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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “In one aspect” is an implied phrase. 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).
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 5, “wherein a diverging gap is defined between the center coulter and the knife increases…” is awkward and unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-6, 9, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hammes 9,986,671.
Independent Claim 1: Hammes discloses an agricultural implement, comprising:
a row unit (110) including a frame (114);
a center coulter (112) operably coupled with the frame; and
a knife (116) operably coupled with the frame and positioned aft of the center coulter, wherein a diverging gap is defined between the center coulter and the knife increases in width in a forward/aft direction as a location along the knife moves upward (as seen in Fig. 9 and 11-12), as per claim 1.
Dependent Claims 2-6, 9: Hammes further discloses wherein the center coulter (112) includes a peripheral blade extending radially outwardly from a hub (as seen in Fig. 6), as per claim 2;
wherein the peripheral blade (112) extends vertically below the knife (116, as seen in Fig. 6), as per claim 3;
a knife bracket (210) operably coupled with the frame (114) and the knife (116), the knife bracket defining one or more retainment openings (218, 220), as per claim 4;
wherein the knife (116) defines one or more receiving holes (182, 184, 186) that correspond to the one or more retainment openings (218, 220) defined by the knife bracket (210), as per claim 5;
wherein the one or more retainment openings (218, 220) include a lower retainment opening (220) and an upper retainment opening (218) relative to a vertical direction, as per claim 6;
a first side coulter (one of the pair of disks 118) operably coupled with the frame (114), the first side coulter positioned aft of the knife (116) and on a first side (say, the left) of a longitudinal axis of the row unit (110); and
a second side coulter (the other of the pair of disks 118) operably coupled with the frame, the second side coulter positioned aft of the knife and on a second side (the right) of the longitudinal axis of the row unit, as per claim 9.
Independent Claim 12: Hammes discloses an implement (110) used by a method of operating an agricultural implement, the method comprising:
cutting through a portion of a field with a center coulter (112);
fracturing the portion of the field with a knife (116) causing a trench; and
forming a fracture zone with one or more side coulters (118, as seen in Figs. 8-9), the fracture zone having a lateral width that is greater than the lateral width of the trench (the lateral width of the side coulters is wider than that of the knife as seen in Fig. 7, it naturally follows then that the fracture zone will have a greater width than the trench), as per claim 12.
Dependent Claims 13-15: Hammes further discloses wherein the fracture zone (created by 118) has a geometric shape that is varied from a geometric shape of the trench (created by 116, given that the side coulters and knife have different shapes and sizes, it naturally follows that the fracture zone and trench will have different geometric shapes), as per claim 13;
depositing an agricultural material (via 189) into the trench (created by knife 116) upstream of the one or more side coulters (118, as seen in Fig. 6), as per claim 14;
altering the fracture zone (created by 118) with a strip conditioner (120), as per claim 15.
Independent Claim 16: Hammes discloses a row unit (110) for an agricultural implement, the row unit comprising:
a frame (114);
a knife (116) operably coupled with the frame;
a first side coulter (one of the pair of disks 118) operably coupled with the frame, the first side coulter positioned aft of the knife and on a first side (the left side) of a longitudinal axis of the row unit; and
a second side coulter (the other of the pair of disks 118) operably coupled with the frame, the second side coulter positioned aft of the knife and on a second side (the right side) of the longitudinal axis of the row unit, as per claim 16.
Dependent Claims 17-20: Hammes further discloses a center coulter (112) operably coupled with the frame (114) and positioned forward of the knife (116), as per claim 17;
wherein a diverging gap is defined between the center coulter (112) and the knife (116), the diverging gap increasing in width in a forward/aft direction as a location along the knife moves upward (seen in Figs. 6 and 11-12), as per claim 18;
wherein the knife (116) forms a trench in a portion of a ground, and wherein the first side coulter and the second side coulter (both of 118), in combination, form a fracture zone, the fracture zone having a lateral width that is greater than the trench (the lateral width of the side coulters is wider than that of the knife as seen in Fig. 7, it naturally follows then that the fracture zone will have a greater width than the trench), as per claim 19;
wherein the first side coulter and the second side coulter (both of 118) are non-parallel to the longitudinal axis of the row unit (110, as seen in Fig. 7), as per claim 20.
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) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammes in view of Dietrich, Sr. 6,178,900.
Dependent Claims 7-8: The implement is disclosed as applied above. However, Hammes fails to disclose wherein a diameter of the lower retainment opening is varied from a diameter of the upper retainment opening, as per claim 7;
wherein a pivot bolt is positioned through the lower retainment opening and a shear bolt is positioned through the upper retainment opening, as per claim 8.
Dietrich discloses a similar implement knife wherein a diameter of the lower retainment opening (17, Fig. 5) is varied from a diameter of the upper retainment opening (18), as per claim 7;
wherein a pivot bolt (not shown, see col. 6, lns. 23-25) is positioned through the lower retainment opening (17) and a shear bolt (also not shown, see col. 6, lns. 23-26) is positioned through the upper retainment opening (18), as per claim 8.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Dietrich’s knife attachment on the implement of Hammes in order to reduce damage to the knife by allowing it to pivot out of the way of struck objects.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammes in view of Anderson US 2016/0088790 A1.
Dependent Claim 11: The implement is disclosed as applied above. However, Hammes fails to disclose wherein the first side coulter and the second side coulter are each cambered relative to a lateral axis of the row unit, as per claim 11.
Anderson discloses similar side coulters (26) wherein the first side coulter (the left coulter 26) and the second side coulter (the right coulter 26) are each cambered relative to a lateral axis of the row unit (16, see Fig. 5), as per claim 11.
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 side coulter camber disclosed by Anderson on the side coulters of Hammes in order to enable effective soil movement over the trench and agricultural material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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. With the side coulters toed-in, they essentially act as an opening tool, pushing soil out and to the sides. This would result in three opening tools in a row: the center coulter, the knife, and then the toed-in side coulters. The prior art does not disclose this specific arrangement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTOL-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alicia M. Torres whose telephone number is 571-272-6997. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-6997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina R. Fulton, can be reached at (571) 272-7376.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the group receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-3600. The fax number for this Group is 571-273-8300.
/Alicia Torres/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 September 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights