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 contains an implied phrase (i.e., "... is provided..." in line 1) and exceeds 150 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).
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to for the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites "the improvement" in line 4 without proper antecedent basis. Instead of reciting "In an agricultural implement" in line 1, claim 1 should recite "An improvement in an agricultural implement" or "In an improved agricultural implement" or the like in order to provide (at least some manner of) antecedent basis for "the improvement" in line 4.
Claim 2 is objected to because it recites "The implement according to Claim 1," in line 1 (instead of "The improvement according to Claim 1,").
Appropriate correction (or explanation) is required.
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 bypass feature" in claim 3.
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. The specification sets forth the bypass fitting 42, which is a flow passage by or about an actuator, as a bypass feature. See Specification, para. 0063.
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 3-7 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 3 recites "an actuator control unit having a supply port configured to route pressure lines to control the actuator and a bypass feature configured to bypass the actuator;" in lines 11-12. It is unclear whether "a bypass feature" is part of or controlled by the actuator control unit. In other words, it is unclear if the implement comprises "an actuator control unit having a supply port ... and a bypass feature..." or if the implement comprises an actuator control unit that has "a supply port configured to route pressure lines to control the actuator and a bypass feature..." As such, the metes and bounds of the claimed actuator control unit and bypass feature cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 3 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Additionally, claims 4-7 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 3. Claim 3 is being further examined as recited, wherein the supply port is configured to control the actuator and a bypass feature.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the bypass features of the actuators" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 is being further examined as though "the bypass features of the actuators" reads "the bypass feature or features configured to bypass the actuators" in lines 1-2.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the bypass features of the actuators" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 is being further examined as though "the bypass features of the actuators" reads "the bypass feature or features configured to bypass the actuators" in lines 1-2.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rylander (US 2013/0032362).
Regarding claim 1, Rylander discloses an agricultural implement having:
a toolbar (including 12) and a plurality of row units (including 16A-16P) mounted along the toolbar for working rows of ground (see Figs. 1 and 2), each of the row units comprising one or more working devices (including 24) for working the ground (see Fig. 2) and an actuator (including 40) for varying a ground force applied by the row unit to the ground (see para. 0018); and
a control system (including 82) which controls the actuators for multiple row units so as to define a zone ground force system wherein first and second groups (Group II and Group I, respectively) of the row units define first and second zones (as defined by the groups) wherein the first group of row units in the first zone are operated together under a first down pressure to generate a first ground force to work a first plurality of rows in a field, and the second group of row units in the second zone are operated together under a second down pressure to generate a second ground pressure greater than the first ground pressure to work a second plurality of rows of ground which are harder than the first plurality of rows (see paras. 0023-0024).
Regarding claim 2, Rylander discloses the control system comprising first and second zone control units (including 74 and including 76, respectively) operable by an operator (via 98; see paras. 0020 and 0028) to actuate the actuators of the row units and adjust one of the first and second ground forces independently of the other of the first and second ground forces to thereby adjust the ground forces applied in the first and second zones (see para. 0026).
Regarding claim 3, Rylander discloses an agricultural implement comprising:
a toolbar (including 12);
a first zone control unit (including 74 or alternatively 76, whichever provides a lower pressure, as para. 0026 sets forth 74 and 76 providing two different pressures) configured to supply a first down pressure to a first line (see Fig. 4);
a second zone control unit (including 76 or alternatively 74, whichever provides a greater pressure, as para. 0026 sets forth 74 and 76 providing two different pressures) configured to supply a second down pressure to a second line (see Fig. 4), wherein the second down pressure is greater than the first down pressure (as described above in accordance with para. 0026); and
a plurality of row units (including 16A-16P) mounted along the toolbar for working rows of ground (see Figs. 1 and 2), wherein each row unit comprises:
one or more working devices (including 24) for working the ground (see Fig. 2);
an actuator (including 40) configured to vary a ground force applied by the row unit to the ground (see para. 0018); and
an actuator control unit (including 92) having a supply port configured to route pressure lines to control the actuator and a bypass feature (including the blocked line, causing bypass of the actuator) configured to bypass the actuator;
wherein the first line is connected (via 92) to the supply ports of the actuators in a first group (Group II) of the plurality of row units and the second line is connected (via 92) to the supply ports of the actuators in a second group (Group I) of the plurality of row units.
Regarding claim 4, Rylander discloses the first line (from 74 or alternatively 76) being connected to the bypass features (including the respective blocked lines, blocked by respective 92s, and causing bypass of the respective actuators) configured to bypass the actuators in the second group (Group I) of row units.
Regarding claim 5, Rylander discloses the second line (from 76 or alternatively 74) being connected to the bypass features (including the respective blocked lines, blocked by respective 92s, and causing bypass of the respective actuators) configured to bypass the actuators in the first group (Group II) of row units.
Regarding claim 6, Rylander discloses the first zone control unit (including 74 or alternatively 76, whichever provides a lower pressure, as para. 0026 sets forth 74 and 76 providing two different pressures) including a first pressure control valve configured to adjust the first down pressure (74 and 76 being pressure control valves, configured to adjust the first down pressure in a binary manner, and configured to adjust the first down pressure in a variable manner in conjunction with 92).
Regarding claim 7, Rylander discloses the second zone control unit (including 76 or alternatively 74, whichever provides a greater pressure, as para. 0026 sets forth 74 and 76 providing two different pressures) including a second pressure control valve configured to adjust the second down pressure (74 and 76 being pressure control valves, configured to adjust the second down pressure in a binary manner, and configured to adjust the second down pressure in a variable manner in conjunction with 92).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Frank et al. (US 11,439,056) discloses that the control module may be used to specify a different desired down force to each row unit or groups of row units to more accurately follow a downforce prescription map (see col. 6). Zielke et al. (US 8,380,356) shows a planter with different down force sections (see Fig. 1).
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/5/30/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights