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 Objections
Claims 20-34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(claim 20, line 1) “Output unit” should be changed to “An output unit”.
(claim 20, line 8) “a work depth” should be changed to “the work depth”.
(claim 20, line 16) “a lower portion” should be changed to “the lower portion”.
(claim 20, line 17) “a lower portion” should be changed to “the lower portion”.
(claim 21, line 1) “Output unit” should be changed to “The output unit”.
(claim 21, lines 1-2) “wherein the depth regulator comprises a gauge wheel which” should be changed to “wherein the gauge wheel”.
(claim 21, line 2) “the latter” should be changed to “the depth regulator arm”.
(claim 22, line 1) “Output unit” should be changed to “The output unit”.
(claim 23, line 1) “Output unit” should be changed to “The output unit”.
(claim 24, line 1) “Output unit” should be changed to “The output unit”.
(claim 24, line 1) “according to Claim 20” should be changed to “according to Claim 22” to provide proper antecedent basis for the limitation “the material outlet” in line 2.
(claim 25, line 1) “Output unit” should be changed to “The output unit”.
(claim 26, line 1) “Output unit” should be changed to “The output unit”.
(claim 26, line 1) “according to Claim 22” should be changed to “according to Claim 24” to provide proper antecedent basis for the limitation “the closing device” in lines 1-2.
(claim 27, line 1) “Output unit” should be changed to “The output unit”.
(claim 27, line 1) “according to Claim 20” should be changed to “according to Claim 22” to provide proper antecedent basis for the limitation “the material outlet” in line 2.
(claim 28, line 1) “Agricultural implement” should be changed to “An agricultural implement”.
(claim 29, line 1) “Agricultural implement” should be changed to “The agricultural implement”.
(claim 30, line 1) “Method” should be changed to “A method”.
(claim 31, line 1) “Method” should be changed to “The method”.
(claim 31, line 3) “a lower portion” should be changed to “the lower portion”.
(claim 31, line 4) “a lower portion” should be changed to “the lower portion”.
(claim 31, line 7) “it’ should be changed to “the agricultural implement”.
(claim 32, line 1) “Method” should be changed to “The method”.
(claim 33, line 1) “Method” should be changed to “The method”.
(claim 34, line 1) “Method” should be changed to “The method”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an adjustment device for adjusting” in claim 20, “a pressure device…to receive and/or press” in claim 22, “a closing device…to cover” in claim 24, and “a central adjustment mechanism…for adjusting” in claim 33.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 23, 25 and 34 are 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.
Regarding claim 23, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 25, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the respective actuator" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no structure recited for the adjusting step in claim 30. Clarification is needed.
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.
Claims 20-23 and 27-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clark et al. (US 5,081,942).
As concerns claim 20, Clark shows an output unit (10) for an agricultural implement (seeding implement), for feeding granular material to the ground over which the agricultural implement is travelling, comprising: a unit frame (12), a seed furrow-opener (24) supported (via 22) by the unit frame (Fig. 1), a depth regulator (44, 46) supported (at 48) by the unit frame and used for controlling a work depth for the seed furrow-opener (Fig. 1), and an adjustment device (70) for adjusting a relative height position between the depth regulator and the seed furrow-opener, such that a work depth for the seed furrow-opener is adjustable (Fig. 1), wherein the seed furrow-opener (24) comprises a seed disc (angled disk blade opener), which is supported rotatably on the unit frame (Fig. 1), wherein the depth regulator (44, 46) comprises a gauge wheel (press wheel/gauge wheel) which, seen in projection on a vertical plane (vertical plane running left to right in Fig. 1) containing a work direction, overlaps (via arm 46) the seed furrow-opener (Fig. 1), and wherein the adjustment device (70) is configured such that the depth regulator is adjustable relative to the seed furrow-opener between a work position (uppermost position seen in Fig. 1), in which a lower portion of the depth regulator (44) is located at a higher vertical level than a lower portion of the seed furrow-opener (24), and a field lift position (lowermost position seen in Fig. 1), in which a lower portion of the depth regulator (44) is located at a lower vertical level than a lower portion of the seed furrow-opener (24).
As concerns claim 21, Clark shows wherein the gauge wheel (44) is supported rotatably on a depth regulator arm (46), the latter being supported rotatably (via 48) by the unit frame (Fig. 1).
As concerns claim 22, Clark shows a pressure device (44), which is arranged directly behind a material outlet (18, 20), seen in the direction of travel, in order to receive and/or press the material to the ground (Fig. 1).
As concerns claim 23, Clark shows wherein the pressure device is connected (via 46) to the adjustment device, preferably via a resilient link, such that a position of the pressure device is adjustable (Fig. 1).
As concerns claim 27, Clark shows wherein the adjustment device (70) is configured to adjust the material outlet (18, 20) such that a delivery point is positioned closer to a seed furrow bottom at a smaller work depth than at a greater work depth (Fig. 1).
As concerns claim 28, Clark shows an agricultural implement (seeding implement) comprising an implement frame (frame of seeding implement) and a plurality of output units (10) according to Claim 20, which are movably arranged along at least one transverse frame (14) portion of the implement frame (Fig. 1).
As concerns claim 29, Clark shows a control unit (operator), which is configured to control the adjustment device (70) in order to switch between said work position and said field lift position (Fig. 1).
As concerns claim 30, Clark shows a method of operating an agricultural implement (seeding implement), which method comprises: providing an output unit (10) for feeding granular material to the ground over which the agricultural implement is travelling, which comprises a unit frame (12), a seed furrow-opener (24) supported (via 22) by the unit frame (Fig. 1), a depth regulator (44, 46), for controlling a work depth for the seed furrow-opener (Fig. 1), and a material outlet (18, 20) defining a delivery point at which the granular material leaves the material outlet (Fig. 1), wherein the seed furrow-opener (24) comprises a seed disc (angled disk blade opener), which is supported rotatably on the unit frame (Fig. 1), and wherein the depth regulator (44, 46) comprises a gauge wheel (press wheel/gauge wheel) which, seen in projection on a vertical plane (vertical plane running left to right in Fig. 1) containing a work direction, overlaps (via arm 46) the seed furrow-opener (Fig. 1), characterized by adjusting (via 70) the depth regulator relative to the seed furrow-opener such that a lower portion of the depth regulator (44) is located at a lower vertical level than a lower portion of the seed furrow-opener (24), wherein a negative work depth (lowermost position seen in Fig. 1) is obtained (Fig. 1).
As concerns claim 31, Clark shows driving across field while metering with the aid of the output unit, the output unit being located in a work position (uppermost position seen in Fig. 1) in which a lower portion of the depth regulator (44) is located at a higher vertical level than a lower portion of the seed furrow-opener (24), stopping the metering (stop dispensing seeds) when the agricultural implement is located in a first work direction, carrying out said adjustment to the negative work depth (lowermost position seen in Fig. 1), turning the agricultural implement (at end of row) such that it assumes a second work direction, which differs by at least 90 degrees, seen in a horizontal plane, from the first work direction, switching the output unit to the work position (uppermost position seen in Fig. 1), and starting the metering (start dispensing seeds) when the agricultural implement is located in the second work direction.
As concerns claim 32, Clark shows wherein said negative work depth is obtained at field lift of the agricultural implement (Fig. 1).
As concerns claim 33, Clark shows wherein said adjustment of the work depth is carried out with the aid of a central adjustment mechanism, common to the agricultural implement, for adjusting the work depth (col 3, ln 49-65).
As concerns claim 34, Clark shows wherein said adjustment of the work depth is carried out by acting substantially simultaneously on the respective actuator arranged on each output unit (col 3, ln 49-65).
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.
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Ptacek et al. (US 2020/0359546).
As concerns claim 24, Clark discloses the claimed invention except for a closing device, which is arranged behind the material outlet, seen in the work direction, in order to cover material fed via the material outlet. Ptacek teaches a closing device (52), which is arranged behind a material outlet (unlabeled), seen in a work direction, in order to cover material fed via the material outlet (Fig. 6; paragraph 0038). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Clark, as taught by Ptacek, to include a closing device for the expected benefit of re-filling the furrow by forcing soil back into the furrow, thereby covering the material previously deposited into the furrow. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a closing device in the output unit would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the expected result of this configuration improves versatility/adaptability/efficiency of the output unit design.
As concerns claim 25, the combination teaches wherein the closing device is connected to the adjustment device, preferably via a resilient link, such that a position of the closing device is adjustable (Ptacek: Fig. 6).
As concerns claim 26, the combination teaches wherein the pressure device (Ptacek: 50) and the closing device (Ptacek: 52) are fixedly arranged relative to each other (Ptacek: Fig. 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kowalchuk (US 2019/0289768) shows a system having a depth adjustment assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672