DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Amendment filed 6/5/2026 wherein claims 8-9 are canceled, claims 12-15 are withdrawn, and claims 1-7, 10-11, and 16-20 are presented for examination.
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 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: the “computing system configured to alter a stroke of the one or more actuators based on the position of the boom assembly relative to the chassis” as recited in claim 11.
The “computing system” is interpreted as being the corresponding structure of “one or more processors and associated memory devices” (as described in Applicant’s Paragraph 0054).
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 § 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.
Claims 1-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuphal et al. (US 2011/0139895) in view of Baxter et al. (US 2021/0274770), Leeb et al. (US 2016/0262370), and Sporrer et al. (US 2021/0274773).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Kuphal teaches (Figures 1-13) a system for a boom assembly (20), the system (20) comprising:
a retainer (174) operably coupled with a mast frame (120) of a mast (116), the retainer (174) defining a channel (inner surface of 174; see Figure 10) extending along a rotational axis (A2);
an axle (136) positioned at least partially within (see Figure 10) the retainer (174), the axle (136) extending along the rotational axis (A2; see Figures 9-10); and
a boom assembly (22) including a center section (28) configured to support (see Figure 1 and Paragraph 0025) one or more boom arms (30; see Figure 1), the center section (28) comprising:
a base plate (172) operably coupled with (see Figure 3) the center section (28), the base plate (172) defining a void (the opening for 174; see Figure 10); and
a linkage assembly (72, 67) configured to rotate the center section (28) relative to the mast (116) about the rotational axis (A2).
Kuphal does not teach that the rotational axis is aligned with or positioned below a center of gravity of the boom assembly, a bearing assembly including a hub operably coupled with the base plate and a race assembly operably coupled with the axle, wherein the bearing assembly is configured to guide rotation of the center section relative to the mast about the rotational axis, or that the linkage assembly comprises one or more actuators.
Baxter teaches (Figures 1-10) a base plate (154, 510) and a center section (100) of a boom assembly (see abstract): comprising a bearing assembly (Figure 6) including a hub (at 106) operably coupled with (see Figure 6) the base plate (154, 510) and a race assembly (606) operably coupled with (see Figure 6) an axle (164), wherein the bearing assembly (Figure 6) is configured to guide rotation of the center section (100) relative to a mast (150) about a rotational axis (a yaw, roll, and/or pitch; see Figure 6 and Paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuphal to have a bearing assembly including a hub operably coupled with the base plate and a race assembly operably coupled with the axle, wherein the bearing assembly is configured to guide rotation of the center section relative to the mast about the rotational axis, as taught by Baxter, in order to operably allow the suspended frame to pivot in multiple directions around the shaft by way of a spherical bearing (Paragraph 0037 of Baxter). It is noted that Baxter also teaches (Figures 1-10) a linkage assembly (104, 108, 110) configured to rotate the center section (100) relative to the mast (150) about the rotational axis (a roll axis about 164). Kuphal in view of Baxter does not teach, as discussed so far, the rotational axis being aligned with or positioned below a center of gravity of the boom assembly, or wherein the linkage assembly comprises one or more actuators configured to rotate the center section relative to the mast about the rotational axis.
Leeb teaches (Figures 1-3B) a rotational axis (through pivot 30) being aligned with a center of gravity of the boom assembly (14; see Figures 1-2A and Paragraph 0034).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuphal in view of Baxter to have the rotational axis being aligned with a center of gravity of the boom assembly, as taught by Leeb, in order to have significantly less force act on the suspension or on the boom guidance (Paragraph 0034 of Leeb). Kuphal in view of Baxter and Leeb does not teach, as discussed so far, the linkage assembly comprises one or more actuators configured to rotate the center section relative to the mast about the rotational axis.
Sporrer teaches (Figures 1-7) a boom assembly (200) including a linkage assembly (208, 252) that comprises one or more actuators (152, 252) configured to rotate the center section (202) relative to the mast (216) about the rotational axis (rotation 214 about 206).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuphal in view of Baxter and Leeb to have the linkage assembly comprises one or more actuators configured to rotate the center section relative to the mast about the rotational axis, as taught by Sporrer, in order to adjust the position of the suspended center frame based on the evaluating its position data so that improved height adjustment of a boom sprayer to the ground, which can improved sprayed material deployment results (see abstract and Paragraph 0026 of Sporrer).
Regarding Claim 2, Kuphal in view of Baxter, Leeb, and Sporrer teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Kuphal further teaches (Figures 1-13) wherein the retainer (174) defines one or more retainment holes (opening in 174 for the passage of 192; see Figure 10) that are generally perpendicular to (see Figures 7-11) an extension direction of the channel (the inner surface of 174; see Figure 10).
Regarding Claim 3, Kuphal in view of Baxter, Leeb, and Sporrer teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Kuphal further teaches (Figures 1-13) wherein the axle (136) defines a duct (opening in 136 for the passage of 192; see Figures 7-11), and wherein the duct (opening in 136 for the passage of 192; see Figures 7-11) is aligned with (see Figures 7-11) the one or more retainment holes (opening in 174 for the passage of 192; see Figure 10).
Regarding Claim 4, Kuphal in view of Baxter, Leeb, and Sporrer teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Kuphal further teaches (Figures 1-13) further comprising: a pin (192) positioned through (see Figures 7-11) the one or more retainment holes (opening in 174 for the passage of 192; see Figure 10) and the duct (opening in 136 for the passage of 192; see Figures 7-11) to restrict rotational movement of the axle (136) relative to the retainer (174).
Regarding Claim 5, Kuphal in view of Baxter, Leeb, and Sporrer teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Kuphal further teaches (Figures 1-13) wherein a first portion (a portion of 136 within 176) of the axle (136) extends forward of (see Figure 10) one or more supports (144) of the mast frame (120) in a fore-aft direction (see Figure 10) and a second portion (a portion of 136 within 174) of the axle (136) extends rearward of (see Figure 10) the base plate (172) in the fore-aft direction (see Figure 10).
Regarding Claim 6, Kuphal in view of Baxter, Leeb, and Sporrer teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Kuphal in view of Baxter, Leeb, and Sporrer does not teach, as discussed so far, a cover positioned rearward of the race assembly in a fore-aft direction.
Baxter teaches (Figures 1-10) a cover (106) positioned rearward of the race assembly (606) in a fore-aft direction (see Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuphal in view of Baxter, Leeb, and Sporrer to have the bearing assembly including a cover positioned rearward of the race assembly in a fore-aft direction, as taught by Baxter, in order to provide pivotal movement of the suspended frame with respect to the fixed frame (Paragraph 0022 of Baxter).
Regarding Claim 7, Kuphal in view of Baxter, Leeb, and Sporrer teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Kuphal further teaches (Figures 1-10) wherein the void (the opening for 174; see Figure 10) is offset from (located at the top portion of 172; see Figures 4-10) a center point of the base plate (172).
It is noted that Baxter also teaches (Figures 1-10) wherein the void (the opening for 164) is offset from a center of gravity of the suspended frame portion (see Paragraph 0020).
Regarding Claim 10, Kuphal in view of Baxter, Leeb, and Sporrer teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Kuphal in view of Baxter, Leeb, and Sporrer does not teach, as discussed so far, further comprising: a sensor system configured to generate data indicative of a position of the boom assembly relative to the chassis.
Sporrer teaches (Figures 1-7) a sensor system (102) configured to generate data indicative of a position of the boom assembly relative to the chassis (sensors comprises vehicle chassis roll, boom roll of the sprayer boom, sprayer boom wing height, and the boom roll data can include collecting and processing the boom wing height at the tips of the sprayer boom; see Paragraphs 0030-0032).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuphal in view of Baxter, Leeb, and Sporrer to have a sensor system configured to generate data indicative of a position of the boom assembly relative to the chassis, as taught by Sporrer, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 9.
Regarding Claim 11, Kuphal in view of Baxter, Leeb, and Sporrer teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Kuphal in view of Baxter, Leeb, and Sporrer does not teach, as discussed so far, further comprising: a computing system configured to alter a stroke of one or more actuators based on the position of the boom assembly relative to the chassis.
Sporrer teaches (Figures 1-7) a computing system (110) configured to alter a stroke (Paragraph 0029) of one or more actuators (152, 252) based on the position of the boom assembly relative to the chassis (based on feedback from sensors 102; see Paragraphs 0030-0032).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuphal in view of Baxter, Leeb, and Sporrer to have a computing system configured to alter a stroke of one or more actuators based on the position of the boom assembly relative to the chassis, as taught by Sporrer, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 9.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuphal et al. (US 2011/0139895) in view of Baxter et al. (US 2021/0274770) and Leeb et al. (US 2016/0262370).
Regarding Independent Claim 16, Kuphal teaches (Figures 1-13) a system for a boom assembly (20), the system (20) comprising:
a retainer (174) defining a channel (inner surface of 174; see Figure 10) extending along a rotational axis (A2); and
an axle (136) positioned at least partially within (see Figure 10) the retainer (174) and extending along the rotational axis (A2; see Figures 9-10).
Kuphal does not teach a bearing assembly operably coupled with the axle, wherein the bearing assembly is configured to guide rotation of the center section of a boom assembly relative to a mast about the rotational axis, wherein the rotational axis is aligned with or positioned below a center of gravity of the boom assembly.
Baxter teaches (Figures 1-10) a center section (100) of a boom assembly (see abstract): comprising a bearing assembly (Figure 6) operably coupled with (see Figure 6) an axle (164), wherein the bearing assembly (Figure 6) is configured to guide rotation of the center section (100) of a boom assembly (see abstract) relative to a mast (150) about a rotational axis (a yaw, roll, and/or pitch; see Figure 6 and Paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuphal to have a bearing assembly operably coupled with the axle, wherein the bearing assembly is configured to guide rotation of the center section of a boom assembly relative to the mast about the rotational axis, as taught by Baxter, in order to operably allow the suspended frame to pivot in multiple directions around the shaft by way of a spherical bearing (Paragraph 0037 of Baxter). Kuphal in view of Baxter does not teach, as discussed so far, the rotational axis being aligned with or positioned below a center of gravity of the boom assembly.
Leeb teaches (Figures 1-3B) a rotational axis (through pivot 30) being aligned with a center of gravity of the boom assembly (14; see Figures 1-2A and Paragraph 0034).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuphal in view of Baxter to have the rotational axis being aligned with a center of gravity of the boom assembly, as taught by Leeb, in order to have significantly less force act on the suspension or on the boom guidance (Paragraph 0034 of Leeb).
Regarding Claim 17, Kuphal in view of Baxter and Leeb teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Kuphal further teaches (Figures 1-10) wherein the retainer (174) is operably coupled with the mast (120). Kuphal in view of Baxter and Leeb does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the bearing assembly is operably coupled with a base plate, the base plate operably coupled with the center section of the boom assembly.
Baxter teaches (Figures 1-10) a bearing assembly (see Figure 6) is operably coupled with (see Figure 6) a base plate (154, 510), the base plate (154, 510) operably coupled with (see Figure 1) the center section (100) of the boom assembly (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuphal in view of Baxter and Leeb to have the bearing assembly be operably coupled with a base plate, the base plate operably coupled with the center section of the boom assembly, as taught by Baxter, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 16.
Regarding Claim 18, Kuphal in view of Baxter and Leeb teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Kuphal in view of Baxter and Leeb does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the bearing assembly includes a hub operably coupled with a base plate and a race assembly operably coupled with the axle, and wherein the bearing assembly is configured to guide rotation of the center section relative to the mast about the rotational axis.
Baxter teaches (Figures 1-10) the bearing assembly (see Figure 6) includes a hub (at 106) operably coupled with (see Figure 6) a base plate (154, 510) and a race assembly (606) operably coupled with (see Figure 6) the axle (164), and wherein the bearing assembly (see Figure 6) is configured to guide rotation of the center section (100) relative to the mast (150) about the rotational axis (a yaw, roll, and/or pitch; see Figure 6 and Paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuphal in view of Baxter and Leeb to have the bearing assembly includes a hub operably coupled with a base plate and a race assembly operably coupled with the axle, and wherein the bearing assembly is configured to guide rotation of the center section relative to the mast about the rotational axis, as taught by Baxter, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 16.
Regarding Claim 19, Kuphal in view of Baxter and Leeb teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Kuphal further teaches (Figures 1-13) wherein the retainer (174) defines one or more retainment holes (opening in 174 for the passage of 192; see Figure 10) that are generally perpendicular to (see Figures 7-11) an extension direction of the channel (the inner surface of 174; see Figure 10), wherein the axle (136) defines a duct (opening in 136 for the passage of 192; see Figures 7-11), and wherein the duct (opening in 136 for the passage of 192; see Figures 7-11) is aligned with (see Figures 7-11) the one or more retainment holes (opening in 174 for the passage of 192; see Figure 10).
Regarding Claim 20, Kuphal in view of Baxter and Leeb teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Kuphal further teaches (Figures 1-13) further comprising: a pin (192) positioned through (see Figures 7-11) the one or more retainment holes (opening in 174 for the passage of 192; see Figure 10) and the duct (opening in 136 for the passage of 192; see Figures 7-11) to restrict rotational movement of the axle (136) relative to the retainer (174).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 11-12, and 16-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being applied in this office action, necessitated by amendment. However, to the extent possible, Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejection above, at the appropriate locations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Leeb et al. (US 2016/0316617 on the attached PTO-892) teaches that running the rotational axis through the center of gravity of the boom allows for uneven mass distributions of the boom to be excluded (see Paragraph 0109 of Leeb ‘617).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at (571) 270-5426. 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.
/THOMAS P BURKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights