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 .
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-11, drawn to a row crop cultivator row unit comprising two front sweeps and a rear sweep.
Group II, claims 12-15, drawn to a row crop cultivator row unit comprising a sweep.
Group III, claims 16-19, drawn to a row crop cultivator row unit comprising two sweeps.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I, II, and III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a row crop cultivator row unit comprising a sweep attached to a frame, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Evenson (US 5303780 A). Evenson teaches a row crop cultivator row unit (11, Fig. 2) comprising a sweep (16) attached to a frame (12).
During a telephone conversation with Robin Asher on July 9th, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-11. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 12-19 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Evenson (US 5303780 A).
Regarding claim 1, Evenson discloses a row crop cultivator row unit (11, Fig. 2) comprising:
a frame (12);
two front sweeps (16F, 16F) attached to the frame;
a rear sweep (16R), attached to the frame, positioned rearwardly and between the two front sweeps (Fig. 7);
wherein the two front sweeps are uniform in size, each having a maximum width (“STW” of front shovels 16F) identical to the other, and the rear sweep has a maximum width (“STW” of rear shovel 16R) that is larger than the front sweep maximum width (Fig. 7, col. 6 lines 3-10 “These forward shovels 16F are also slightly smaller than the rear shovel 16R. The most rearward shovel 16R is…larger than the other shovels 16F”).
Regarding claim 2, Evenson discloses the row crop cultivator row unit of claim 1, wherein the rear sweep (16R) maximum width is within the range of 1.5 to 6 times larger than the maximum width of the front sweep (16F) (col. 6 lines 13-19 “forward cultivator shovel 16F with a cultivator sweep transverse width STW of 5 to 6 inches…the rear most and largest cultivator shovel 16R, having a shovel transverse width STW of 10 to 12 inches”).
Regarding claim 3, Evenson discloses the row crop cultivator row unit of claim 1, wherein the two front sweeps (16F) are adjacent to each other, aligned spaced apart along an imaginary line running between them, wherein the imaginary line is perpendicular to a direction of travel of the row crop cultivator (see annotated image below).
PNG
media_image1.png
544
1061
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated image of Fig. 2 of Evenson
Regarding claim 9, Evenson discloses the row crop cultivator row unit of claim 1, further comprising a hilling shield (18R) mounted over the rear sweep (16R) (Figs. 4-7, col. 5, lines 28-33).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evenson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Horsch (EP 3818793 A1).
It is noted that all citations to Horsch (EP 3818793 A1) are in reference to the corresponding English-translated document attached by the Examiner under NPL documents.
Regarding claims 4-5, Evenson discloses the row crop cultivator row unit of claim 1, but does not explicitly detail wherein the rear sweep has a height no greater than 25 mm, as per claim 4, or wherein the rear sweep has a height of 19.55 mm, as per claim 5.
In the same area, Horsch discloses a similar sweep blade (10) having a height (A2) of less than 10% of the maximum total width and/or of less than 20 mm (Fig. 3C, para. [0105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the rear sweep of Evenson with a height in the range of less than 10% of its width (i.e. Evenson discloses a rear sweep width of 10 inches, therefore a height of less than 10% would be in the range of 25.4 mm or less), as taught by Horsch, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claims 6-7, Evenson discloses the row crop cultivator row unit of claim 1, but does not explicitly detail wherein the rear sweep has a sweep pitch angle in the range of 0° to 12°, as per claim 6, or wherein the minimum rear sweep pitch angle is 4.5° and the maximum rear sweep pitch angle is 10.5°, as per claim 7.
In the same area, Horsch discloses a similar sweep blade (10) having a sweep pitch angle (V8) between 3° and 10° (Fig. 2C, para. [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the rear sweep of Evenson with a sweep pitch angle between 3° and 10°, as taught by Horsch, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Evenson discloses the row crop cultivator row unit of claim 1, but fails to disclose a damper spring reset attached to the frame.
In the same area, Horsch discloses a similar sweep blade (10) attached to a frame (110) having a damper spring reset (90) (Fig. 2A, para. [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a similar damper spring reset for the sweeps of Evenson, as taught by Horsch, in order to generate a defined preload force to enable the sweeps to overcome obstacles such as stones (Horsch at para. [0079]).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evenson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maas et al. (US 20220210963 A1).
Regarding claims 10-11, Evenson discloses the row crop cultivator row unit of claim 1, but fails to teach a coulter attached to the frame, as per claim 10, wherein the coulter is positioned forwardly with respect to and between the two front sweeps (16F), and in longitudinal alignment with the rear sweep (16R), as per claim 11.
In the same area, Maas discloses a two front sweeps (shares 12 in row 16.1) and a rear sweep (shares 12 in row 16.2) positioned rearwardly of and between the two front sweeps, wherein a coulter (14) is positioned forwardly of and between the two front sweeps and in longitudinal alignment with a rear sweep (Fig. 1, para. [0018] “the share tip…is arranged aligned in the working direction behind the disc tool”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a similar coulter disposed forwardly of the sweeps, as taught by Maas, in order to loosen up soil ahead of the sweeps, thereby diminishing wearing effect and allowing for an increased service life of the soil tillage tools (Maas at para. [0013]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hake et al. (US 20210015021 A1) discloses a tillage implement with leading and trailing coulters. Noonan et al. (US 5881821 A) discloses a sweep assembly and pitch adjustment slot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights