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 § 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 7, 15 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 7, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassett (US 8985232) in further view of Hahn et al. (WO 2015112862).
Regarding claim 1, Bassett discloses an agricultural implement comprising:
an attachment frame (206);
a plurality of ground engaging tools, each connected to the attachment frame via a linkage arrangement (row units 204 attached to frame by linkage in Fig 5A);
a plurality of linear actuators (actuator 220 is considered to be a linear actuator; actuators 220 is used to apply a down force on each of the row units); and
a fluid control system (246), wherein:
each linear actuator is arranged to control the pivoting of one of the linkage arrangements, so that, for each ground engaging tool, there is a linear actuator arranged to provide a supplemental down force to the ground engaging tool via the linkage arrangement (actuator 220 provides down force to the tool via the linkage arrangement; col 7, lines 43-45);
the fluid control system is arranged to control the size of the supplemental down force provided by each of the plurality of linear actuators (fluid control system provides fluid to the actuator which controls downward force); and
the plurality of linear actuators comprises first linear actuators and second linear actuators, adapted so that the same relation between the two chamber control pressures causes each first linear actuator to provide a first supplemental down force to its ground engaging tool, and each second linear actuator to provide a second supplemental down force to its ground engaging tool, where the second supplemental down force is substantially larger than the first (Fig 6A depicts wheel areas 305B and 305D which are behind the wheels of the tractor and have harder soil conditions; the harder soil conditions require a harder downforce in order to maintain desired depth level; col 10, lines 17-26; col 7, lines 31-35; the sensors function to determine soil properties for each row unit).
Bassett specifically aims to address the issue of increasing the downforce of row units that are directly behind the tractor tires; however, Bassett solves this problem with the use of sensors to adjust the downforce depending the hardness or softness of the soil rather than modifying the dimensions of the actuators. Further, Bassett is silent on the specific dimensions and components of the actuators. That said, it is apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the downforce of a hydraulic cylinder is obtained by the differential pressure across the piston head across the chambers or the net force. Bassett functions to control the pressure differential across the piston (col 7, lines 31-35).
Hahn discloses a similar agricultural machine with downforce actuators (50; pg 4, lines 7-9) and teaches modifying the dimensions of the downforce actuators to provide the required load output, or downforce (pg 9, lines 19-24). Examiner understands this statement to mean that the physical actuator components may be adjusted based on the required downforce for hard soil.
Bassett and Hahn are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of agricultural machines with actuators to control the downforce of row units. Since Bassett identifies the need for greater downforce for row units directly behind the tractor wheels, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bassett to incorporate the teachings of Hahn and modified the physical dimensions of the actuators directly behind the tractor wheels (Bassett; zones 305B/305D). One would have made this modification to provide a required load output for the actuators behind the tractor wheels without the need for complex circuitry (Hahn; pg 9, lines 19-24).
Based on the teachings of Fig 2 of Hahn, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the actuator comprises a barrel divided into two chambers by a piston and piston rod. Finally, modifying the physical dimensions of rod chamber piston area, cap chamber piston area, actuator barrel, piston rod diameter, and hydraulic control pressures in the chambers is considered to be encompassed in the teachings of Hahn in view of Bassett.
Regarding claims 2-6, the combination of Bassett and Hahn is considered to disclose modifying the physical dimensions of rod chamber piston area, cap chamber piston area, actuator barrel diameter, piston rod diameter, and hydraulic control pressures in the chambers for each row unit actuator (see combination rejection for claim 1). Specifically regarding claim 2, the piston areas on either side of the piston are considered to modified by changing the physical dimensions of the piston rod diameter and barrel diameter. As the relative dimension of said pistons is directly related to the necessary downforce required, the selection of such elements being larger or smaller is merely an obvious selection of one of a finite number of workable solutions based on the downforce required given a difference in soil properties.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Bassett and Hahn discloses second linear actuators having a higher downforce positioned directly behind the tractor wheels (Bassett; Fig 6A). The soil conditions are stated to affect the required downforce; the harder soil directly behind the wheels is stated to require a higher downforce (Bassett; col 10, lines 17-26).
Regarding claim 8, Bassett further discloses the machine is a planter and the tools are row units (Fig 1 and Fig 6A).
Regarding claim 9, Bassett discloses a method for down force control in an agricultural implement, the method comprising:
connecting a plurality of ground engaging tools to the attachment frame via a linkage arrangement (row units 204 attached to frame by linkage in Fig 5A);
for each ground engaging tool, arranging a linear actuator to control pivoting of the linkage arrangement, so that, for each ground engaging tool, there is a linear actuator arranged to provide a supplemental down force to the ground engaging tool via the linkage arrangement (linear actuator 220 provides down force to the tool via the linkage arrangement; col 7, lines 43-45; actuator 220 is used to apply a down force on each of the row units); and
arranging a fluid control system (246) to control the size of the supplemental down force provided by each of the plurality of linear actuators (fluid control system provides fluid to the actuator which controls downward force); and
arranging the linear actuators to comprise first linear actuators and second linear actuators, adapted so that the same relation between the two chamber control pressures causes each first linear actuator to provide a first supplemental down force to its ground engaging tool, and each second linear actuator to provide a second supplemental down force to its ground engaging tool, where the second supplemental down force is substantially larger than the first (Fig 6A depicts wheel areas 305B and 305D which are behind the wheels of the tractor and have harder soil conditions; the harder soil conditions require a harder downforce in order to maintain desired depth level; col 10, lines 17-26; col 7, lines 31-35; the sensors function to determine soil properties for each row unit).
Bassett specifically aims to address the issue of increasing the downforce of row units that are directly behind the tractor tires; however, Bassett solves this problem with the use of sensors to adjust the downforce depending the hardness or softness of the soil rather than modifying the dimensions of the actuators. Further, Bassett is silent on the specific dimensions and components of the actuators. That said, it is apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the downforce of a hydraulic cylinder is obtained by the differential pressure across the piston head across the chambers or the net force. Bassett functions to control the pressure differential across the piston (col 7, lines 31-35).
Hahn discloses a similar agricultural machine with downforce actuators (50; pg 4, lines 7-9) and teaches modifying the dimensions of the downforce actuators to provide the required load output, or downforce (pg 9, lines 19-24). Examiner understands this statement to mean that the physical actuator components may be adjusted based on the required downforce for hard soil.
Bassett and Hahn are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of agricultural machines with actuators to control the downforce of row units. Since Bassett identifies the need for greater downforce for row units directly behind the tractor wheels, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bassett to incorporate the teachings of Hahn and modified the physical dimensions of the actuators directly behind the tractor wheels (Bassett; zones 305B/305D). One would have made this modification to provide a required load output for the actuators behind the tractor wheels without the need for complex circuitry (Hahn; pg 9, lines 19-24).
Based on the teachings of Fig 2 of Hahn, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the actuator comprises a barrel divided into two chambers by a piston and piston rod. Finally, modifying the physical dimensions of rod chamber piston area, cap chamber piston area, actuator barrel, piston rod diameter, and hydraulic control pressures in the chambers is considered to be encompassed in the teachings of Hahn in view of Bassett.
Regarding claims 10-14, the combination of Bassett and Hahn is considered to disclose modifying the physical dimensions of rod chamber piston area, cap chamber piston area, actuator barrel diameter, piston rod diameter, and hydraulic control pressures in the chambers for each row unit actuator (see combination rejection for claim 1). Specifically regarding claim 10, the piston areas on either side of the piston are considered to modified by changing the physical dimensions of the piston rod diameter and barrel diameter. As the relative dimension of said pistons is directly related to the necessary downforce required, the selection of such elements being larger or smaller is merely an obvious selection of one of a finite number of workable solutions based on the downforce required given a difference in soil properties.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Bassett and Hahn discloses the second linear actuators having a higher downforce positioned directly behind the tractor wheels (Bassett; Fig 6A).
Regarding claim 16, Bassett further discloses the machine is a planter and the tools are row units (Fig 1 and Fig 6A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Blank et al. (US 10408645) discloses a similar system that teaches modification of actuator dimensions for the purpose of changing the downforce.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE SCOVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30-6 (ET).
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571) 272-0547. 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.
/BLAKE E SCOVILLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671