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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it references specific claims. See MPEP 608.01(a).
Delete all references to specific claim numbers.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 4, line 4, the scope of the claimed invention is rendered indefinite by the recitation “preferably in the range of 5 to 7 I/min” because it is unclear whether the preferred range is required by the claim. For the purpose of prosecution on the merits, the examiner has considered the scope inclusive of the preferred range.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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) 1-3, 6, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Friel et al. (EP 2025215 A1).
CLAIM 1 Friel et al. ‘215 (EP ‘215) discloses a hydraulic circuit (Fig. 5, [0029]) for colter pressure ([0008]) and blower rotational speed adjustment ([0026]) at an agricultural spreading machine comprising:
a first line region (28) configured to be connected to at least one colter pressure adjustment cylinder (11, 11’) and to specify a hydraulic pressure to said colter pressure adjustment cylinder;
a second line region (23) configured to be connected to a hydraulically drivable blower and to specify a hydraulic pressure to said blower (via 24); and
a hydraulic valve (19) for adjusting the hydraulic pressure in said first line region (28) and for adjusting the hydraulic pressure in said second line region (23); wherein said hydraulic valve (19) is configured as a 3-way flow control valve;
CLAIM 2 wherein said first line region (28) is connected to a first valve outlet and said second line region (23) is connected to a second valve outlet of said hydraulic valve (19)(Fig. 5);
CLAIM 3 wherein said first valve outlet of said hydraulic valve (19) connected to said first line region (28) is a priority outlet of said hydraulic valve that limits the volume flow to a volume flow limit value (via pressure relief valve 14, [0042]); and
CLAIM 6 wherein a pressure limitation valve (14), which is configured to limit the hydraulic pressure in said first line region (28) to a maximum pressure.
CLAIM 8 The structural limitations recited therein are taught by EP ‘215, as applied above to claim 1.
CLAIM 9 The method steps recited therein are inherent to use of the hydraulic circuit taught by EP ‘215, as applied above to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friel et al. (EP 2025215 A1).
CLAIM 4 EP ‘215 fails to disclose a specific value for the volume flow limit. However, 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 volume flow limit in the range of 5 to 7 I/min, since volume flow rate is a result-effective variable for velocity; i.e., as flow rate increases, velocity increases. The motivation for making the modification would have been to impart a desired speed to the coulter actuators.
CLAIM 7 EP ‘215 fails to teach a housing. However, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have integrated the hydraulic circuit into a housing, since the examiner takes Official Notice of the same. The motivation for making the modification would have been to provide the circuit with a protective cover.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Conclusion
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/
09 January 2026