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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-13, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hudgins (6,415,873).
Regarding claims 1, 8-9, 12 and 17, Hudgins discloses a strip tillage implement comprising:
a toolbar assembly comprising:
a central toolbar section comprising a central toolbar, a first central
frame member, and a second central frame member coupled together to form a
central truss structure (see annotated figure below), the first central frame member being spaced apart from the central toolbar along a fore-aft direction, the second central frame member being spaced apart from the central toolbar along the fore-aft direction and a vertical direction, the second central frame member being spaced apart from
the first central frame member in the vertical direction (when in a position between the position shown in Figures 4 and 5 as it moves from a working to transport position); and
a wing toolbar section (inner and outer wing sections shown in Figure 1) pivotably coupled to the central toolbar section such that the wing toolbar section is pivotable (at 48) relative to the central toolbar section between a working position and a transport position, the wing toolbar section comprising a wing toolbar and a wing frame member coupled together to form a wing truss structure (see annotated figure below), the wing frame member being spaced apart from the wing toolbar along both the fore-aft direction and the vertical direction (when in a position between the position shown in Figures 4 and 5 as it moves from a working to transport position);
a plurality of strip tillage row units (58) supported on the central toolbar, inner wing toolbar and the outer wing toolbar
PNG
media_image1.png
315
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Central toolbar)][AltContent: textbox (2nd central frame)][AltContent: textbox (1st central frame)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Wing Toolbar)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Wing Frame)]a tilted pivot joint (52) pivotably coupling the outer wing toolbar section to the inner wing toolbar section such that the outer wing toolbar section is pivotable about a tilted pivot axis defined by the tilted pivot joint relative to the inner wing toolbar section between an outer wing working position and an outer wing transport position, the tilted pivot axis extending at a non zero angle relative to both the vertical and the fore aft direction (when in the position between the position shown in Figures 4 and 5 as it moves from a working to transport position)
Regarding claims 7 and 19, the wing toolbar section is pivotably coupled to the central toolbar section about a horizontal pivot axis (48) (in position of Figure 4).
Regarding claims 10 and 15, Hudgins discloses a wheel (54) and a wheel support (52) fixed to the wing toolbar proximate the tilted pivot joint, the wheel support having a fixed length between the wing toolbar section and the wheel such that the wheel is at a fixed distance relative tot eh wing toolbar section.
Regarding claims 11 and 16, the wheel (54) is forward of the outer wing toolbar section along the fore aft direction when the outer wing toolbar section is in the outer wing working position (figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, the outer wing toolbar section is pivotable about the tilted pivot axis such that the outer wing toolbar section is forward of the inner wing toolbar section when the outer wing toolbar section is in the outer wing transport position (Figure 6).
Regarding claim 18, the central toolbar and the first central frame member extend parallel to and along a lateral direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudgins (6,415,873).
Regarding claim 6, Hudgins discloses the invention as described above but fails to disclose that the cross section of the wing toolbar is larger than across section of the wing frame member. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a wing toolbar that is larger than the wing frame member, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 14, Hudgins disclose the invention as described above, but fails to disclose that the toolbar members extend coaxially instead of being angled. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize coaxial toolbar/frame members since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudgins (6,415,873) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above and further in view of Long et al. (5,358,055).
Regarding claim 20, Hudgins discloses the strip till implement as described above but fails to disclose a method including a control system. Like Hudgins, Long et al. also discloses a tillage implement with a toolbar and wing members. Unlike Hudgins, Long discloses a control system utilizing actuators for moving different sections of the toolbar into and out of working positions that changes the width of the working portion of the toolbar. 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 control system to control the pivoting of the wing members into and out of a working position to vary the working width of the toolbar frame of Hudgins as taught by Long et al. as the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)) as it would allow the frame to work narrower sections of land.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 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. Hiedeman (11,627,694) discloses a toolbar with a stacked truss frame, but does not include an additional toolbar member.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jamie L McGowan whose telephone number is (571)272-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00-5:00 CST.
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, Chris 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.
/JAMIE L MCGOWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights