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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 9/9/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 8/12/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. A copy of the non-patent literature (i.e., a reduction of the video to writing, such as in the form of screen shots and/or a transcript) was not included. The IDS has been placed in the application file, but the information related to this reference has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “354” has been used to designate both "a second hydraulic actuator" and "a locking mechanism." The drawings are also objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: 310 and 312. Additionally, Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites "ma move" in line. Appropriate correction is required. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The specification is objected to because it recites "the angled wing join 800" in para. 00094 (instead of "the angled wing joint 800"). Appropriate correction is required. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all such possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is respectfully requested in correcting any further errors of which Applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 a claim limitations is: "a locking mechanism" in claim 10.
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. The specification sets forth structure corresponding to "a locking mechanism" ("locking mechanism 354" in paras. 00058-00059) as one or more holes (that receive one or more pins of the wing frames) in para. 00059. Additionally, the structure corresponding to "a locking mechanism" also includes a hydraulic actuator, since the specification uses reference numeral 354 with a hydraulic actuator in paras. 00054, 00082, and 00097, and the drawings show a hydraulic actuator with reference numeral 354 in Figs. 3A, 3B, 3C, and 4-7.
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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because it recites "the second wing frame assembly is configured to move upwardly and inwardly about the main frame axis" in lines 4-5 (instead of "... the second main frame axis" in accordance with the specification and the earlier language of claim 5). Claim 5 is being further examined as though "the main frame axis" reads "the second main frame axis" in line 5. 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.
Claims 8 and 9 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 8 recites the limitation "the wing frame" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 is being further examined as though "the wing frame" reads "the wing frame assembly" in line 6.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the actuator" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 is being further examined as though it depends from claim 3.
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 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Orthman (US 3,774,693; hereinafter referred to as Orthman '693).
Regarding claim 1, Orthman '693 discloses an agricultural implement comprising:
a main frame (including 14); and
a wing frame assembly (including 44 of 16) pivotally coupled to the main frame about a main frame axis (through 36) and configured to move between an operational position (see Fig. 1) and a stowed position (see Fig. 2);
wherein the wing frame assembly is configured to move upwardly and inwardly about the main frame axis and relative to the main frame when moving from the operational position to the stowed position (as shown by Figs. 1 and 2, and as correspondingly shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 2, Orthman '693 discloses a coupling mechanism (including 42, 68, and 70), wherein the coupling mechanism is directly coupled to the wing frame assembly (including 44 of 16; see Figs. 3-5), and the coupling mechanism is pivotally coupled (via 36) to the main frame (including 14) to selectively pivot about the main frame axis (through 36) relative to the main frame (as shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Orthman '693 discloses an actuator (including 50) coupled to the main frame (including 14) on a first end and to the coupling mechanism (including 42, 68, and 70) on a second end, wherein the actuator is configured to move the wing frame assembly upwardly and inwardly relative to the main frame when the wing frame assembly transitions from the operational position (see Fig. 1) to the stowed position (see Fig. 2), and the actuator is configured to move the wing frame assembly downwardly and outwardly relative to the main frame when the wing frame assembly transitions from the stowed position to the operational position (see col. 2, lines 11-56).
Regarding claim 4, Orthman '693 discloses the main frame axis (through 36) offset relative to the ground plane (vertically offset from the ground as shown in Fig. 2) and a vertical plane (laterally offset from a vertical plane of the hitch in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Orthman '693 discloses a second wing frame assembly (second 16 shown in Figs. 1 and 2) pivotally coupled to the main frame (including 14) about a second main frame axis and configured to move between the operational (see Fig. 1) and stowed position (see Fig. 2); and
wherein the second wing frame assembly is configured to move upwardly and inwardly about the second main frame axis and relative to the main frame when moving from the operational position to the stowed position (having structure corresponding to the wing frame assembly, as "wing sections 16" and structure therefor are described in col. 1, line 54 - col. 2, line 10).
Regarding claim 10, Orthman '693 discloses the agricultural implement with respect to claim 1, as set forth above, further comprising a locking mechanism (including 50) configured to transition between a locked position and an unlocked position (via conventional operation "through the hydraulic controls on a conventional tractor" as described in col. 2, lines 11-56);
wherein the locking mechanism locks the wing frame assembly in the stowed position when the wing frame assembly is in the stowed position (see Fig. 2) and the locking mechanism is in the locked position (when hydraulic flow is blocked); and
wherein the wing assembly is moveable (as shown in Fig. 5) to the operational position (see Fig. 1) when the wing frame assembly is in the stowed position (see Fig. 2), and the locking mechanism is in the unlocked position (when hydraulic flow is permitted).
Regarding claim 2, Orthman '693 alternatively discloses (in a first alternative) a coupling mechanism (including 50), wherein the coupling mechanism is coupled to the wing frame assembly (including 44 of 16; see Figs. 3-5), and the coupling mechanism is pivotally coupled (via 54) to the main frame (including 14) to selectively pivot about the main frame axis (through 36) relative to the main frame (as shown in Fig. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orthman '693 in view of Orthman (US 3,941,194; hereinafter referred to as Orthman '194).
Regarding claim 6, Orthman '693 discloses the agricultural implement with respect to claim 1, as set forth above, and Orthman '693 alternatively discloses the agricultural implement with respect to claim 2 in the first alternative, as set forth above. Orthman '693 does not explicitly disclose the wing frame assembly selectively transitionable between being moveably coupled to the coupling mechanism about a wing frame axis, and being fixedly coupled to the coupling mechanism as claimed. However, Orthman '194 teaches an agricultural implement comprising:
a main frame (including 12);
a wing frame assembly (including 14) pivotally coupled to the main frame about a main frame axis (through 16) and configured to move between an operational position (see Figs. 3 and 4) and a stowed position (see Figs. 1 and 2); and
a coupling mechanism (including 24), wherein the coupling mechanism is coupled to the wing frame assembly (including 14; see Figs. 1 and 2), and the coupling mechanism is pivotally coupled (via 36) to the main frame (including 12) to selectively pivot about the main frame axis (through 16) relative to the main frame (as shown by Figs. 1-3), and
wherein the wing frame assembly is selectively transitionable (via 44 and 60) between being moveably coupled to the coupling mechanism about a wing frame axis (on 38), and being fixedly coupled to the coupling mechanism (wherein the wing frame assembly is held in its stowed position).
Orthman '194 is analogous because Orthman '194 discloses an agricultural implement having a folding frame assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the implement of Orthman '693 with selectively transitionable coupling means as taught by Orthman '194 in order to lock and/or hold the wing frame assembly in its stowed position and to stop the wing frame assembly from raising too far. (See Orthman '194, col. 2, line 37 - col. 3, line 21.)
Regarding claim 7, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 6, Orthman '194 teaches an arm (including 46) configured to selectively couple the wing frame assembly to a first coupling section (including 50), the arm limiting movement of the wing frame assembly about the wing frame axis (by holding/releasing the wing frame assembly in/from its stowed position).
Regarding claim 8, in view of the modification made in relation to claims 6 and 7, Orthman '194 teaches the arm (including 48) being coupled to the wing frame assembly (including 14) via a first pin (70) and a second pin (60);
wherein when both the first pin (70) and second pin (60) are coupled to the wing frame assembly (including 14), the wing frame assembly is prevented from moving about the wing frame axis (see col. 2, lines 37-58); and
wherein when the first pin (70) is coupled to the wing frame assembly and the second pin (60) is not coupled to the wing frame assembly, the wing frame assembly is moveable about the wing frame axis within a limited range (limited by the extension/retraction of 24).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orthman '693 in view of Antoni et al. (US 10,426,074)
Regarding claim 9, Orthman '693 discloses the agricultural implement with respect to claim 3, as set forth above. Orthman '693 does not explicitly disclose the actuator being coupled via a ball joint as claimed. However, Antoni teaches an agricultural implement comprising an actuator (15) configured to move a wing frame assembly (12), wherein the actuator is coupled to a main frame (11) or a coupling mechanism via a ball joint (see col. 4, lines 25-36).
Antoni is analogous because Antoni discloses an agricultural implement having a folding frame assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the implement of Orthman '693 with coupling means (i.e., a ball joint) as taught by Antoni in order to mount the actuator in a movable rotating manner. (See Antoni, col. 4, lines 25-36.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Grollimund (US 4,529,040), Friggstad (US 4653592), Grieshop (US 2007/0169950), Tamm et al. (US 8,118,110), Bauer (US 8,770,309), and Ankenman et al. (US 10,278,322) each disclose a wing frame that pivots about an angularly offset axis.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner further notes that regarding claim 10, Orthman '194 also discloses a locking mechanism (including 44) configured to transition between a locked position and an unlocked position;
wherein the locking mechanism locks the wing frame assembly (including 14) in the stowed position (see Figs. 1 and 2) when the wing frame assembly is in the stowed position and the locking mechanism is in the locked position (see col. 2, line 37 - col. 3, line 21); and
wherein the wing assembly (including 14) is moveable to the operational position (see Figs. 3 and 4) when the wing frame assembly is in the stowed position and the locking mechanism is in the unlocked position (see col. 2, line 37 - col. 3, line 21).
Such a rejection is not being relied upon here, however, it is noted that based on the nature of amendments, such an interpretation may become applicable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joel F. Mitchell whose telephone number is (571)272-7689. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00.
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.
/JFM/9/23/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights