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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 18 February 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The prior rejection of CLAIMS 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is herein withdrawn1.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sauder et al. (US 2012/0186503 A1).
Sauder et al. ‘503 (hereinafter, Sauder) discloses a method of operating an agricultural seeding implement comprising an implement frame (20), a load sensor (116), and a product tank (22), the method comprising the steps of:
CLAIM 10 measuring a load of a force device (200) of an air seeder row unit (10; capable of use with an air seeder) on an implement frame (20) of an air seeder; and
comparing the measured load to a threshold (i.e., “desired gauge wheel downforce”) to determine a position of a gauge wheel (34) of the implement (30) relative to ground; and
CLAIM 11 wherein measuring a load of a force device of an air seeder row unit on an implement frame comprises measuring a total force (i.e. magnitude of force) of the air seeder row unit on the frame (20).
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 1-9 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 Sauder et al. (US 2012/0186503 A1).
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 (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 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.
[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
Long fails to teach a load sensor. Sauder et al. ‘503 (hereinafter, Sauder) shows a row unit (10, Fig. 4) comprising a load sensor (116) disposed adjacent a force device (136) and configured to measure a load of the force device on a support arm (36) carrying at least one gauge wheel (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 (Sauder, 116) adjacent the force device (Long, 32), as suggested by Sauder. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for assessing the downforce on the support arm, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 2 In the prior art combination, the load sensor (Sauder, 116) comprises a compression cell (Sauder, [0043]).
CLAIM 3 In the prior art combination, the load sensor (Sauder, 116) comprises a wiring harness (Sauder, [0003]) configured to transmit a signal related to a load applied to the load sensor.
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 further teaches a frame (Long, 12) configured to be pulled through an agricultural field, and Sauder shows (Fig. 5) a schematic illustration of an agricultural seeding implement comprising a plurality of the air seeder row units (Sauder, 10) coupled to a frame (Sauder, 12). Additionally, Baugher shows a plurality of row units (Fig. 19). 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 (Long, Baugher, Sauder) to a seeding implement, as suggested by both Sauder and 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, Sauder teaches an implement monitor (Sauder, [0029]) in communication with the load sensor (Sauder, 116).
CLAIMS 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauder et al. (US 2012/0186503 A1) in view of Green et al. (US 2012/0232691 A1).
CLAIM 10 Sauder et al. ‘503 (hereinafter, Sauder) discloses a method of operating an agricultural seeding implement comprising an implement frame (20), a load sensor (116), and a product tank (22), the method comprising the steps of:
measuring a load of a force device (200) of a row unit (10; capable of use with an air seeder) on an implement frame (20) of the row unit; and
comparing the measured load to a threshold (i.e., “desired gauge wheel downforce”) to determine a position of a gauge wheel (34) of the implement (30) relative to ground.
Sauder fails to disclose an air seeder.
Green et al. ‘691 (“Green”) discloses dynamic downforce control of an agricultural implement and teaches (a) the functional equivalence of planters, drills and air seeders for the purposes of sowing seed and distributing agricultural products ([0002]), and (b) an air seeder as suitable for use with the dynamic downforce control. 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 row unit, and hence the implement frame, of the prior art method an air seeder row unit with an implement frame, as suggested by Sauder. The motivation for replacing the planter row unit with an air seeder row unit would have been to use a machine known to be functionally equivalent but less likely to bruise seeds during operation, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 11 The prior art combination teaches the step of measuring a load of a force device of an air seeder row unit on an implement frame comprises measuring a total force (i.e. magnitude of force) of the air seeder row unit on the frame (20).
CLAIM 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauder et al. (US 2012/0186503 A1) in view of Spikings (US 6,534,728 B1).
CLAIM 12 Sauder fails to teach the step of transferring seeds. Spikings ‘728 discloses a method of operating a seeding implement comprising the step of transferring seeds from a product tank to a row unit when a measured load is greater than the threshold (col. 4, ll. 1-9). 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 method with the step of the transferring seeds, as suggested by Spikings. The motivation for making the modification would have been to improve uniformity of seeding across a field, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pp. 5-6), filed 18 February 2026, with respect to the rejection of CLAIMS 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (p. 7), filed 18 February 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 and 11 under §102(a)(1) 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 Green et al. (US 2012/0232691 A1).
Applicant's arguments filed 18 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Sauder et al. (US 2012/0232691 A1)
Applicant argues Sauder fails to teach the step of comparing the measured load to a threshold on the basis that a desired load does not qualify as a threshold. The examiner disagrees. Specifically, the prior art controller adjusts the downforce on the gauge wheel until it reaches the desired force, then stops because it has reached the threshold ([0024], [0025]).
Applicant argues the prior art load sensor is not positioned adjacent a force device. The examiner disagrees and directs Applicant’s attention to Fig. 4 of Sauder wherein the load sensor (116) is positioned adjacent a force device (136)2.
Applicant further challenges the motivation statement provided by the examiner in the obviousness rejection of CLAIM 1. The examiner contends Sauder teaches the arrangement as known, thereby providing the rationale to modify Long.
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/
30 May 2026
1 The examiner concedes Applicant’s point that the inclusion of CLAIM 10 in the §112 rejection is a typographical error (see p. 6 of Remarks filed 18 February 2026). This has been corrected in the instant Office Action to state that CLAIMS 1-9 were rejected under §112(b) in the last Office Action.
2 Applicant’s arguments reference force device 36 of Sauder, which is incorrect.
Prosecution Insights