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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(claim 1, lines 12-13) “a non-working or a transport mode” should be changed to either “a non-working or transport mode”, or “a non-working mode or a transport mode”.
(claim 7, line 1) “The residue management tool” should be changed to “The residue management tool of claim 6”.
(claim 7, line 2) the claim needs to end with a period.
(claim 8, line 1) “The residue management tool” should be changed to “The residue management tool of claim 6”.
(claim 9, line 2) “it” should be changed to “the hydraulic cylinder”.
(claim 9, line 3) “it” should be changed to “the hydraulic cylinder”.
(claim 9, line 4) “its non-working or transport mode” should be changed to “the non-working or transport mode”.
Appropriate correction 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 rotatable cutting or clearing device…operative to cut or clear the residue on the ground” in claim 1, “a biasing device operative to exert a downward bias force…and to exert an upward force” in claim 1, “a depth restraint operative to prevent the rotatable cutting or clearing device from over-penetrating the ground” in claim 6, “a first dispensing opener for dispensing a first material to a first depth in the ground” in claim 12, “a ground compressing and gauging member” in claim 12, “a rotatable cutting or clearing device” in claim 12, “a first biasing assembly operative to exert a downward bias force…and to exert an upward force” in claim 12, “a second biasing assembly operative to exert a downward bias force…and to exert an upward force” in claim 12, “a depth restraint operative to prevent the rotatable cutting or clearing device from over-penetrating the ground” in claim 17, and “a second dispensing opener for dispensing a second material to a second depth in the ground” in claim 21.
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.
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 4, 15 and 16 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.
Claims 4 and 15 recite the limitation "the residue management tool is angled inwardly" in line 2. It is unclear what the residue management tool is angled inwardly relative to in the claim language. Clarification is needed.
Claim 16 is rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 12-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beaujot et al. (US 2018/0242512).
As concerns claim 12, Beaujot shows a ground opening implement (Fig. 3A) mountable to a frame of a seeder is provided, comprising: a ground opener assembly (2) comprising an elongated main member (7) having a first end adapted to be pivotally mountable directly or indirectly to the frame and a second end (Fig. 3A); a first dispensing opener (16) for dispensing a first material to a first depth in the ground mounted to the elongated main member between the first and second ends (Fig. 3A); a ground compressing and gauging member (12) mounted to the second end of the elongate main member (Fig. 3A); a residue management tool (150) comprising a rotatable cutting or clearing device (162) and adapted to be pivotally mountable directly or indirectly to the frame such that the rotatable cutting or clearing device is positioned in front of the first dispensing opener (Fig. 3A); a first biasing assembly (166) operative to exert a downward bias force on the residue management tool to engage the rotatable cutting or clearing device with the ground when in a working mode (Fig. 3A) and to exert an upward force on the residue management tool to disengage the rotatable cutting or clearing device with the ground when in a non-working or transport mode (Fig. 4A); and a second biasing assembly (76) operative to exert a downward bias force on the first dispensing opener to engage the first dispensing opener with the ground when in a working mode (Fig. 3A & 4A) and to exert an upward force on the first dispensing opener to disengage the first dispensing opener with the ground when in a transport mode (Fig. 5); whereby the depths of both the residue management tool and the first dispensing opener in the ground are controlled by the ground compressing member (Fig. 3A).
As concerns claim 13, Beaujot shows wherein the residue management tool is pivotally attached to a plate (3).
As concerns claim 14, Beaujot shows wherein the plate (3) is angled less than 90 degrees relative to the ground (Fig. 3A).
As concerns claim 15, Beaujot shows wherein the plate (3) is angled about 80 degrees relative to the ground so that the residue management tool is angled inwardly (Fig. 3A).
As concerns claim 16, Beaujot shows whereby the rotatable cutting or clearing device remains perpendicular to the ground (Fig. 3A, 4A & 5).
As concerns claim 17, Beaujot shows wherein the residue management tool further comprises a depth restraint (70) operative to prevent the rotatable cutting or clearing device from over-penetrating the ground (Fig. 3A).
As concerns claim 18, Beaujot shows wherein the plate is attached to a hanging bracket (upper portion of hanging bracket 3) that is adapted to attach to the frame (Fig. 3A).
As concerns claim 19, Beaujot shows wherein the rotatable cutting or clearing device is a disc (162) or a rake.
As concerns claim 20, Beaujot shows whereby when the residue management tool is in the non-working or transport mode (Fig. 4A), the residue management tool is positioned to the side of the elongated main member (Fig. 2C & 2D; paragraph 0047).
As concerns claim 21, Beaujot shows wherein the ground opener assembly further comprises a second dispensing opener (36) for dispensing a second material to a second depth in the ground mounted to the elongated main member at the second end such that the second dispensing opener is positioned between the first dispensing opener and the ground compressing member (Fig. 3A).
As concerns claim 22, Beaujot shows wherein the second biasing assembly is operative to exert a downward bias force on both the first and second dispensing openers to engage both the first and second dispensing openers with the ground when in a working mode (Fig. 3A & 4A) and to exert an upward force on both the first and second dispensing openers to disengage the first and second dispensing openers with the ground when in a transport mode (Fig. 5).
As concerns claim 23, Beaujot shows wherein the ground compressing member (12) also controls the depth of the second dispensing opener (Fig. 3A).
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaujot et al. and further in view of Martin et al. (US 2019/0230842).
As concerns claim 1, Beaujot shows a residue management tool (150) mountable to a frame of a seeder for cutting or clearing residue on the ground (Fig. 3A), comprising: a parallel link (152a, 152b) having a proximal end and a distal end (Fig. 3A), the proximal end of the parallel link adapted to be directly or indirectly pivotally attached to the frame (Fig. 3A); a rotatable cutting or clearing device (162) operably mounted to the distal end of the parallel link and operative to cut or clear the residue on the ground (Fig. 3A); and a biasing device (166) operative to exert a downward bias force on the pivotable parallel link of the residue management tool to engage the rotatable cutting or clearing device with the ground when in a working mode (Fig. 3A) and to exert an upward force on the parallel linkage of the residue management tool to disengage the rotatable cutting or clearing device with the ground when in a non-working or transport mode (Fig. 4A). Beaujot discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the parallel link comprises upper and lower substantially parallel arm members. Martin teaches a parallel link (311, 351) comprising upper and lower substantially parallel arm members (330/340, 370/380); a rotatable cutting or clearing device (500) operably mounted (via 400) to a distal end of the parallel link (311, 351); and a biasing device (301) operative to exert a downward bias force on the pivotable parallel link to engage the rotatable cutting or clearing device with the ground when in a working mode (Fig. 8 & 10) and to exert an upward force on the parallel linkage to disengage the rotatable cutting or clearing device with the ground when in a non-working or transport mode (Fig. 9 & 11). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Beaujot, as taught by Martin, to include upper and lower substantially parallel arm members for the expected benefit of allowing the rotatable cutting or clearing device to move vertically up and down without changing the angle between the rotatable cutting or clearing device and the ground (Fig. 10 & 11; paragraph 0044). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using upper and lower substantially parallel arm members for the parallel link would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the expected result of this configuration improves versatility/adaptability/efficiency of the residue management tool design.
As concerns claim 2, Beaujot shows wherein the proximal end of the parallel link is pivotally attached to a plate (3).
As concerns claim 3, Beaujot shows wherein the plate (3) is angled less than 90 degrees relative to the ground (Fig. 3A).
As concerns claim 4, Beaujot shows wherein the plate (3) is angled about 80 degrees relative to the ground so that the residue management tool is angled inwardly (Fig. 3A).
As concerns claim 5, Beaujot shows whereby, when the residue management tool is in the working, non-working or transport mode, the rotatable cutting or clearing device is perpendicular to the ground (Fig. 3A, 4A & 5).
As concerns claim 6, Beaujot shows a depth restraint (70) operative to prevent the rotatable cutting or clearing device from over-penetrating the ground (Fig. 3A).
As concerns claim 7, Beaujot shows wherein the depth restraint is a chain (70) which is attached to lower arm member (Fig. 3A).
As concerns claim 8, Beaujot shows wherein the depth restraint is a gauge wheel (12).
As concerns claim 9, Beaujot shows wherein the biasing device is a hydraulic cylinder (166) and whereby when the hydraulic cylinder is fully extended, the hydraulic cylinder exerts the downward bias force (Fig. 3A) and when the hydraulic cylinder is fully retracted, the hydraulic cylinder allows the residue management tool to stop in the non-working or transport mode (Fig. 4A).
As concerns claim 10, Beaujot shows wherein the plate is attached to a hanging bracket (upper portion of hanging bracket 3) that is adapted to attach to the frame (Fig. 3A).
As concerns claim 11, Beaujot shows wherein the rotatable cutting or clearing device is a disc (162) or a rake.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sivinski et al. (US 2021/0386008) shows a link having a proximal end and a distal end, the link comprising upper and lower arm members, the proximal end of the link adapted to be directly or indirectly pivotally attached to a frame; a rotatable cutting or clearing device operably mounted to the distal end of the link and operative to cut or clear the residue on the ground; and a biasing device operative to exert a downward bias force on the pivotable link of the residue management tool to engage the rotatable cutting or clearing device with the ground when in a working mode and to exert an upward force on the linkage of the residue management tool to disengage the rotatable cutting or clearing device with the ground when in a non-working or transport mode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights