of Plattner (WO 2020/008283 A1).
CLAIM 3 The prior art combination fails to teach a wiring harness. Plattner ‘283 (“Plattner”) describes a wiring harness (480, Figs. 13A and 13B) for connection between a gauge wheel arm and a load cell ([0050]). 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 unit with the addition of a wiring harness attached to the load sensor (Pierce, 50). The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for protecting a wired connection between the load cell and an implement monitor (Plattner, [0052]), and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks, filed 03 August 2026) with respect to the rejection(s) of CLAIMS 1-9 under § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Pierce et al. (US 5,713,238 A).
Applicant's arguments (filed 03 August 2026) regarding Green have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the measured down force of the prior art method is limited to the gauge wheel(s). The examiner directs Applicant to paragraph 0016 of Green, wherein the prior art describes the upward force acting on the gauge wheel(s) as a counteraction to the sum, or total, of down forces of the row unit acting on implement frame. For these reasons, Green is relied upon in the above § 102 rejection of CLAIMS 10 and 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu et al. (US 2010/0116974 A1) is particularly relevant to the method of CLAIM 10, as the prior art references recites the step of measuring a load applied to an implement frame by a force device (cl. 17).
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, Christine M. Mills can be reached at (571)272-8322. 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
19 September 2026
1 In [0016], Green describes the total down force of the row unit and the counteraction by upward forces; specifically, down forces applied by the actuator and gravity on the row unit are counteracted by upward soil forces acting on the gauge wheels and the closing wheels.
2 In [0017], Green teaches a threshold of FR=0 to determine whether or the gauge wheels are engaged with the soil.
Prosecution Insights