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 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(claim 1, line 8) “wherein shank arm” should be changed to “wherein the shank arm”.
(claim 1, line 9) “bracket” should be changed to “the bracket”.
(claim 11, line 5) “the one or more planting machine components” should be changed to “the one or more row units”.
(claim 11, line 7) “an actuator coupled to the row unit toolbar to a rigid frame” should be changed to “an actuator coupled to the row unit toolbar”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5, 7-11, 14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johannaber (DE 10154473).
As concerns claim 1, Johannaber shows a suspension system (6) for a planting machine (1), the system comprising: an actuator (19) configured to be couplable (via 5) to a rigid frame (3, 4); an upper linkage assembly (26, 21, 5) rotatably coupled (via 22, 23) to the actuator and comprising a plurality of arms (26, 21) and a bracket (5); and an arm assembly (12, 13) comprising a plurality of arms (12, 13) rotatably coupled (via 22) to the upper linkage assembly and the actuator and a shank arm (18) rotatably coupled (via 16, 17) to the plurality of arms, wherein the shank arm (18) is configured to be rotatably couplable to a row unit (11) and the bracket (5) is configured to be rigidly couplable to the rigid frame (3, 4), wherein the upper linkage assembly is configured to distribute forces between the upper linkage assembly and the arm assembly (Fig. 1), and wherein the upper linkage assembly is configured to distribute a force over a greater rotational range than the arm assembly (Fig. 1).
As concerns claim 5, Johannaber shows wherein the system is configured to cause a distance between at least a portion of the bracket (5) and one or more other linkages (21) of the upper linkage assembly to increase and decrease proportionally with a distance between the bracket (5) and the shank arm (18).
As concerns claim 7, Johannaber shows wherein the row unit is a seeding row unit (7-11).
As concerns claim 8, Johannaber shows wherein the seeding row unit is an air seeding row unit (9).
As concerns claim 9, Johannaber shows wherein the seeding row unit further comprises one or more ground openers (7) comprising a tension system (6), wherein the upper linkage assembly, and the arm assembly are configured to regulate a distributed force in the tension system of the one or more ground openers (Fig. 1).
As concerns claim 10, Johannaber shows wherein the upper linkage assembly and the arm assembly are configured to be couplable to a uniform row unit toolbar (3).
As concerns claim 11, Johannaber shows a system for a planting machine (1), the system comprising: a row unit toolbar (3); one or more row units (7-11); one or more suspension systems (6) coupled to and extending between the row unit toolbar and the one or more row units (Fig. 1), the one or more suspension systems comprising: an actuator (19) coupled (via 5) to the row unit toolbar (3); an upper linkage assembly (26, 21, 5) rotatably coupled (via 22, 23) to the actuator and comprising a plurality of arms (26, 21) and a bracket (5); and an arm assembly (12, 13) comprising a plurality of arms (12, 13) rotatably coupled (via 22) to the upper linkage assembly and the actuator and a shank arm (18) rotatably coupled (via 16, 17) to the plurality of arms, wherein the shank arm (18) is configured to be rotatably couplable to a row unit (11) and the bracket (5) is configured to be rigidly couplable to the rigid frame (3, 4), wherein the upper linkage assembly is configured to distribute forces between the upper linkage assembly and the arm assembly (Fig. 1), and wherein the upper linkage assembly is configured to distribute a force over a greater rotational range than the arm assembly (Fig. 1).
As concerns claim 14, Johannaber shows wherein the system is configured to cause a distance between at least a portion of the bracket (5) and one or more other linkages (21) of the upper linkage assembly to increase and decrease proportionally with a distance between the shank arm (18) and the bracket (5).
As concerns claim 16, Johannaber shows wherein the one or more row units is a seeding row unit (7-11).
As concerns claim 17, Johannaber shows wherein the one or more row units is an air seeding row unit (9).
As concerns claim 18, Johannaber shows wherein the seeding row unit further comprises one or more ground openers (7) comprising a tension system (6), wherein the upper linkage assembly, and the arm assembly are configured to regulate a distributed force in the tension system of the one or more ground openers (Fig. 1).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schoeny et al. (US 2021/0003470).
As concerns claim 20, Schoeny shows a method for adjusting downforce of a planting machine row unit suspension system, the method comprising: providing instructions to an actuator (102) to provide a desired force; receiving a downforce reading from one or more downforce sensors (121); and providing a signal (via controller 128) to the actuator to provide a predetermined downforce based at least in part on the downforce reading (paragraph 0049 & 0050), wherein the force from the actuator is provided through a linkage assembly (26) and the downforce is measured from a portion of the linkage assembly (Fig. 2), and wherein the linkage assembly is configured to distribute forces between an upper linkage assembly (upper links 26) and an arm assembly (lower links 26).
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 2-4, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johannaber alone.
As concerns claims 2-4 and 12, Johannaber discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the upper linkage assembly is a four-bar linkage, wherein the arm assembly is a four-bar linkage, and wherein the arm assembly and the upper linkage assembly comprise two interconnected four-bar linkages. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the upper linkage assembly and the arm assembly as four-bar linkages for the expected benefit of achieving a sturdier construction. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that forming the upper linkage assembly and the arm assembly as four-bar linkages would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Johannaber to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 13, Johannaber shows wherein the bracket is rigidly coupled to the toolbar (Fig. 1).
Claims 6, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johannaber as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Schoeny.
As concerns claims 6 and 15, Johannaber discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the actuator is an electro-hydraulic cylinder. Schoeny teaches wherein an actuator (102) for a suspension system is an electro-hydraulic cylinder (paragraph 0024). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Johannaber, as taught by Schoeny, to include a cylinder in place of the spring for the expected benefit of actively adjusting the position of the frame relative to the toolbar in order to adjust the downforce applied to the one or more tools instead of reactively adjusting therewith. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a cylinder in place of the spring to adjust the position of the frame relative to the toolbar 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 suspension system design.
As concerns claim 19, the combination teaches a pressure controller (Schoeny: 128) communicatively coupled to the actuator (Schoeny: 102) and the tension system, and wherein the pressure controller is configured to coordinate pressure in the actuator and the tension system (Schoeny: Fig. 2; paragraph 0049 & 0050).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bassett (US 5,709,271) shows a suspension system for a planting machine, the system comprising: an actuator configured to be couplable to a rigid frame; an upper linkage assembly rotatably coupled to the actuator and comprising a plurality of arms and a bracket; and an arm assembly comprising a plurality of arms coupled to the upper linkage assembly and the actuator and a shank arm rotatably coupled to the plurality of arms, wherein the shank arm is configured to be rotatably couplable to a row unit and the bracket is configured to be rigidly couplable to the rigid frame, and wherein the upper linkage assembly is configured to distribute forces between the upper linkage assembly and the arm assembly.
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