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) filed 9/27/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. The IDS has been placed in the application file, but the information related to these references has not been considered.
Examiner's consideration of the IDS filed 5/29/2026 is limited to a cursory review of the cited references due to the high number of references listed and the breadth of topics covered by the references. If Applicant is aware of particular references or particular portions of the cited references that are particularly pertinent to the claims, Applicant is invited to highlight those references/portions for more thorough consideration by Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the traction vehicle and features thereof set forth in claim 50 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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., "There is disclosed..."). 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).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which Applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 33 recites "a transport state," in lines 15-16 (rather than "the transport state" since a transport state is previously introduced in line 13).
Claim 49 recites "the tool carrying frame section" in line 2 and in line 4 (instead of "the frame section"). Consistent terminology should be used.
Claim 53 recites "... pivoting the laterally outer frame section relative to the laterally inner frame section to pivoting the frame section..." in lines 3-4 (wherein it appears the word "prior" is missing between the words "to" and "pivoting").
Appropriate correction is required.
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 33-54 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. The claims appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with indefinite language and idiomatic errors.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the transport state," in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, claims 34-50 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 33.
Claim 36 sets forth "a first position" and "a second position" of the container assembly along the main frame. However, claim 33 (from which claim 36 depends) previously sets forth "that the container assembly is movable relative to the main frame between first and second longitudinally spaced apart positions along the main frame," in lines 6-8. It is unclear if the first and second positions in claim 36 are the "first and second longitudinally spaced apart positions" in claim 33, or if additional positions are being introduced. As such, the metes and bounds of the positions in claim 36 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 36 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Regarding claims 40 (twice) and 50 (twice), the phrase "such as" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The claims are being further examined as though the limitations following the phrase "such as" are not necessarily required.
Regarding claims 40 (twice), 43, and 50, the phrase "in particular" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are required by the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The claims are being further examined as though the limitations following the phrase "in particular" are not necessarily required.
Regarding claims 41 and 42, the phrase "preferably" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are required by the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The claims are being further examined as though the limitations following the phrase "preferably" are not necessarily required.
Claim 48 recites "wherein a carriage actuator is provided..." in lines 1-2. It is unclear if "a carriage actuator" is part of and required by the claimed device, or if it is merely provided to the claimed device to be used therewith (i.e., in an intended use). As such, the metes and bounds of the agricultural implement in claim 48 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 48 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 49 recites "wherein a section fold actuator is provided..." in lines 1-2. It is unclear if "a section fold actuator" is part of and required by the claimed device, or if it is merely provided to the claimed device to be used therewith (i.e., in an intended use). As such, the metes and bounds of the agricultural implement in claim 49 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 49 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 50 recites "wherein the traction vehicle provides at least one first ground support," in line 3. It is unclear if "at least one first ground support" is part of and required by the claimed device (and more particularly, the traction vehicle), or if it is merely provided to be used with the claimed device (i.e., in an intended use). As such, the metes and bounds of the agricultural equipment in claim 50 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 50 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 51 recites the limitation "the transport state," in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, claims 52-54 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 51.
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 33-35, 47-49, 51, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebbeken et al. (EP 2016816 A2; the text of which hereinafter referred to corresponds to the English translation filed on 9/27/2024) in view of Dreyer (US 3,809,316).
Regarding claim 33, Gebbeken discloses an agricultural implement for distributing at least one product to ground over which the agricultural implement travels, comprising:
a main frame (including 3) extending along a working direction of the agricultural implement,
at least one tool carrying frame section (including or of 27 and 28, and/or including or of frames supporting 31), and
a container assembly (including 6) for the product, said container assembly being movably supported by the main frame such that the container assembly is movable relative to the main frame between first and second longitudinally spaced apart positions (see Figs. 2 and 1, respectively) along the main frame,
wherein a first one (see Fig. 2) of said positions is with a center of gravity of the container assembly positioned within a horizontal area (as selected) defined by the frame section when the agricultural implement is in a working state (see Fig. 2), and
wherein in a second one (see Fig. 1) of said positions, the center of gravity of the container assembly is spaced from said horizontal area when the agricultural implement is in a transport state (see Fig. 1).
Gebbeken also suggests that the frame section is foldable relative to the main frame and pivotable about a first geometric pivot axis that is horizontal and parallel with the working direction (see paras. 0004 and 0017, which describes the implement being folded to be "compact" relative to a wide hopper and "folded-in" so the tools can be next to the hopper, wherein such positioning is simply achieved by the frame section pivoting about a pivot axis that is horizontal and parallel with the working direction). However, Gebbeken does not explicitly disclose the frame section folding and pivoting as claimed, and Gebbeken does not explicitly disclose the container assembly having a width which is 80-100% of a maximum width of the agricultural implement in the transport state. Dreyer teaches an agricultural implement (see Figs. 1-3) for distributing at least one product to ground over which the agricultural implement travels, comprising:
a main frame (including 2) extending along a working direction of the agricultural implement,
a frame section (including 8), and
a container assembly (including 3) for the product,
wherein the frame section is foldable relative to the main frame between a working state (see Fig. 1) and a transport state (see 8' in Fig. 2),
wherein the container assembly has a width which is 80-100% of a maximum width of the agricultural implement in the transport state (see Fig. 2), and
wherein the frame section is pivotable about a first geometric pivot axis (through 7) that is horizontal and parallel with the working direction (to pivot as shown in Fig. 2).
Dreyer is analogous because Dreyer discloses an agricultural implement for distributing a product to the ground, comprising a main frame, a folding frame section, and a container assembly for the product. Additionally, the teachings of Dreyer are pertinent to the particular problem of accessing a container of an agricultural implement in folded-out and folded-in states. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the implement of Gebbeken with the pivoting and corresponding width means as taught by Dreyer in order to improve the pivoting and guidance of the frame section(s). (See Dreyer, cols. 1-2.) Additionally, providing Gebbeken with pivoting as taught by Dreyer is a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the agricultural implement of Gebbeken and the pivoting means of Dreyer) according to known methods to yield predictable results (as taught by Dreyer). See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 34, Gebbeken discloses, in the second one (see Fig. 1) of said positions, the center of gravity of the container assembly (including 6) being positioned forwardly of the frame section (including or of 27 and 28, and/or including or of frames supporting 31), as seen in the working direction (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 35, Gebbeken discloses the container assembly (including 6) being slidably supported by the main frame (sliding along 3 as shown between Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 47, Gebbeken discloses the container assembly (including 6) being supported by a carriage (structure mounting 6 to 3, between 6 and 3) that is slidably supported by the main frame (as shown between Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 48, Gebbeken discloses a carriage actuator (including 42) for controlling the longitudinal position of the carriage relative to the main frame (see paras. 0018 and 0020).
Regarding claim 49, in view of the modification made in relation to claims 33 and 47, Dreyer teaches a section fold actuator (including 11 and 12) for controlling pivoting of the frame section (including 8) about the first geometric pivot axis, said section fold actuator operable along the length of the implement (and thus operable between parts thereof).
Regarding claim 51, Gebbeken discloses a method of operating an agricultural implement for distribution of at least one product to ground over which the agricultural implement travels, the agricultural implement having a main frame (including 6) and at least one tool carrying frame section (including or of 27 and 28, and/or including or of frames supporting 31),
the method comprising moving a container assembly between first and second longitudinally spaced apart positions (see Figs. 2 and 1, respectively) along the main frame,
wherein a first one (see Fig. 2) of said positions is with a center of gravity of the container assembly positioned within a horizontal area (as selected) defined by the frame section when the agricultural implement is in a working state (see Fig. 2),
wherein, in a second one (see Fig. 1) of said positions, the center of gravity of the container assembly is spaced from said horizontal area (see Fig. 1).
Gebbeken also suggests that the frame section is foldable relative to the main frame and pivots about a first geometric pivot axis that is horizontal and parallel with the working direction (see paras. 0004 and 0017, which describes the implement being folded to be "compact" relative to a wide hopper and "folded-in" so the tools can be next to the hopper, wherein such positioning is simply achieved by the frame section pivoting about a pivot axis that is horizontal and parallel with the working direction). However, Gebbeken does not explicitly disclose the frame section pivoting as claimed, and Gebbeken does not explicitly disclose the container assembly having a width which is 80-100% of a maximum width of the agricultural implement in the transport state. Dreyer teaches a method of operating an agricultural implement (see Figs. 1-3) for distributing at least one product to ground over which the agricultural implement travels,
wherein the agricultural implement comprises:
a main frame (including 2) extending along a working direction of the agricultural implement,
a frame section (including 8), and
a container assembly (including 3) for the product,
wherein the frame section is foldable relative to the main frame between a working state (see Fig. 1) and a transport state (see 8' in Fig. 2), and
wherein the container assembly has a width which is 80-100% of a maximum width of the agricultural implement in the transport state (see Fig. 2), and
wherein the method comprises pivoting the frame section about a first geometric pivot axis (through 7) that is horizontal and parallel with the working direction (as shown in Fig. 2).
Dreyer is analogous because Dreyer discloses a method of operating an agricultural implement for distributing a product to the ground, comprising a main frame, a folding frame section, and a container assembly for the product. Additionally, the teachings of Dreyer are pertinent to the particular problem of accessing a container of an agricultural implement in folded-out and folded-in states. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Gebbeken with the pivoting and corresponding width means as taught by Dreyer in order to improve the pivoting and guidance of the frame section(s). (See Dreyer, cols. 1-2.) Additionally, providing Gebbeken with pivoting as taught by Dreyer is a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the method of Gebbeken and the pivoting of Dreyer) according to known methods to yield predictable results (as taught by Dreyer). See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 52, Gebbeken discloses, in the second one (see Fig. 1) of said positions, the center of gravity of the container assembly (including 6) being positioned forwardly of the frame section (including or of 27 and 28, and/or including or of frames supporting 31), as seen in the working direction (see Fig. 1).
Claims 36-38 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebbeken in view of Dreyer as applied to claims 33 and 51 above, and further in view of Rauch et al. (DE 4430155 A1)
Regarding claim 36, neither Gebbeken nor Dreyer explicitly discloses a distribution system as claimed. However, Rauch teaches an agricultural implement comprising a distribution system for pneumatic distribution of product from a container assembly (including 18) to a plurality of product outlets (at 15) arranged on a frame section (including 17 and 35),
wherein said distribution system comprises at least one first channel coupling (including 38) connected to the frame section and at least one second channel coupling (including 48) arranged fixedly relative to the container assembly,
whereby the first and second channel couplings are connected to each other when the container assembly is in a first position (see solid lines in Fig. 1) along the main frame and disconnected from each other when the container assembly is in a second position (see broken/dashed lines in Fig. 1) along the main frame, said second position spaced from the first position.
Rauch is analogous because Rauch discloses an agricultural implement for distributing a product to the ground, comprising a main frame, a tool carrying frame section, a container assembly for the product, and a distribution system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with distribution means as taught by Rauch in order to for conveying the product to be distributed to the ground. Additionally, providing the above combination with distribution means as taught by Rauch is a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the implement of the above combination and the distribution means of Rauch) according to known methods to yield predictable results (as taught by Rauch). See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 37, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 36, Rauch teaches the channel couplings (including 38 and including 48) being connectable by a relative linear motion of the container assembly (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 38, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 36, Rauch teaches channel couplings (including 38 and including 48) that are connectable by a relative pivoting motion of the frame section (including 17 and 35) relative to the container assembly (including 18; see Fig. 4, wherein 35 and 18 are capable of being pivoted relative to one another to align as shown).
Regarding claim 54, neither Gebbeken nor Dreyer explicitly discloses connecting or disconnecting a distribution system as claimed. However, Rauch teaches a method of operating an agricultural implement, wherein the agricultural implement comprises a distribution system (see Figs. 1-4) for pneumatic distribution (via 32) of product from a container assembly (including 18) to a plurality of product outlets (at 15) arranged on a frame section (including 17 and 35),
wherein a first channel connector (including 48), connecting to an upstream portion of the distribution system, is movable with the container assembly, and
wherein a second channel connector (including 38), connecting to a downstream portion of the distribution system, is provided on one of the main frame and the frame section,
wherein the method comprises connecting or disconnecting said first and second channel connectors through the movement of the container assembly relative to the main frame and/or relative to the frame section (see Fig. 1).
Rauch is analogous because Rauch discloses a method of operating an agricultural implement for distributing a product to the ground, comprising a main frame, a tool carrying frame section, a container assembly for the product, and a distribution system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with distribution means, and corresponding connecting or disconnecting thereof, as taught by Rauch for conveying the product to be distributed to the ground. Additionally, providing the above combination with distribution means as taught by Rauch is a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the method of the above combination and the distribution means of Rauch) according to known methods to yield predictable results (as taught by Rauch). See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claims 39 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebbeken in view of Dreyer as applied to claims 33 and 51 above, and further in view of Blunier et al. (US 10,104,825)
Regarding claim 39, neither Gebbeken nor Dreyer explicitly discloses the frame section comprising a laterally inner frame section which is pivotably connected to a laterally outer frame section. However, Blunier teaches an agricultural implement, comprising a tool carrying frame section (including 37 and 39) comprising a laterally inner frame section (39) which is pivotably connected to a laterally outer frame section (37).
Blunier is analogous because Blunier discloses an agricultural implement for distributing a product to the ground, comprising a main frame, a tool carrying frame section, and a container assembly for the product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with inner and outer frame means as taught by Blunier for a wide span. (See Blunier, col. 4, lines 6-21.) Additionally, providing the above combination with the inner and outer frame means of Blunier is a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the implement of the above combination and the inner and outer frame means of Blunier) according to known methods to yield predictable results (as taught by Blunier). See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 53, neither Gebbeken nor Dreyer explicitly discloses the frame section comprising a laterally inner frame section which is pivotably connected to a laterally outer frame section, and wherein the method comprises pivoting the laterally outer frame section relative to the laterally inner frame section prior to pivoting the frame section about the horizontal geometric pivot axis. However, Blunier teaches a method of operating an agricultural implement, wherein the agricultural implement comprises a tool carrying frame section (including 37 and 39), wherein the frame section comprises a laterally inner frame section (39) which is pivotably connected to a laterally outer frame section (37), and wherein the method comprises pivoting the laterally outer frame section relative to the laterally inner frame section prior to pivoting the frame section about the horizontal geometric pivot axis (see Fig. 3; also, see col. 3, lines 41-45).
Blunier is analogous because Blunier discloses a method of operating an agricultural implement for distributing a product to the ground, comprising a main frame, a tool carrying frame section, and a container assembly for the product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with inner and outer frame means and pivoting thereof as taught by Blunier for a wide span. (See Blunier, col. 4, lines 6-21.) Additionally, providing the above combination with the pivoting of inner and outer frame means as taught by Blunier is a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the method of the above combination and the pivoting of the inner and outer frame means in Blunier) according to known methods to yield predictable results (as taught by Blunier). See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claims 40-46 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebbeken in view of Dreyer as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Audette (US 7,430,972).
Regarding claim 40, neither Gebbeken nor Dreyer explicitly discloses spaced ground supports as claimed. However, Audette teaches an agricultural implement, comprising:
a main frame (including or of 12) extending along a working direction of the agricultural implement,
at least one tool carrying frame section (including 41a and/or 41b), and
at least one first ground support (including 16) and at least one second ground support (including 18 and/or 64),
wherein the first and second ground supports are longitudinally spaced apart such that the frame section is receivable longitudinally between said first and second ground supports when the agricultural implement is in the transport state (see Figs. 6 and 11).
Audette is analogous because Audette discloses an agricultural implement comprising a main frame, a tool carrying frame section, and first and second ground supports that are longitudinally spaced apart. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with ground support means as taught by Audette for better weight distribution and traction. (See Audette, col. 6, lines 54-61.) Additionally, providing the above combination with the ground support means of Audette is a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the implement of the above combination and the ground support means of Audette) according to known methods to yield predictable results (as taught by Audette). See MPEP § 2143(I)(A)
Regarding claim 41, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 40, Audette teaches the first ground support comprising at least one pair of wheels (including 16).
Regarding claim 42, in view of the modification made in relation to claims 40 and 41, Audette teaches the at least one of pair of wheels of the first ground support comprising coaxially arranged wheels (including 16), which are laterally spaced from each other (see Figs. 2 and 9-11).
Regarding claim 43, in view of the modification made in relation to claims 40 and 41, Audette teaches an auxiliary frame (including structure connecting 64 to 72), which is movably connected to the main frame (at 72), and which supports the second ground support (including 64), such that the second ground support is movable relative to the main frame (see col. 5, lines 4-11).
Regarding claim 44, in view of the modification made in relation to claims 40, 41, and 43, Audette teaches the second ground support (including 64) being movable relative to the main frame between at least two spaced apart positions as seen in the working direction (as the auxiliary frame pivots about 72).
Regarding claim 45, in view of the modification made in relation to claims 40, 41, and 43, Audette teaches the second ground support (including 64) being movable relative to the main frame between at least two spaced apart positions as seen in a height direction (as the auxiliary frame pivots about 72).
Regarding claim 46, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 40, Audette teaches wherein the second ground support (including 18) being steerable (as 18 is/are pivoting and thus capable of having its/their course directed by the direction in which it/they are towed).
Regarding claim 50, Gebbeken also discloses an agricultural equipment comprising a traction vehicle and an agricultural implement as set forth above. Neither Gebbeken nor Dreyer explicitly discloses an agricultural equipment having spaced apart ground supports as claimed. However, Audette teaches an agricultural equipment comprising a traction vehicle (including 68) and an agricultural implement,
wherein the agricultural implement comprises a tool carrying frame section (including 41a and/or 41b),
wherein the traction vehicle comprises at least one first ground support (directly labeled 68 in Fig. 12), and wherein the agricultural implement comprises at least one second ground support (including 16), and
wherein the first and second ground supports are longitudinally spaced apart such that the frame section is receivable longitudinally between said first and second ground supports when the agricultural implement is in a transport state (see Figs. 5 and 6 in conjunction with Fig. 12).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Pool et al. (US 2,680,624), Borgmann et al. (US 9,258,939), and Blum et al. (US 11,602,097) each teach an agricultural implement having a container assembly movably supported by a main frame.
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/6/24/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights