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 .
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 is less than 50 words. 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 lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which Applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because it recites "the at least one first fold cylinder results in the second wing roll section folding relative to the second wing roll section about a second wing roll pivot joint." This recitation is expected to state "the at least one second fold cylinder" instead of "the at least one first fold cylinder" in light of the specification. Claim 11 is being further examined as though "the at least one first fold cylinder" reads "the at least one second fold cylinder" in line 3. Appropriate correction (or explanation) is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) 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. Claim 9 recites "a sliding interface is provided..." in line 1. This is interpreted to mean that "a sliding interface" is part of (i.e., an element of) the claimed device. Further, "a sliding interface ... directly between the first and second wing roll sections" is interpreted to require a surface of the first wing roll section and a surface of the second wing roll section that directly contact and slide relative to each other. Regarding claims 10 and 11, the at least one first fold cylinder and the at least one second fold cylinder are interpreted to be parts of (i.e., elements of) the claimed device. Regarding claims 14 and 16, the first and second rockshafts are interpreted to be parts of (i.e., elements of) the claimed device.
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 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 are replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. Due to the numerous errors, Applicant's cooperation is requested in reviewing the claim language and correcting any further errors of which Applicant may become aware.
Claim 1 recites "a working position" in line 19 and in line 25. However, claim 1 previously recites "a working position" in lines 7-8. It is unclear if these are the same working position or if another working position is being introduced. As such, the metes and bounds of the working position(s) in claim 1 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Additionally, claims 2-17 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1. Claim 1 is being further examined as though it recites "the working position" in line 19 and in line 25
Claim 7 recites "wherein the ground-engaging operation comprises a strip tillage operation." It is unclear how or in what manner this recitation limits the structure of the claimed device. As such, the metes and bounds of the implement required by claim 7 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 7 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first set of row units" in line 2 (and in line 4). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is noted that claims 15 and 17 (which depend from claim 14) each recite "the first set of row units" therein.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the second set of row units." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the second set of row units" in line 2 (and in line 4). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is noted that claim 17 (which depends from claim 16) recites "the second set of row units" therein.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the first and second seconds of row units." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 7, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dobbs et al. (US 3,606,848)
Regarding claim 1, Dobbs discloses a rear-folding agricultural implement, comprising:
a chassis assembly (including or of 12);
a toolbar assembly coupled to the chassis assembly, the toolbar assembly trailing the chassis assembly in a fore-aft direction of the implement when the implement is moved in a forward travel direction (to the right in Figs. 1 and 4), the toolbar assembly comprising:
a central toolbar section (including 28 and 68 of 24) configured to support one or more row units (including 22 on 24) for performing a ground-engaging operation when the implement is in a working position relative to the ground;
first and second wing roll sections (including first and second 70) pivotably coupled to the central toolbar section (about 72) and configured to be positioned rearward of the central toolbar section in the fore-aft direction when the implement is in the working position (see Fig. 5, wherein 70 is aft 24), the first wing roll section being pivotably relative to the central toolbar section independently from the second wing roll section (as the wing roll sections are independently coupled to the central toolbar section);
a first wing toolbar section (including 28 or 40 of first 26) pivotably coupled (about the horizontal pin through 70 or about 32) to the first wing roll section and extending outwardly from the first ring roll section in a lateral direction of the implement when the implement is in the working position (see Figs. 1 and 5), the first wing toolbar section being configured to support a first plurality of row units (including 22 on first 26) for performing the ground-engaging operation when the implement is in the working position relative to the ground (see Fig. 1); and
a second wing toolbar section (including 28 or 40 of second 26) pivotably coupled (about the horizontal pin through 70 or about 32) to the second wing roll section and extending outwardly from the second ring roll section in a lateral direction of the implement when the implement is in the working position (see Figs. 1 and 5), the second wing toolbar section being configured to support a second plurality of row units (including 22 on second 26) for performing the ground-engaging operation when the implement is in the working position relative to the ground (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Dobbs discloses the ground-engaging operation comprising a strip tillage operation (as the implement of Dobbs is capable of applying fertilizer in strips through 22).
Regarding claim 13, Dobbs discloses at least one of the first and second wing toolbar sections (including 28 or 40 of first and second 26) having a ladder-type configuration including a forward toolbar member (including 28 or forward 40 of first or second 26), an aft toolbar member (including corresponding rear 40 of first or second 26), and a plurality of cross-support members (including corresponding 30 of first or second 26) extending between the forward and aft toolbar members (see Figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 14, Dobbs discloses a first rockshaft (including 54 of first 26) pivotably coupled to the first wing toolbar section, the first plurality of row units being coupled to the first rockshaft such that actuation of the first rockshaft results in an adjustment of a position of the first plurality of row units relative to the first wing toolbar section (about 32; see col. 2, line 60 - col. 3, line 15).
Regarding claim 15, Dobbs discloses actuation of the first rockshaft (including 54 of first 26) resulting in the first plurality of row units being shifted relative to the first wing toolbar section in a direction away from the second plurality of row units (when 64 is disconnected/removed from the second 26).
Regarding claim 16, Dobbs discloses a second rockshaft pivotably (including 54 of second 26) coupled to the second wing toolbar section, the second plurality of row units being coupled to the second rockshaft such that actuation of the second rockshaft results in an adjustment of a position of the second plurality of row units relative to the second wing toolbar section (about 32; see col. 2, line 60 - col. 3, line 15).
Regarding claim 17, Dobbs discloses actuation of the first rockshaft (including 54 of first 26) resulting in the first plurality of row units being shifted in a direction away from the second plurality of row units (when 64 is disconnected/removed from the second 26), and actuation of the second rockshaft (including 54 of second 26) resulting in the second plurality of row units being shifted in a direction away from the first plurality of row units to increase a distance defined between the first and second pluralities of row units (when 64 is disconnected/removed from the first 26). It is noted that the actuations being simultaneous is not claimed.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Decker (US 4,338,872).
Regarding claim 1, Decker discloses a rear-folding agricultural implement, comprising:
a chassis assembly (including 12 excluding 14);
a toolbar assembly coupled to the chassis assembly, the toolbar assembly trailing the chassis assembly in a fore-aft direction of the implement when the implement is moved in a forward travel direction, the toolbar assembly comprising:
a central toolbar section (including 14) configured to support one or more row units (including 62 on 14) for performing a ground-engaging operation when the implement is in a working position relative to the ground;
first and second wing roll sections (including or of first and second hinges 74) pivotably coupled to the central toolbar section (as shown by the middle arrow in Fig. 10) and configured to be positioned rearward of the central toolbar section in the fore-aft direction when the implement is in the working position (see Fig. 13), the first wing roll section being pivotably relative to the central toolbar section independently from the second wing roll section (coupled by independent cylinders 70);
a first wing toolbar section (including first 47) pivotably coupled to the first wing roll section (as shown by the rightmost arrow in Fig. 10) and extending outwardly from the first ring roll section in a lateral direction of the implement when the implement is in the working position (see Fig. 8), the first wing toolbar section being configured to support a first plurality of row units (including 62 on first 47) for performing the ground-engaging operation when the implement is in the working position relative to the ground (see Figs. 1 and 8); and
a second wing toolbar section (including first 47) pivotably coupled to the second wing roll section (as shown by the rightmost arrow in Fig. 10) and extending outwardly from the second ring roll section in a lateral direction of the implement when the implement is in the working position (see Fig. 8), the second wing toolbar section being configured to support a second plurality of row units (including 62 on second 47) for performing the ground-engaging operation when the implement is in a working position relative to the ground (see Figs. 1 and 8).
Regarding claim 7, Decker discloses the ground-engaging operation comprising a strip tillage operation (as the implement of Decker is capable of seeding in rows corresponding to strips).
Regarding claim 8, Decker discloses a first roll cylinder (including first 70 and 72) coupled between the central toolbar section (on 66) and the first wing roll section (as shown in Figs. 8-10 and 13; also, see col. 3, lines 29-37), and a second roll cylinder coupled between the central toolbar section (on 66) and the second wing roll section (as shown in Figs. 8-10 and 13; also, see col. 3, lines 29-37), wherein actuation of the first roll cylinder results in the first wing roll section pivoting relative to the central toolbar section about a first wing roll pivot joint independent of the second wing roll section and wherein actuation of the second roll cylinder results in the second wing roll section pivoting relative to the central toolbar section about a second wing roll pivot joint independent of the first wing roll section.
Regarding claim 10, Decker discloses the implement with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Further, the first and second wing roll sections of Decker are considered to be sections that are including or of first and second hinges 74, as well as respective first and second 70 and 72. Decker also discloses at least one first fold cylinder (including first cylinder 74) that is coupled between (via 66 and/or as the ends of first cylinder 74 are coupled such that it extends between) the first wing roll section and the first wing toolbar section (as shown in Figs. 8, 9, and 13), wherein actuation of the at least one first fold cylinder results in the first wing roll section folding relative to the first wing roll section about a first wing roll pivot joint (as shown in Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 11, Decker discloses the implement with respect to claim 10, as set forth above, wherein at least one second fold cylinder (including second cylinder 74) is coupled between (via 66 and/or as the ends of first cylinder 74 are coupled such that it extends between) the second wing roll section and the second wing toolbar section (as shown in Figs. 8, 9, and 13), wherein actuation of the at least one second fold cylinder results in the second wing roll section folding relative to the second wing roll section about a second wing roll pivot joint (as shown in Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 13, Decker discloses the implement with respect to claim 1, as set forth above, wherein at least one of the first and second wing toolbar sections (including first and second 47) has a ladder-type configuration including a forward toolbar member, an aft toolbar member, and a plurality of cross-support members extending between the forward and aft toolbar members (see Figs. 4 and 8).
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 2-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decker in view of Just et al. (US 4,813,489)
Regarding claim 2, Decker discloses the implement of claim 1, as set forth above. Decker also discloses the chassis assembly comprising a support chassis and a towbar extending forward of the support chassis in the fore-aft direction. Decker does not explicitly disclose the toolbar assembly being pivotably coupled to the support chassis as claimed. However, Just teaches a rear-folding agricultural implement comprising a chassis assembly (including 12) and a toolbar assembly (including 18 and/or 24), wherein the chassis assembly comprises a support chassis (of 12, adjacent 16) and a towbar (including 14) extending forward of the support chassis in the fore-aft direction (see Figs. 1 and 4), the toolbar assembly (including 18 and/or 24) being pivotably coupled to the support chassis at a forward toolbar pivot joint (at 30) to allow the toolbar assembly to be pivoted relative to the support chassis about the forward toolbar pivot joint (see Figs. 2 and 3).
Just is analogous because Just discloses a rear-folding agricultural implement comprising a chassis assembly and a toolbar 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 Decker with pivoting means as taught by Just for swinging movement to a transport position (see Just, col. 4, lines 45-68) and in order to shift the center of gravity of the implement (see Just, col. 7, lines 9-22). Additionally, providing Decker with the pivoting means of Just is a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the implement of Decker and the pivoting connection of Just) according to known methods to yield predictable results (as taught by Just). See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 3, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 2, Just teaches at least one lift cylinder (including 32) coupled between the chassis assembly (including 12) and the toolbar assembly (including 18 and/or 24) such that actuation of the at least one lift cylinder results in the toolbar assembly being pivoted relative to the support chassis about the forward toolbar pivot joint (see Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 4, Decker discloses the chassis assembly (including 12 excluding 14) further comprising a chassis support wheel (including 16) configured to support the chassis assembly relative to the ground, and the toolbar assembly (including 14, first 47, and second 47) comprising a wing support wheel (including 48) configured to support the toolbar assembly relative to the ground.
Regarding claim 6, Decker discloses the support chassis (including 12 excluding 14) being configured to support a storage tank (including 18) for storing an agricultural material.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decker in view of Just as applied to claims 2-4 above, and further in view of Balmer (US 5,641,026).
Regarding claim 5, neither Decker nor Just explicitly discloses the wheel axes maintaining a distance less than 30 inches as claimed. Balmer teaches a rear-folding agricultural implement comprising a chassis assembly (including 18) and a toolbar assembly (including 11 and/or 28), wherein the chassis assembly comprises a chassis support wheel (including 14 and/or 15) configured to support the chassis assembly relative to the ground, wherein the toolbar assembly comprises a wing support wheel (including 16 and/or 17) configured to support the toolbar assembly relative to the ground, and
wherein a wheel spacing distance defined in the fore-aft direction between a rotational axis of the chassis support wheel and a rotational axis of the wing support wheel is maintained less than 30 inches (along 61) as the at least one lift cylinder (including 35) results is actuated to pivot the toolbar assembly relative to the support chassis (additionally, since the wheels are "coaxial," they are also maintained less than 30 inches while the at least one other lift cylinder 67 has beginning results from the work position).
Balmer is analogous because Balmer discloses a rear-folding agricultural implement comprising a chassis assembly and a toolbar 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 above combination with wheel alignment means as taught by Balmer "so that there [sic] axes of rotation lie on a common line forwardly of the tool bar." (See Balmer, Abstract.) Additionally, providing the above combination with the wheel alignment of Balmer is a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the implement of the above combination with the wheel alignment of Balmer) according to known methods to yield predictable results (as taught by Balmer). See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. In particular, Couser (US 4,502,545) discloses the rear-folding agricultural implement of at least claim 1. Regarding claim 12, Satzler et al. (US 8,626,408) has a four-bar linkage at a wing pivot (see Fig. 9).
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/6/26/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights