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 § 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 38 and 40-41 is 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. Claim 38 recites, “at least one pivot mounting bolt that defines a vertical axis that is distal from the at least one pivot mounting bolt”. It is unclear how the pivot mounting bolt can be distal from itself. The claim will be examined as best understood.
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) 32-37, 39, 44, 45, 48, 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hagny (6,530,334).
Regarding claims 32 and 48, Hagny discloses a closing wheel system and method for an agricultural planter row unit comprising:
A closing wheel (36) configured to contact soil
An arm assembly (34) to which the closing wheel (36) is operatively coupled, the arm assembly including an arm coupled to the closing wheel and a pivot pin about which the closing wheel is configured to move up and down relative to the soil as the row unit traverses a ground (column 7 lines 60-67)
A pivot point (at 27) about which the arm assembly including the closing wheel is configured/caused to pivot laterally back and forth relative to the ground (column 8 lines 3-13)
A force applied to the main pivot pin response to which the closing wheel is moved up or down as the row unit traverses the ground (column 7 line 64-65)
Regarding claims 33-34, Hagny discloses that the closing wheel system is on an agricultural row unit of an agricultural planter.
Regarding claim 35, Hagny discloses that the closing wheel system can include a second closing wheel (36) configured to contact soil, the second closing wheel being operatively coupled to the arm assembly, the arm assembly further including a second arm coupled to the second closing wheel, the second closing wheel being configured to pivot about the pivot pin to move up and down relative to the ground (column 12 lines 28-35) (Figure 7).
Regarding claim 36, the arm and the second arm form a wishbone arm that rotates about the pivot pin, whose length is arranged parallel to the ground, in response to a force applied to the pivot pin (Figure 7) (column 7 lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 37, Hagny discloses a firming wheel or blade (32, 32A; Figure 2, 6) in contact with the soil and configured to apply a downward pressure in a furrow formed by the row unit to firm seeds in the soil prior to having the soil closed over them by the closing wheel.
Regarding claim 39, the pivot point corresponds to a pivot mounting bolt (27) (Figure 3, 7) that defines a vertical axis about which an arm assembly that includes the closing wheel rotates in the lateral direction.
Regarding claim 44, Hagny disclose that the closing wheel is configured to move up or down simultaneously while pivoting laterally side to side as the row unit traverses the ground.
Regarding claim 45, the firming wheel or blade (32) is carried on a different arm (35) from the arm to which the closing wheel is coupled, yet the firming wheel or plate and the closing wheel pivot about a common axis (at 27) (Figure 7).
Regarding claim 51, the pivot point corresponds to a pivot mounting bolt (27) (Figure 3, 7) that defines a vertical axis about which an arm assembly that includes the closing wheel rotates in the 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) 38 and 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagny (6,530,334) as applied to claim 32 above and further in view of Kester (7,246,563).
Regarding claims 38 and 40-41, Hagny discloses the invention as described above including a pivot point attachment that allows for lateral movement of the closing wheel assembly to follow curves in the furrow, but further discloses that other methods of attachment could be used (column 8 lines 3-13). Hagny fails to disclose that the pivot point attachment includes a pivot mounting bolt distal from the pivot point to allow the lateral pivoting. Like Hagny, Kester also discloses a pivot mount for a closing wheel assembly to allow lateral movement of the assembly. Unlike Hagny, Kester discloses a pivot point (at 54,56) and a pivot mounting bolt (53, 55) that allows for lateral pivoting (Figure 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the pivot structure (27) of Hagny with the pivot structure (53,54,55,56) of Kester since Hagny discloses that other methods can be used (column 8 lines 3-13) as a simple substitution of one lateral pivoting mechanism for another to obtain predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claim(s) 42-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagny (6,530,334) as applied to claim 32 above and further in view of Peter (5,852,982).
Regarding claims 42-43, Hagny discloses the invention as described above including a closing wheel assembly preceded by a seed firmer. Hagny fails to disclose an internal passageway on the seed firmer for fluid/fertilizer. Like Hagny, Peter also discloses a closing assembly for a row unit including a firmer. Unlike Hagny, Peter discloses a snaking conduit/passageway (42) that can be internally located (column 3 lines 51-53) on the firmer for delivery of fluid onto the seed/furrow. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the fluid conduit in the firmer of Hagny as taught by Peter as it would be combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claim(s) 46-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagny (6,530,334) as applied to claim 32 above and further in view of Bergen (9,433,142).
Regarding claim 46-47, Hagny discloses the invention as described above, but fails to disclose an electronic system to cause the downward force to be applied toward the main pivot pin to cause the closing wheel to move in a downward direction toward the ground based on a sensor that senses an angle. Hagny discloses a downforce mechanism (spring), but fails to disclose a sensing/signaling/control system. Like Hagny, Bergen also discloses a closing assembly for a row unit with a downforce mechanism. Unlike Hagny, Bergen discloses a controller for monitoring the downforce on the closing system via an angle sensor and controlling the downforce based on the sensor signal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor and control the downforce of the closing assembly in Hagny based on an angle sensor reading as taught by Bergen as it would be combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)) as it would provide more consistent and effective closing of the furrow.
Claim(s) 49-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagny (6,530,334) as applied to claim 48 above and further in view of Sauder et al. (8,924,102).
Regarding claim 49, Hagny discloses the invention as described above, but fails to disclose an electronic system to cause a downward force to be applied to ward the main pivot pin to cause the closing wheel to move in a downward direction toward the ground. Hagny discloses a downforce mechanism (spring), but fails to disclose a signaling/control system. Like Hagny, Sauder et al. also discloses a closing assembly for a row unit with a downforce mechanism. Unlike Hagny, Sauder discloses a controller for monitoring the downforce on the closing system and adjusting the downforce as needed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor and control the downforce of the closing assembly in Hagny as taught by Sauder as it would be combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)) as it would provide more consistent and effective closing of the furrow.
Regarding claim 50, the combination discloses that the system simultaneously causes the closing wheel to move up or down as the row unit traverses the ground while also causing the closing wheel to move in a lateral direction relative to the ground (via 27).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bassett (8,910,581) also discloses a row unit with closing wheels pivotable about both a vertical and horizontal axis.
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