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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, the idea of an agricultural machine that moves tools side to side is known in the art. For example, Snyder (prior art of record) presents an agricultural machine that moves the tools side to side. Further, rack and pinion (or chain and pinion) structures are known. The machine of Snyder accomplishes the movement with a different mechanism comprising a threaded rod, coupling, and adjustment nut. It would not be obvious to modify this mechanism of Snyder as the machine would be rendered unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Any obvious combination to use a chain and pinion structure as claimed would certainly require improper hindsight reasoning. For this reason, the claim is allowable.
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 8 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 rollers are “subjected to a centripetal return force” in line 3. Upon review of the specification and drawings, it is unclear to the examiner what is meant by “centripetal return force”. The rollers appear to guide the toolbar through the opening with no “return force”. The claim has been examined as best understood.
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) 1-2, 7-8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (US 20210243940).
Regarding claim 1, Snyder discloses a tool block for an agricultural machine having an axial direction intended to coincide with a direction of movement of the agricultural machine, and a transverse direction according to which a width of the tool block is defined, this transverse direction of the tool block being intended to coincide with a transverse direction of the agricultural machine orthogonal to the axial direction of movement (axial direction 92 and transverse direction 90 are orthogonal to each other), the tool block comprising:
a plurality of tools (Fig 6; 400),
for each tool, a tool holder on which the tool is mounted (tool holder 300),
a support rail extending according to the transverse direction, on which the tools can be mounted via their respective tool holder, which tool holder comprises means for coupling to the support rail enabling a movement of the tool holder relative to the support rail according to the transverse direction (toolbar 106; tool holder coupling 310), characterised in that it comprises:
a central control system with microprocessor(s) (200),
a human-machine interface connected to the central control system and configured to enable a user to enter a usage configuration defining tools to be used among the plurality of tools of the tool block, as well as a target position on the support rail for each of the tools to be used (204; Figs 4B depicts a usage configuration and target position),
the tool block is configured to move each tool holder individually according to the transverse direction on the support rail,
position-determining means for determining the position of each tool holder relative to the support rail according to the transverse direction (side shift position sensor 238).
Although Snyder discloses moving the tool blocks individually by securing the coupling 199 from rotating while rotating the individual adjustment nuts 328 for each tool (para [0039], lines 11-19), Snyder fails to specifically disclose the rotation of the adjustment nut by motorized drive means. Snyder is silent on this operation being manual or automatic; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rotate the adjustment nut by motorized drive means, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Snyder discloses the tool block characterised in that the support rail comprises
a loading end and a loading section by which the tool holders can be loaded onto the support rail (claim language is broad; the tool holders of the prior art can be loaded at either end and section via the clamp 320),
a working central section on which the tool holders of the tools to be used can be driven and positioned according to the selected usage configuration, using the motorised drive means and the position-determining means (Fig 4A and 4B depicts the tools 300 on the working central section),
at least one parking lateral section, on which unused tools among the plurality of tools can be stored (lateral sections 107 can store unused tools).
Regarding claim 7, Snyder discloses the tool block characterised in that the means for coupling each tool holder to the support rail comprise a bracket having a coupling opening having a section complementary to a nominal section of the support rail, the coupling opening being equipped with rollers to enable movement of the bracket along the support rail (Fig 6; bracket 314 and 332 with coupling opening for guide 322 having rollers 334; “nominal section of the support rail” and the opening being “complementary” to this nominal section is overly broad language; the rail and opening fit together which is considered complementary).
Regarding claim 8, Snyder discloses the tool block characterised in that the rollers comprise an adjustable roller whose radial position relative to the rail is adjustable and which is subjected to a centripetal return force (the rollers 334 are adjustable as they move with the table 332 and subjected to a centripetal return force as stay in place as they rotate).
Regarding claim 11, Snyder discloses an agricultural machine equipped with the tool block (para [0002]; Figs 4A and 4B).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Calleija et al. (WO 2016191825).
Regarding claim 10, Snyder fails to specifically disclose the tool block characterised in that each tool holder includes an end-of-travel sensor or switch on an upstream lateral face of the tool holder oriented towards a parking end of the support rail.
However, end-of-travel sensors, or limit switches, are known in agricultural machines as a way to stop a mechanism from moving beyond the working range of motion and damaging equipment. In addition, Calleija discloses a similar implement with tools that move side to side (Figs 1-2; tools 2 rotate about axis 14 in a side to side direction) and teaches preventing the tool from inadvertently striking an area it should not by the use of limit switches (para [0086]).
Snyder and Calleija are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of agricultural implements where tools move in a side to side direction. Therefore, 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 Snyder to incorporate the teachings of Calleija and combined the use of end-of-travel sensors, or limit switches, on the machine of Snyder. It is reasonable to one of ordinary skill in the art to locate the sensor on the lateral face of the side facing a parking end of the rail (Fig 6; lateral face 312; parking end is opposite the loading end). One would have made this combination to prevent the tool from inadvertently striking an area it should not (para [0086]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Connell et al. (US 20180325019) discloses a similar agricultural machine with laterally adjustable tools.
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
Prosecution Insights