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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because it recites "the frame" in line 2 (instead of "the row unit frame" consistent with the specification, which describes "a central hub 62 coupled to the main frame 42" and not coupling to a toolbar). 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the row" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, claims 2-7 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the row" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, claims 9-14 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 8.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martin (US 2022/0210962).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Martin discloses an agricultural implement, comprising:
a frame (including or of "a tool bar or other planting accessory component of a tractor or other farming vehicle" in para. 0046);
a plurality of row units ("a set of connected strip till row planting units 100" in para. 0046) supported relative to the frame, each of the plurality of row units comprising:
a row unit frame (including 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, and 107);
a coulter (including 112 and 113) supported by the row unit frame and extending in a fore-aft direction of the row unit along a longitudinal centerline of the row unit (see Figs. 10 and 11); and
a row cleaner (200) supported by the row unit frame relative to the coulter, the row cleaner including first and second row cleaner discs (including 202 and including 203);
wherein the first and second row cleaner discs are arranged relative to the coulter such that an initial point of engagement of the coulter with soil being processed (as defined by use in soil) is located: (1) aft of soil entry locations of the first and second row cleaner discs in the fore-aft direction (see Figs. 1, 5, 7, 10, 11, and 14-18); and (2) forward of soil exit locations of the first and second row cleaner discs in the fore-aft direction (see Figs. 1, 5, 7, 10, 11, and 14-18).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Martin discloses the coulter including a hub (including 113) coupled to the row unit frame (and/or the frame via the row unit frame) for rotation relative thereto and a blade (112) extending radially outwardly from the hub, wherein the blade is aligned with the longitudinal centerline of the row unit in the fore-aft direction (see Figs. 10 and 11).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Martin discloses the initial point of engagement of the coulter (including 112 and 113) with the soil corresponds to a location at which the blade (including 112) initially contacts the soil in the fore-aft direction (when used in soil).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Martin discloses each row cleaner disc including a central hub (including 230 or 231) and a plurality of teeth (206) extending radially outwardly from the central hub, the soil entry locations for the first and second row cleaner discs corresponding to locations at which the plurality of teeth are configured to initially contact the soil in the fore-aft direction (when used in soil), the soil exits locations for the first and second row cleaner discs corresponding to locations (204') at which the plurality of teeth are configured to exit the soil in the fore-aft direction.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Martin discloses the blade (including 112) defining a forwardmost edge (142) of the coulter in the fore-aft direction of the row unit.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Martin discloses the forwardmost edge (142) of the coulter being positioned forward of a center of rotation of each of the first and second row cleaner discs in the fore-aft direction (see Figs. 10, 11, 14, and 16-18).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Martin discloses the forwardmost edge (142) of the coulter being positioned aft of aft of the soil entry locations (as defined by use in soil) of the first and second row cleaner discs in the fore-aft direction (see Figs. 1, 5, 7, 10, 11, and 14-18).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Herr (US 2,341,143), Rawson (US 5,640,914), Deckler (US 5,697,455), and Van Buskirk et al. (US 8,826,836) each disclose the limitations of the row unit in at least claims 1 and 8.
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/6/13/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights