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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 18, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-5, 10-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fischer (USP 3,208,535).
Regarding claim 1: Fischer discloses an agricultural implement (as seen in figures 1 and 2, generally 10) mountable to a towing vehicle (as seen in figure 1, “tractor 11”; also, column 2, lines 5-7), the agricultural implement comprising:
a main mounting assembly (as seen in figures 1 and 2, at 20) configured to be mountable to the towing vehicle (as seen in figures 1 and 2, via 17);
a toolbar (as seen in figures 1 and 2, at 22) slidably attached to the main mounting assembly (column 2, lines 20-29);
a plurality of row units (as seen in figure 2, area of 49 and 50) mounted on the toolbar;
a wand guidance system (as seen in figures 3-8) mounted on a selected one of the plurality of row units (as seen in figure 2, via 54), wherein the wand guidance system is configured to sense a position of the selected row unit relative to a first of a plurality of crop rows and generate a control signal based on the position of the selected row unit relative to the first crop row (column 3, lines 41-59); and
a control unit (as seen in figure 9) configured to adjust a lateral position of the toolbar relative to the main mounting assembly based on the control signal (column 3, lines 27-51).
Regarding claims 2 and 3: Fischer discloses the agricultural implement of claim 1. Further, Fischer discloses wherein the wand guidance system comprises a first sensor wand (as seen in figure 2, at 54) configured to engage the first crop row when the selected row unit is not in a preferred position relative to the first crop row and wherein the selected row unit is in the preferred position when it is centered between the first crop row and a second one of the plurality of crop rows adjacent the first crop row (column 3, lines 27-59).
Regarding claims 4 and 5: Fischer discloses the agricultural implement of claim 3. Further, Fischer discloses wherein the wand guidance system further comprises a second sensor wand (as seen in figure 2, at 56) configured to engage the second crop row when the selected row unit is not in a second preferred position relative to the adjacent crop row and wherein the selected row unit is in the second preferred position when it is centered between the first crop row and the second crop row (column 3, lines 27-59).
Regarding claim 10: Fischer discloses the agricultural implement of claim 1. Further, Fischer discloses wherein the wand guidance system further comprises a crop deflector (as seen in figure 3, at 53) mounted between the wand guidance system and the towing vehicle (as seen in figure 1).
Regarding claim 11: Fischer discloses an agricultural implement (as seen in figures 1 and 2, generally 10) mountable to a towing vehicle (as seen in figure 1, “tractor 11”; also, column 2, lines 5-7), the agricultural implement comprising:
a main mounting assembly (as seen in figures 1 and 2, at 20) configured to be mountable to the towing vehicle (as seen in figures 1 and 2, via 17);
a toolbar (as seen in figures 1 and 2, at 22) slidably attached to the main mounting assembly (column 2, lines 20-29);
a plurality of row units (as seen in figure 2, area of 49 and 50) mounted on the toolbar;
a wand guidance system (as seen in figures 3-8) comprising a first sensor wand (as seen in figure 2, at 54) having a contact point, wherein the contact point is adjacent to a selected one of the plurality of row units, wherein the wand guidance system is configured to sense a position of the selected row unit relative to a first of a plurality of crop rows and generate a control signal based on the position of the selected row unit relative to the first crop row (column 3, lines 41-59); and
a control unit (as seen in figure 9) configured to adjust a lateral position of the toolbar relative to the main mounting assembly based on the control signal (column 3, lines 27-51).
Regarding claims 12 and 13: Fischer discloses the agricultural implement of claim 11. Further, Fischer discloses wherein the first sensor wand (as seen in figure 2, at 54) configured to engage the first crop row when the selected row unit is not in a preferred position relative to the first crop row and wherein the selected row unit is in the preferred position when it is centered between the first crop row and a second one of the plurality of crop rows adjacent the first crop row (column 3, lines 27-59).
Regarding claims 14 and 15: Fischer discloses the agricultural implement of claim 13. Further, Fischer discloses wherein the wand guidance system further comprises a second sensor wand (as seen in figure 2, at 56) configured to engage the second crop row when the selected row unit is not in a second preferred position relative to the adjacent crop row and wherein the selected row unit is in the second preferred position when it is centered between the first crop row and the second crop row (column 3, lines 27-59).
Regarding claim 20: Fischer discloses the agricultural implement of claim 11. Further, Fischer discloses wherein the wand guidance system further comprises a crop deflector (as seen in figure 3, at 53) mounted between the wand guidance system and the towing vehicle (as seen in figure 1).
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.
Claims 6-8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (USP 3,208,535) in view of Orthman (USP 5,207,739).
Regarding claims 6-8: Fischer discloses the agricultural implement of claim 2 as discussed above but fails to show the use of centering springs and a rotational sensing means. However, Orthman teaches that it is well known to employ such features in concert with a guidance system of a towing vehicle. Orthman discloses a guidance system (as seen in figures 1-10) having a centering spring assembly (as seen in figure 9, at 66) provided to resiliently return respective first and second sensing rods (as seen in figure 9, at 16 and 86) as well as a rotational sensing means (as seen in figures 9 and 10, at 38). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Fischer with teachings of Orthman since it would be a simple substitution of one known element (the electronic sensing means of Fischer) for another (the tactile means of Orthman) to obtain the predictable results of a sensing means better suited for a specific environment, absent any showing to the contrary.
Regarding claims 16-18: Fischer discloses the agricultural implement of claim 12 as discussed above but fails to show the use of centering springs and a rotational sensing means. However, Orthman teaches that it is well known to employ such features in concert with a guidance system of a towing vehicle. Orthman discloses a guidance system (as seen in figures 1-10) having a centering spring assembly (as seen in figure 9, at 66) provided to resiliently return respective first and second sensing rods (as seen in figure 9, at 16 and 86) as well as a rotational sensing means (as seen in figures 9 and 10, at 38). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Fischer with teachings of Orthman since it would be a simple substitution of one known element (the electronic sensing means of Fischer) for another (the tactile means of Orthman) to obtain the predictable results of a sensing means better suited for a specific environment, absent any showing to the contrary.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (USP 3,208,535) in view of Sukup (USP 5,224,551).
Regarding claim 9: Fischer discloses the agricultural implement of claim 2 as discussed above but fails to show the use of a turnbuckle. However, Sukup teaches that it is well known to employ such a feature in concert with a towing vehicle. Sukup discloses (as seen in figures 1-7) the towing vehicle having a turnbuckle (as seen in figures 5 and 7, at 154) employed as a generic adjustment means on the vehicle. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Fischer with teachings of Sukup since it would be a simple matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable results of a more easily adjustable sensing device
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, absent any showing to the contrary.
Regarding claim 19: Fischer discloses the agricultural implement of claim 12 as discussed above but fails to show the use of a turnbuckle. However, Sukup teaches that it is well known to employ such a feature in concert with a towing vehicle. Sukup discloses (as seen in figures 1-7) the towing vehicle having a turnbuckle (as seen in figures 5 and 7, at 154) employed as a generic adjustment means on the vehicle. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Fischer with teachings of Sukup since it would be a simple matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable results of a more easily adjustable sensing device
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, absent any showing to the contrary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Winter (USP 4,463,811) discloses a laterally moveable frame structure on a towed vehicle and employing sensing wands.
Ernst (USP 4,060,254) discloses the state of the art implement alignment hitch device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT ERIC PEZZUTO whose telephone number is (703)756-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at 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 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.
/ROBERT E PEZZUTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights