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 Status
The preliminarily amended claims of 7/9/2024 are being examined, as confirmed with Mr. John Penny via telephone on 6/10/2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains implied phrases (i.e., "The disclosure relates to..." and "The disclosure also relates to..."). 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).
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites "the support wheel," in line 3 (instead of "the at least one support wheel" as recited elsewhere in the claims). Consistent terminology should be used.
Claim 4 recites "the support wheel" in line 3 (instead of "the at least one support wheel" as recited elsewhere in the claims).
Claim 6 recites "the support wheel," in line 2 (instead of "the at least one support wheel" as recited elsewhere in the claims).
Claim 8 recites "the support wheel" in line 3 (instead of "the at least one support wheel" as recited elsewhere in the claims).
Claim 9 recites "characterized in" in line 3 (instead of "wherein" as amended in the other claims).
Claim 10 recites "the support wheel" in line 2 (instead of "the at least one support wheel" as recited elsewhere in the claims).
Claim 11 recites "the support wheel" in line 3 (instead of "the at least one support wheel" as recited elsewhere in the claims).
Claim 12 recites "the support wheel," in line 3 (instead of "the at least one support wheel" as recited elsewhere in the claims).
Appropriate correction (or explanation) 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 1-15 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. The claims appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with indefinite language and idiomatic errors. The claims require thorough review and revision. Due to the numerous errors, Applicant’s cooperation is requested in proofreading the claim language and correcting any further errors of which Applicant may become aware.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "The towed agricultural work implement according to claim 8," in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 is being further examined as though it depends from claim 9.
Claims 1-8 are directed toward a method but fail to set forth any steps for performing the method. It is unclear what features (in the "wherein" clauses) are actually performed and required. As such, the metes and bounds of the claimed method cannot be determined. Therefore, claims 1-8 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4 (twice), 5, 7, 8 (twice), 9, 11, 12, and 15, the phrase "in particular" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The limitations following the phrase "in particular" are interpreted to not necessarily be required by the claim language. Absent more explicit definition, the claims are being examined broadly in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard. Additionally, claims 2-8 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1, and claims 10-15 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 9.
Regarding claims 2, 3 (twice), 4, 6, 8, 10, and 13, the phrase "preferably" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The limitations following the phrase "preferably" are interpreted to not necessarily be required by the claim language. As stated above, absent more explicit definition, the claims are being examined broadly in accordance with the BRI standard.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the axes" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the alignment and/or the position and/or height" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this/these limitation(s) in the claim.
Claim 4 recites "wherein that the alignment and/or the position and/or height of the at least one support wheel is set relative to the work implement," in lines 2-3. It is unclear how the at least one support wheel is set relative to the work implement when the at least one support wheel is itself part of the work implement. Further, it follows that as part of the work implement, any support wheel is set relative to itself. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the relative setting definitively required by claim 4 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 4 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the movement" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the rotational speed" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the movement" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the at least one axis" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the axes," in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the drive." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites a state (or states) and/or movements are "taken into account" in lines 2-5. It is unclear how these characteristics are "taken into account." Further, it is unclear what or who are taking these characteristics into account. As such, the metes and bounds of the claimed device (in view of the features presented in claim 8) cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 8 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the current movement state" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the drive" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the at least one axis" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the further course of travel" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the basis of typical courses of travel" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the basis of position data (GPS)" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites "an active control of the at least one support wheel is provided." It is unclear if "an active control of the at least one support wheel" is part of and required by the claimed device or is merely provided to the claimed device in an intended use. As such, the metes and bounds of the claimed device in claim 9 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 9 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 11 recites "wherein that at least one motor drive is provided..." in line 2. Claim 11 also recites "and/or in that at least one motor drive for aligning and/or rotating the support wheel is/are provided." It is unclear if these elements (i.e., "at least one motor drive" and "at least one motor drive for aligning and/or rotating the support wheel") are part of the claimed device or merely provided to the claimed device in an intended use. As such, the metes and bounds of the claimed device in claim 11 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the at least one axis," in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites "wherein that a control system is provided..." in line 2, and "wherein sensors are provided..." in line 3. It is unclear if these elements (i.e., "a control system" and "sensors") are part of and required by the claimed device or merely provided to the claimed device in an intended use. As such, the metes and bounds of the claimed device in claim 12 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 12 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the at least one axis" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the current state of movement" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the current curve radius" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the curve radius" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the suitable position" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites "wherein that sensors are provided..." in line 2. It is unclear if "sensors" are part of and required by the claimed device or are merely provided to the claimed device in an intended use. As such, the metes and bounds of the claimed device in claim 13 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 13 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the actual position" in lines 2-3 (and in lines 3-4). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites "wherein that control signals are determined on the basis of movement data of a towing vehicle..." in lines 2-3. It is unclear what or who is determining control signals as claimed. Further, it is unclear how the claimed control signals and/or determination thereof are definitively of, or even related to, the claimed device. As such, the metes and bounds of the claimed device (in particular, whether control signals and/or determination thereof are required by the claimed device) cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 14 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the basis of movement data" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the control system" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites "that a coupling of the control system of the at least one support wheel with a control system of a towing vehicle is provided." It is unclear if "a coupling" is part of and required by the claimed device or is merely provided to the claimed device in an intended use. As such, the metes and bounds of the claimed device in claim 14 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 14 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thompson et al. (US 8,428,831)
Regarding claim 1, Thompson discloses a method for operating a towed agricultural work implement (10) with a boom (including 22 and/or 24) with at least one support wheel (including or of 20) for supporting the boom on a ground, wherein that the at least one support wheel is actively controlled (via 64 and/or 100).
Regarding claim 2, Thompson discloses that at least one axis (through 78) of the at least one support wheel (including or of 20) is driven (via 64 and/or 100).
Regarding claim 3, Thompson discloses that at least one drive unit (including 64) is assigned to the at least one support wheel (including or of 20; see Figs. 7 and 8).
Regarding claim 4, Thompson discloses that the alignment and/or the position and/or height of the at least one support wheel (including or of 20) is set (via 64, via 64, and via 36, respectively) relative to the boom of the work implement.
Regarding claim 5, Thompson discloses that the at least one support wheel (including or of 20) is rotationally driven (about 78 via 64 and/or 100).
Regarding claim 6, Thompson discloses that at least one axis (through 78) of the at least one support wheel (including or of 20) is driven by means of a motor drive (including 64, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of "motor drive," which is informed by claim 11).
Regarding claim 7, Thompson discloses that the at least one support wheel (including or of 20) is steered (via 64).
Regarding claim 8, Thompson discloses that movements predicted for the future (including 116) are taken into account by a control system of the work implement (see col. 11, lines 14-27).
Regarding claim 9, Thompson discloses a towed agricultural work implement (10) with a boom (including 22 and/or 24), with at least one support wheel (including or of 20) for support on a ground, wherein that an active control (including 64 and/or 100) of the at least one support wheel is provided.
Regarding claim 10, Thompson discloses that the at least one support wheel (including or of 20) and/or its connection to the boom (including 22 and/or 24) comprises at least one driven axis (through 78).
Regarding claim 11, Thompson discloses that at least one motor drive (including 64; wherein "an active control" is met by that including 100) is provided for at least one axis (through 78), in particular a hydraulic drive.
Regarding claim 12, Thompson discloses that a control system (including 100; wherein "an active control" is met by that including 64) is provided for motor-driving at least one axis (through 78) of the at least one support wheel (including or of 20), and wherein sensors (including 102 and 106) are provided for determining the current state of movement and/or for predicting states of movement to be expected in the future (see col. 10, lines 45-65).
Regarding claim 13, Thompson discloses that sensors (including 102, 106, "a positioning source," and/or "a GPS source") are provided for determining the actual position of the at least one support wheel (see col. 10, lines 6-44).
Regarding claim 14, Thompson discloses that control signals are determined on the basis of movement data of a towing vehicle (see col. 10, lines 34-65) and/or that a coupling of a control system (including 100; wherein "an active control" is met by that including 64) of the at least one support wheel with a control system (including 106) of a towing vehicle is provided (see col. 10, lines 45-65, wherein communication between such systems is described).
Regarding claim 15, Thompson discloses that an in particular motorized height adjustment (including 36) of the at least one support wheel (including or of 20) is provided.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Hahn et al. (US 9,795,077) discloses a towed agricultural work implement comprising a boom (including 12), at least one support wheel (including 24 or 54) for support on a ground, wherein the at least one support wheel is driven by a motor (see col. 8, lines 1-23; and col. 9, lines 26-36), and wherein a control system (including 60) is provided for motor-driving the at least one axis of the support wheel. Additionally, Houck (US 2015/0150185) and Prickel et al. (US 2016/0135356) cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) of 4/20/2026 are particularly relevant.
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/6/25/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights