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 .
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,382,258 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Maintenance Fee
Applicant is reminded the 3.5 year maintenance fee is currently due for US Patent 11,382,258 and must be kept up to date for continued prosecution of the instant reissue application. The payment window opened July 12, 2025, the surcharge begins January 13, 2026, and the last day to pay is July 13, 2026.
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: “a central control system…configured to…determine a desired alignment…receive from the sensor a signal indicative of a detected change…and controlling the actuator to restore the desired alignment of the sensor relative to the axis of pivot” in claim 10 and “said central control system is configured to receive coordinates of a global position…determine…the desired alignment of the sensor relative to the axis of the pivot” in claim 17.
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 § 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 10-19 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.
Regarding Claims 10-19, Claim limitations “a central control system…configured to…determine a desired alignment…receive from the sensor a signal indicative of a detected change…and controlling the actuator to restore the desired alignment of the sensor relative to the axis of pivot” in claim 10 and “said central control system is configured to receive coordinates of a global position…determine…the desired alignment of the sensor relative to the axis of the pivot” in claim 17 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The limitations above are computer-implemented functional claims limitations that invoke 35 USC 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC 112, sixth paragraph. As such, the sufficient structure for performing all of the functions would be an algorithm to perform the functions. The specification fails to provide such an algorithm and/or a clear link to the algorithm in the specification. Column 11, Lines 3-32 appear to be a possible general outline for an algorithm that could perform some of the functions. However, it is not clear if it performs all of the functions. It is also not clearly linked to the 35 USC 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC 112, sixth paragraph limitations. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Amendments
The claim amendments of claims 1-19 do not comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g). 37 CFR 1.173(d)(1) “The matter to be omitted by reissue must be enclosed in brackets”. 37 CFR 1.173(d)(2) states “The matter to be added by reissue must be underlined”. The Applicant is also reminded that 37 CFR 1.173(g) states that all amendments must be made relative to the patent.
The deletions in claims 1-8 are shown with strikethroughs or double brackets, whereas 37 CFR 1.173(d)(1) requires all deletions to be done by single brackets.
Further, claims 9-19, are not underlined as per 37 CFR 1.173(d)(2).
Defective Reissue Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because of the following:
MPEP § 1414(II) states:
“For an application filed on or after September 16, 2012 that seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent, the reissue oath or declaration must also identify a claim that the application seeks to broaden in the identification of the error that is relied upon to support the reissue application. A general statement, e.g., that all claims are broadened, is not sufficient to satisfy this requirement. In specifically identifying the error as required by 37 CFR 1.175(a), it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify the claim being broadened and a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.” (emphasis added).
The error statement in the declaration filed July 12, 2024 fails to list the claim being broadened; a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in the original claim; and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid. As such, the declaration is defective.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 251: Defective Reissue Declaration
Claims 1-19 rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 251: Recapture
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. In re McDonald, 43 F.4th 1340, 1345, 2022 USPQ2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335, 102 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The reissue application contains claim(s) that are broader than the issued patent claims. The record of the application for the patent family shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
MPEP 1412.02 establishes a three-step test for recapture. The three-step process is as follows:
(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.
Claims 1-19 are broader than claims 1-8 of US Patent No. 11,382,258 (“the ‘258 patent”). Claims 1-19 do not require “mounting…at a pivot that connects a linkage to an implement frame”.
Therefore step 1 of the three-step test is met for claims 1-19.
The step of determining whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution includes two sub-steps. The first sub-step is to determine whether the applicant surrendered any subject matter in the prosecution of the original application. MPEP 1412.02 defines surrendered subject matter as a claim limitation that was originally relied upon by applicant in the original prosecution to make the claims allowable over the art.
MPEP 1412.02(I)(B)(1)(A) states “[w]ith respect to whether applicant surrendered any subject matter, it is to be noted that a patent owner (reissue applicant) is bound by the argument that applicant relied upon to overcome an art rejection in the original application for the patent to be reissued, regardless of whether the Office adopted the argument in allowing the claims. Greenliant Systems, Inc. v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 1271, 103 USPQ2d 1951, 1958 (Fed. Cir. 2012). As pointed out by the court, ‘[i]t does not matter whether the examiner or the Board adopted a certain argument for allowance; the sole question is whether the argument was made.’ Id.”
During the prosecution of the ‘258 patent, the Examiner rejected claims 16-19 and 22-26 as unpatentable over Isaacson (US-9462744); and rejected claims 20-21 as unpatentable over Isaacson in view of Mayeda et al. (US-4660653) in a non-final Office action mailed August 17, 2021. The Applicant responded with arguments and amendments. The Applicant amended claim 16 to add the limitation, “mounting…at a pivot that connects a linkage to an implement frame” and argued Isaacson does not teach this limitation as quoted below in a response filed December 16, 2021.
Applicant amends claim 16 to recite --mounting a sensor at a pivot that connects a linkage to an implement frame--. Isaacson does not disclose such an arrangement. Rather, Isaacson mounts a sensor 26 to a post 3 that extends upwards from a tool bar 2, the sensor 26 being coupled to a linkage 24 for detecting the length of an air shock 12.
Applicant submits that claim 16 as amended, as well as claims 17, 18, 25, and 26 which depend from claim 16, is not anticipated by Isaacson. Applicant requests that the rejections under § 102 be withdrawn.
On March 4, 2022, the Examiner issued a notice of allowance allowing claims 16-18, 20-21, and 25-27, which issued as claims 1-8 of the ‘258 patent on July 12, 2022.
Therefore, the Patent Owner amended claim 16 to add the limitations of “mounting…at a pivot that connects a linkage to an implement frame” and argued that the prior art did not include the limitation. Therefore, the newly presented claims must include the limitations of “mounting…at a pivot that connects a linkage to an implement frame” and the argued limitation. Claims 1-19 fail to disclose any of the limitations added to the claims to make them allowable.
Therefore, the limitations of “mounting…at a pivot that connects a linkage to an implement frame” are limitations which are considered surrendered subject matter.
The second sub-step is to determine whether any of the broadening of the reissue claims is in the area of the surrendered subject matter. The examiner must analyze all of the broadening aspects of the reissue claims to determine if any of the omitted/broadened limitation(s) are directed to limitations relied upon by applicant in the original application to make the claims allowable over the art.
Claims 1-16 are being broadened to omit the surrendered subject matter.
Therefore step 2 of the three-part test is met.
MPEP 1412.02(I)(B)(1)(B) states “[w]ith respect to the “second step” in the recapture analysis, it is to be noted that if the reissue claim(s), are broadened with respect to the previously surrendered subject matter, then recapture will be present regardless of other unrelated narrowing limitations. In the decision of In re Mostafazadeh, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit stated:
[T]he recapture rule is violated when a limitation added during prosecution is eliminated entirely, even if other narrowing limitations are added to the claim. If the added limitation is modified but not eliminated, the claims must be materially narrowed relative to the surrendered subject matter such that the surrendered subject matter is not entirely or substantially recaptured. Id. at 1361.”
The third step in the recapture analysis is, to determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule. The third step include two different types of analysis that must be performed.
First, the reissue claim must be compared to any claims canceled or amended during prosecution of the original application. It is impermissible recapture for a reissue claim to be as broad as, or broader in scope than any claim that was canceled or amended in the original prosecution to define over the art. Claim scope that was canceled or amended is deemed surrendered and therefore barred from reissue. Clement, 131 F.3d at 1470, 45 USPQ2d at 1165.
Claims 1-19 delete the details of “mounting…at a pivot that connects a linkage to an implement frame”.
Second, it must be determined whether the reissue claim omits or broadens any limitation that was added or argued during the original prosecution to overcome an art rejection. Such an omission in a reissue claim, even if it is accompanied by other limitations making the reissue claim narrower than the patent claim in other aspects, is impermissible recapture. Pannu, 258 F.3d at 1371-72, 59 USPQ2d at 1600. In any broadening reissue application, the examiner will determine, on a claim-by-claim basis, whether the broadening in the reissue application claim(s) relates to subject matter that was surrendered during the examination of the patent for which reissue is requested) by an amendment narrowing claim scope in order to overcome a rejection and/or argument relying on a claim limitation in order to overcome a rejection.
None of the narrowing amendments to claims 1-19 relate to the limitation, “mounting…at a pivot that connects a linkage to an implement frame”.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-12, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sauder et al. (WO-2012167258). Regarding Claim 1, Sauder et al. discloses a method for maintaining a seeding row assembly 22,24 at a desired engagement configuration with a portion of ground (horizontal line in bottom of Figure 14), comprising: determining a desired alignment of a sensor 1360 relative to an axis of a pivot (below 1362 where 13 and bar on which 1364 rests in Figure 14) that connects a linkage (13 and two associated horizontal bars in Figure 14) to an implement frame 16, the linkage coupling the implement frame to a seeding row assembly, wherein the sensor is configured to detect an elevation of the seeding row assembly relative to the implement frame (see paragraph [0078]-[0080]); detecting, by the sensor, a change in elevation of the seeding row unit relative to the implement frame in response to a rotation of the linkage about the pivot (see paragraphs [0078]-[0080]); and driving an actuator 32 to restore the desired alignment of the sensor relative to the axis of the pivot (see paragraphs [0088]-[0096]) (Figures 1-25).
Regarding Claim 2, Sauder et al. discloses the linkage is a parallel linkage (see Figure 14) (Figures 1-25).
Regarding Claim 3, Sauder et al. discloses the actuator is a hydraulic actuator (see paragraphs [0048], [0055], [0058], [0065], and [0068] which describe the various actuators as hydraulic actuators) (Figures 1-25).
Regarding Claim 6, Sauder et al. discloses the sensor is a rotary sensor configured to detect a rotation of the linkage relative to the implement frame about the pivot (see paragraph [0078] and Figure 14) (Figures 1-25).
Regarding Claim 7, Sauder et al. discloses the desired alignment is a rotational alignment (see paragraph [0078] and Figure 14) (Figures 1-25).
Regarding Claim 8, Sauder et al. disclose the actuator is mounted to the implement frame and attached to the linkage (see Figure 14) (Figures 1-25).
Regarding Claim 9, Sauder et al. disclose the desired alignment is indicative of an elevation of the seeding row assembly relative to a portion of the ground (see lines 1-2 of paragraph [0079]) (Figures 1-25).
Regarding Claim 10, Sauder et al. discloses a seed planting system, comprising: an implement frame 16; a linkage (13 and two horizontal bars attaching 13 to 16 in Figure 14) coupled to the implement frame and rotatable about an axis of a pivot (at intersection of 13 and lower horizontal bar connecting 13 to 16 in Figure 14); a seeding row assembly 22,24 operatively coupled to the linkage; a sensor 1360 configured to detect an elevation of the seeding row assembly relative to the implement frame; an actuator 32 coupled to the implement frame and configured to adjust the elevation of the seeding row assembly relative to the implement frame; and a central control system 1302 (see paragraph [0075]) operatively coupled to the sensor and the actuator, wherein the central control system comprises a non-transitory computer readable memory 1309 and a processor, wherein the processor based on instructions received from a non-transitory computer readable memory, is configured to: determine a desired alignment of the sensor relative to the axis of the pivot connecting the linkage to the implement frame (see paragraphs [0078]-[0080]); receive from the sensor a signal indicative of a detected change in elevation of the seeding row assembly relative to the implement frame in response to a rotation of the linkage about the pivot (see paragraphs [0078]-[0080]); and controlling the actuator to restore the desired alignment of the sensor relative to the axis of the pivot (see paragraphs [0088]-[0096]) (Figures 1-25).
Regarding Claim 11, Sauder et al. discloses the linkage is a parallel linkage (see Figure 14) (Figures 1-25).
Regarding Claim 12, Sauder et al. discloses the actuator is a hydraulic actuator (see paragraphs [0048], [0055], [0058], [0065], and [0068] which describe the various actuators as hydraulic actuators) (Figures 1-25).
Regarding Claim 16, Sauder et al. discloses the desired alignment is indicative of an elevation of the seeding row assembly relative to a portion of the ground (see lines 1-2 of paragraph [0079]) (Figures 1-25).
Regarding Claim 18, Sauder et al. disclose wherein the central control system further comprises an operator interface, wherein the operator interface is configured to receive an input indicative of the desired alignment of the sensor relative to the axis of the pivot (display 1307, see paragraph [0075]) (Figures 1-25).
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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauder et al. (WO-2012167258). Regarding Claim 19, Sauder et al. discloses the device as advanced above with regard to claim 18, but does not expressly disclose wherein the operator interface of the central control comprises a wireless handheld unit.
However, official notice that wireless handheld units, such as cell phones, tablets, remote controls, etc., are old, well known, and conventional devices for providing operator interfaces that allow the user to travel with the device being controlled. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a wireless handheld device as the operator interface to allow the user to control the device without being tied to a particular location, to control the device while riding the device from the driver station, and to able to take the device to the back of the vehicle to ensure the parts are responding as expected.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauder et al. (WO-2012167258) in view of Mayeda et al. (US-4660653). Regarding Claims 4-5 and 13-15, Sauder et al. disclose the method of claim 1 and seed planting system of claim 10, as respectively advanced above, but does not expressly disclose the actuator is coupled to a tillage row unit; the step of driving the actuator restores a selected depth of the tillage row unit relative to the seeding row unit; wherein the linkage comprises a first linkage, and wherein the seed planting system further comprises a tillage row unit coupled to the implement frame by a second linkage, wherein the second linkage is adjustable by the actuator for defining an elevation of the tillage row unit relative to the implement frame; wherein controlling the actuator restores a selected depth of the tillage row unit relative to the seeding row assembly.
However, Mayeda et al. teaches a seeding row unit 230 similar to that of the seeding row unit of Sauder et al., the seeding row unit of Mayeda et al. has a tillage row unit 201 coupled thereto. 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 tillage row unit of Mayeda et al. to the seeding row unit of Sauder et al. in order to provide the many benefits of minimum till seeding.
In the resultant combination it can be seen that Sauder et al.’s device will include a tillage row unit (Mayeda et al.’s 201) coupled to the front of the frame (Sauder et al.’s 16) and so will include an actuator (Sauder et al.’s 32) coupled to the tillage row unit; the step of driving the actuator restoring a selected depth of the tillage row unit relative to the seeding row unit (Sauder et al.’s paragraph [0088]-[0096] in that once the actuator, which is connected solely to make adjustments to the seeding row unit, adjusts the seeding row unit the relative depth to the fixed tillage row unit will change); wherein the linkage comprises a first linkage (linkage of Sauder et al. in Figure 14), and wherein the seed planting system further comprises a tillage row unit (Mayeda et al.’s 201) coupled to the implement frame (Sauder et al.’s 16) by a second linkage (Mayeda et al.’s 204), wherein the second linkage is adjustable by the actuator for defining an elevation of the tillage row unit relative to the implement frame (Sauder et al.’s paragraph [0088]-[0096] in that once the actuator, which is connected solely to make adjustments to the seeding row unit, adjusts the seeding row unit the relative depth to the fixed tillage row unit will change); wherein controlling the actuator restores a selected depth of the tillage row unit relative to the seeding row assembly (Sauder et al.’s paragraph [0088]-[0096] in that once the actuator, which is connected solely to make adjustments to the seeding row unit, adjusts the seeding row unit the relative depth to the fixed tillage row unit will change).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauder et al. (WO-2012167258) in view of Sauder et al. (US-20120186503). Regarding claims 17, Sauder et al. (WO) discloses the seed planting system of claim 10, as advanced above, but does not expressly disclose wherein said central control system is configured to receive coordinates of a global position of said seed planting system and determine, based at least in part on the coordinates, the desired alignment of the sensor relative to the axis of the pivot.
However, Sauder et al. (US) teaches a seed planting system for controlling the height of a seed row assembly 22,24 in relation to a portion of the ground comprising a central control system configured to receive coordinates of a global position of said seed planting system and determine, based at least in part on the coordinates, the desired alignment of the sensor relative to the axis of the pivot (see paragraph [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to using the global positioning data with the desired downforce prescription map to account for the already know elevation changes of the land prior to operation as taught by Sauder et al. (US) at paragraph [0038].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM E DONDERO whose telephone number is (571)272-5590. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6 am - 4 pm ET, Alternate Fridays.
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, PATRICIA L ENGLE can be reached at 571-272-6660. 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.
/WILLIAM E DONDERO/
Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
CONFEREES:
/PETER C ENGLISH/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/Patricia L Engle/SPRS, Art Unit 3993