Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/580,330

Agricultural Implement and Method of Operating Agricultural Implement

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jan 18, 2024
Examiner
BUCK, MATTHEW R
Art Unit
3672
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Väderstad Holding AB
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
1498 granted / 1803 resolved
+31.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
1849
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
40.6%
+0.6% vs TC avg
§102
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
§112
28.9%
-11.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1803 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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. Claims 21-33 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. Claim 21 recites the phrase "such as" in line 4, which 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 21 recites the limitation "the ground height actuator" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether applicant is referring to the force element, or introducing an additional actuator for controlling the height of the agricultural implement. Clarification is needed. Claim 26 recites the phrase "in particular" in line 3, which 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 27 recites the phrase "preferably" in line 3, which 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 29 recites the phrase "such as" in line 5, which 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 31 recites the limitation "an actuator" in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether applicant is referring to the ground height actuator, or introducing an additional actuator for controlling the height of the agricultural implement. Clarification is needed. Claim 31 recites the phrase "in particular" in lines 4 & 5, which 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). Claims 22-25, 28, 30, 32 and 33 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim. 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 21-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houck (US 9,554,504) and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). As concerns claim 21, Houck shows an agricultural implement (32) for distribution of granular material to ground over which the agricultural implement travels (Fig. 1), comprising: a plurality of output units (62), each comprising a unit frame (70), a material outlet (not shown; a seed tube or equivalent would be positioned between furrow opener 72 & closing wheels 76) and at least one ground engaging member (72), wherein a ground force actuator (102) is configured for controlling a ground force of the output unit (Fig. 2 & 3), a plurality of ground engaging units (52), each unit being laterally aligned with and positioned in front of, as seen in a working direction, one of the output units (Fig. 1), wherein each unit comprises: a base (53), an arm (54), which is movably connected (via pivot 55) to the base (Fig. 2), a force element (92) operable between the base and the arm, so as to influence a relative position of the arm and the base (Fig. 2), a ground engaging member (82, 84), rotatably supported by the arm, said ground engaging member having an effective width corresponding to that of the output unit (Fig. 1), a controller (38, 122, 126), which is configured to control said actuator(s) (Fig. 3), and a ground height sensor (112, 114), wherein the controller (122, 126) is configured to receive a ground height signal (116, 118) from the ground height sensor and control the ground height actuator (92) based on the ground height signal (Fig. 2 & 3; col 6, ln 38 – col 7, ln 11), wherein the force element is a ground height actuator (92), configured to control the relative position of the arm and the base (Fig. 2 & 3). Houck further shows wherein the ground engaging unit (52) can include other devices in addition to or instead of the disc blades (82, 84). Houck discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the ground engaging unit includes a packer wheel. AAPA teaches that it is known to reconsolidate soil surface prior to planting, such that reconsolidation is typically performed using some sort of packer roller, and implements carrying one or more packer rollers are known (col 1, ln 9-11 of applicant’s specification). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Houck, as taught by AAPA, to include a packer wheel in the ground engaging unit for the expected benefit of packing the soil in front of the seeding row units during operation of the implement. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a packer wheel in each of the ground engaging units 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 agricultural implement design. As concerns claim 22, Houck shows wherein at least two ground height sensors (112, 114) are positioned laterally spaced apart on the agricultural implement, and wherein the controller (122, 126) is configured to control at least one of the ground height actuator (92) and the ground force actuator (102) based on signals from said at least two ground height sensors (Fig. 3). As concerns claim 23, Houck shows wherein each output unit is provided with a respective ground force actuator (102) for controlling the ground force of that output unit (Fig. 1 & 2). As concerns claim 24, Houck shows wherein the ground force actuators (102) are controllable: as a single circuit covering an entire width of the agricultural implement, as at least two separate group circuits, each covering a part of the width of the agricultural implement, or each individually (Fig. 3). As concerns claim 25, Houck shows wherein the ground height actuators (92) are controllable: as a single circuit covering an entire width of the agricultural implement, as at least two separate group circuits, each covering a part of the width of the agricultural implement, or each individually (Fig. 3). As concerns claim 26, Houck shows wherein the ground force actuators (102) are individually controllable (Fig. 3), and the ground height actuators (92) are controllable as at least one group (Fig. 3). As concerns claim 27, Houck shows wherein the ground force actuators (102) are individually controllable (Fig. 3), and the ground height actuators (92) are controllable as at least one group (Fig. 3). As concerns claim 28, Houck shows wherein the controller (122, 126) is configured to control the ground force actuators (102) to maintain a predetermined pressure (Fig. 2) and wherein the controller (122, 126) is configured to control the ground height actuator or actuators (92) to maintain a predetermined ground height (Fig. 2). As concerns claim 29, Houck shows a method of operating an agricultural implement (32) for distribution of granular material to ground over which the agricultural implement travels (Fig. 1), wherein the agricultural implement comprises a plurality of output units (62), each comprising a unit frame (70), a material outlet (not shown; a seed tube or equivalent would be positioned between furrow opener 72 & closing wheels 76) and at least one ground engaging member (72), the method comprising: providing ground engaging units (52) to engage the ground in front of each of the output units (Fig. 1), wherein each unit comprises a base (53), an arm (54), which is movably connected (via pivot 55) to the base (Fig. 2), a force element (92) operable between the base and the arm, so as to control a relative position of the arm and the base (Fig. 2), and a ground engaging member (82, 84), rotatably supported by the arm, said ground engaging member having an effective width corresponding to that of the output unit (Fig. 1), providing a ground force actuator (102) for controlling a ground force of each of the output units (Fig. 2 & 3), providing the force element in the form of a ground height actuator (92), controlling (via controller 122, 126) the ground force actuator to provide a predetermined ground force (down force [FD]) for each of the output units (Fig. 2), controlling (via controller 122, 126) the ground height actuator to provide a predetermined ground height (56) for the unit (Fig. 2), and measuring (via sensor 112, 114) at least distance (66) to ground for the agricultural implement and controlling the ground height actuator (92) based on said distance (Fig. 2 & 3; col 6, ln 38 – col 7, ln 11). Houck further shows wherein the ground engaging unit (52) can include other devices in addition to or instead of the disc blades (82, 84). Houck discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the ground engaging unit includes a packer wheel. AAPA teaches that it is known to reconsolidate soil surface prior to planting, such that reconsolidation is typically performed using some sort of packer roller, and implements carrying one or more packer rollers are known (col 1, ln 9-11 of applicant’s specification). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Houck, as taught by AAPA, to include a packer wheel in the ground engaging unit for the expected benefit of packing the soil in front of the seeding row units during operation of the implement. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a packer wheel in each of the ground engaging units 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 agricultural implement design. As concerns claim 30, Houck shows controlling each ground force actuator (102) individually (Fig. 3), and controlling at least two of the ground height actuators (92) as a group (Fig. 3). As concerns claim 31, Houck shows during field operation of the agricultural implement, operating the force element (92), in the form of an actuator, so as to change a load ratio between the packer units and the output units such that a greater portion of the load is carried by the output units (Fig. 8B & 8C). As concerns claim 32, Houck shows wherein the ground force actuator (102) and the ground height actuator (92) are controlled so as to keep the output unit in an orientation that is parallel with ground that is traversed by the agricultural implement (Fig. 2 & 3). As concerns claim 33, Houck shows wherein the weight of the implement is carried substantially by the packer units and by the output units (Fig. 1 & 2). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bergerfurth et al. (US 2021/0185891) and Achen et al. (US 2015/0264857) each show an agricultural implement having a plurality of output units and a plurality of ground engaging units positioned in front of the output units. 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 3679
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 18, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601141
SUCTION GENERATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601128
STREET CURB CLEANING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599068
A Sod Harvester and Method for Automatically Rolling up a Slab of Sod
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595720
Composite Punched Screen for High Pressure Applications
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582023
AGRICULTURAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+14.6%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1803 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month