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
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: TOOL MOUNT FOR ROW UNIT HAVING DEPTH STOP CHANNEL FOR DEFINING PIVOT RANGE.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 15, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7, 15, and 20 in line 3 “the support is configured” should be --the support arm is configured--.
Claims 7, 15, and 20 in lines 3-4 “coupled to mounting arm” should be --coupled to the mounting arm--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11-12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinlage et al. (US 20080190628 A1) in view of Moe et al. (US 3411589 A) and Woodward et al. (US 4142587 A).
Regarding independent claim 9, Steinlage discloses an agricultural implement (110, Fig. 1), comprising:
a frame (112);
a plurality of row units (Fig. 4) supported relative to the frame, each of the plurality of row units comprising:
a row unit frame (312);
a tool mount configured to support a ground-engaging tool (300) of the agricultural implement relative to the row unit frame, the tool mount comprising:
a mounting plate assembly comprising a mount plate (318) and a pivot mount, the mount plate configured to be rigidly coupled to the row unit frame and defining a depth stop channel (defined by area between upper and lower stops 322, 324), the pivot mount extending outwardly from the mount plate along a pivot axis (Fig. 7),
an arm assembly coupled between the mounting plate assembly and the ground-engaging tool, the arm assembly comprising a mounting arm (286’) pivotably coupled to the pivot mount such that the arm assembly is configured to pivot relative to the mounting plate assembly about the pivot axis across a pivot range of the arm assembly (para. [0031] “The arms 286' can pivot about the locations 314 between upper and lower stops 322 and 324 within the brackets 318”);
wherein:
the depth stop channel at least partially defines the pivot range for the arm assembly (Fig. 7, upper and lower stops 322, 324 define upper and lower limits of pivot range).
Steinlage fails to disclose a stop pin extending outwardly from the mounting arm to be received in the depth stop channel such that it engages at least one end of the depth stop channel to limit further pivoting of the arm assembly relative to the mounting plate assembly.
However, such an arrangement is old and known.
In the same area, Moe discloses a mounting bracket (18) and mounting arm (14) for a coulter disk, wherein upper and lower stops (58,60) of the mounting bracket define a depth stop channel (Fig. 2, col. 2 lines 47-56), and a stop pin (52) extending outwardly from the mounting arm is configured to engage at least one end (i.e. upper or lower stop 58,60) of the depth stop channel to limit further pivoting of the arm assembly relative to the mounting bracket (col. 3 lines 10-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar stop pin and depth stop channel design in the tool mount of Steinlage, as taught by Moe, as a mere simple substitution of one means for limiting the pivot range of a coulter arm for another to yield predictable results.
Steinlage does not explicitly detail wherein the pivot mount comprises a mount sleeve.
Woodward discloses a similar mounting plate assembly (212) for a rotary cultivator (Figs. 13-14) comprising a mount plate (208) and a mount sleeve (216) extending outwardly from the mount plate along a pivot axis (Fig. 14), and a mounting arm (210) coupled between the mounting plate assembly and a ground-engaging tool (Fig. 13), wherein the mounting arm is pivotably coupled to the mount sleeve such that the arm assembly is configured to pivot relative to the mounting plate assembly about the pivot axis (col. 6 lines 22-29 mounting arm 210 pivots about axis of bolt 218 relative to mount sleeve 216 and mount plate 208).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar mount sleeve for the pivot mount of Steinlage, as taught by Woodward, in order to provide a resilient bushing capable of reducing the transmission of vibration between the mounting arm and mount plate, thereby providing further cushioning against the transmission of vibration to the implement and/or row unit frame (Woodward at col. 6 lines 25-29).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Steinlage discloses the agricultural implement of claim 9. Steinlage further teaches wherein the mount plate (318) is configured to be removably coupled to the row unit frame (312) (Fig. 7, bolts removably secure front of mount plate 318 to frame 312).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Steinlage discloses the agricultural implement of claim 11, wherein the mount sleeve is welded to the mount plate to provide a rigid connection between the mount sleeve and the mount plate (inherent from combination, Woodward at col. 6 lines 23-24 teaches mount sleeve 216 is welded to mount plate 208).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Steinlage discloses the agricultural implement of claim 9. Steinlage further teaches wherein the arm assembly further comprises a support arm (304) coupled between the mounting arm (286’) and the ground-engaging tool (300) (Figs. 6-7), wherein the support arm is configured to be selectively coupled to the mounting arm at one of a plurality of different locations (Fig. 7, para. [0031] plurality of mounting apertures 330 at aft end of the arm 286' provide fore-and-aft adjustment of support arms 304 and thus disks 300).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Steinlage discloses the agricultural implement of claim 9. Steinlage teaches wherein the ground-engaging tool comprises a closing disc (300) instead of a coulter disc. However, Steinlage discloses pivotally mounted front coulter disks (221) as seen in Fig. 1.
In the same area, Moe discloses using a similar mounting assembly comprising upper and lower stops (58,60) for defining a depth stop channel of a ground-engaging tool as detailed above, wherein the ground-engaging tool comprises a coulter disc (10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar depth stop channel and mounting assembly for the front coulter blades of Steinlage, as taught by Moe, as a mere simple substitution of one coulter disc mounting for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, and 7-8, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 9, 11-12, and 15-16, respectively, therefore, claims 1, 3-4, and 7-8 are also rejected over the same rationale as the previous claims.
Claims 2, 10, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Steinlage as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Malinowski (US 4699221 A).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, the combination of Steinlage discloses the row unit of claim 1 and the agricultural implement of claim 9, wherein the mount sleeve comprises a steel sleeve (Woodward at col. 6 line 23 mount sleeve 216 is a steel sleeve) but does not explicitly detail a hardened sleeve.
Malinowski discloses a mounting assembly for accommodating pivoting of a ground-engaging tool (21) to clear obstacles encountered during operation, the mounting assembly comprising a mounting arm (2 + 16) pivotally coupled to a mount sleeve (22-25) (Figs. 1-2), wherein the mount sleeve comprises a hardened sleeve (col. 5 lines 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to harden the mount sleeve of the combination, as taught by Malinowski, in order to provide a low-friction pivot having increased wear-resistance (Malinowski at col. 5 lines 13-15).
Regarding claims 17 and 20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1-4 and 7, therefore, claims 17 and 20 are also rejected over the same rationale as the previous claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 13-14, and 18-19 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Line (US 5829535 A) discloses a depth control adjustment for a ground opener. Hook et al. (US 6250397 B1) discloses a spring trip standard with a positive stop. Freed (US 20110247537 A1) discloses a depth control device for a crop residue clearing device. Lung (US 20110290165 A1) discloses a transport lock for a furrow opener. Manasseri et al. (US 20120192775 A1) discloses a stop for a depth control wheel. Schilling (US 20130000536 A1) discloses a depth adjustment assembly for a disc opener. Raetzman et al. (US 20170000010 A1) discloses a down stop for an agricultural closing disc. Gresch et al. (US 20190110388 A1) discloses an actuator for setting a seed depth. Andres (US 20190297772 A1) discloses a coiled stop for an opening disc mounting arm. Kowalchuk et al. (US 20200015412 A1) discloses a depth adjustment system for a seed planting unit. Smola et al. (US 20250008856 A1) discloses a hardened bushing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (571) 272-8971. 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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights