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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honey, et al., US 2022/0400595 A1, in view of Arnett, et al., US 2020/0352088 A1.
As per Claim 1, Honey teaches an agricultural implement (¶ 54; agricultural implement 100 of Figure 1), comprising:
a center frame section (¶ 61; central frame section 130 of Figures 1, 2 and 2A);
an intermediate frame section pivotally coupled to a side of the center frame section (¶¶ 60-61; inner frame sections 132 and 134 of Figures 2 and 2A);
a wing frame section pivotally coupled to the intermediate frame section (¶¶ 60-61; left-center and right-center frame sections 136 and 138 of Figures 2 and 2A);
a first actuator operably coupled to the center frame section and the intermediate frame section (¶ 78; actuator 962 of Figure 2);
a second actuator operably coupled to the wing frame section and the intermediate frame section (¶ 78; actuator 960 of Figure 2);
Honey does not expressly teach: a first sensor configured to sense a position of the intermediate frame section relative to the center frame section; a second sensor configured to sense a position of the wing frame section relative to the intermediate frame section; and a control system configured to independently control the first actuator and the second actuator to travel by a different percentage of a total displacement based on the sensed positions of the intermediate frame section and the wing frame section. Arnett teaches:
a first sensor configured to sense a position of the intermediate frame section relative to the center frame section (¶ 53 “LIDAR sensors”); and
a second sensor configured to sense a position of the wing frame section relative to the intermediate frame section (¶ 58; “passive photo-detection sensors”).
Honey does teach: a control system configured to independently control the first actuator and the second actuator to travel by a different percentage of a total displacement based on the sensed positions of the intermediate frame section and the wing frame section (¶¶ 57, 78, 84). At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to combine the agricultural implement of Honey with the sensor system of Arnett, in order to ensure an even distribution of seed and other nutrients across a farm field.
As per Claim 2, Honey does not expressly teach that the first sensor comprises a rotary sensor configured to determine an angle between the center frame section and the intermediate frame section. Arnett teaches that the first sensor comprises a rotary sensor configured to determine an angle between the center frame section and the intermediate frame section (¶ 60; to measure, e.g., “furrow angle of a furrow sidewall”). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 3, Honey does not expressly teach that the first sensor comprises a linear sensor configured to determine a position of the first actuator. Arnett teaches that the first sensor comprises a linear sensor configured to determine a position of the first actuator (¶ 58; “e.g., LIDAR”). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 4, Honey teaches that the control system is configured to cause the second actuator to rotate the wing frame section to be substantially non-parallel to the center frame section (¶ 60; longitudinal “members 770, 772, 774, 776, 778, 780, 782 and 784 may be orientated at a small angle (for example in the range of 5 to 10 degrees) in relation to the longitudinal axis (X-axis in FIG. 1)”; also in Figure 2).
As per Claim 5, Honey teaches that the control system is configured to cause the second actuator to cause an angle between the wing frame section and the intermediate frame section (¶ 72; “the angle may be about 45 degrees”) to be different than an angle between the intermediate frame section and the center frame section (¶ 60; “for example in the range of 5 to 10 degrees”).
As per Claim 6, Honey teaches that the control system is configured to cause the second actuator to adjust the position of wing frame section relative to the intermediate frame section after causing the first actuator to adjust the position of the intermediate frame section relative to the center frame section (¶¶ 78-79).
As per Claim 7, Honey teaches:
that the first actuator comprises a first hydraulic cylinder (¶¶ 57, 78-79); and
that the second actuator comprises a second hydraulic cylinder (¶¶ 57, 78-79).
As per Claim 8, Honey teaches that each of the first actuator and the second actuator are operably coupled to the intermediate frame section at a connector (¶¶ 83-84).
As per Claim 9, Honey teaches:
a wing tool bar operably coupled to the wing frame section (¶ 63; open transverse member 732 of Figure 2); and
row units operably coupled to the wing frame section (¶ 63; e.g., open transverse members 714 and 724 of Figure 2).
As per Claim 10, Honey teaches that the control system is configured to cause second actuator to change the position of the wing frame section at a different rate than the first actuator changes the position of the intermediate frame section (¶ 14; as some supports have “a restricted rotation caster wheel” and others “may be operable to freely rotate about a steering axis a full 360 degrees in either rotational direction”).
As per Claim 11, Honey teaches that the first actuator is operably coupled to the center frame section and the intermediate frame section (¶¶ 78, 82; actuator 962 of Figure 2).
As per Claim 12, Honey teaches a method of operating an agricultural implement (¶¶ 54-55; agricultural implement 100 of Figure 1), the method comprising: causing a first actuator to rotate an intermediate frame section relative to a center frame section (¶¶ 78-79; actuator 962 of Figure 2).
Honey does not expressly teach: determining, with a first sensor, a position of the intermediate frame section relative to the center frame section; determining, with a second sensor, a position of a wing frame section relative to the intermediate frame section. Arnett teaches:
determining, with a first sensor, a position of the intermediate frame section relative to the center frame section (¶ 60; to measure, e.g., “furrow angle of a furrow sidewall”); and
determining, with a second sensor, a position of a wing frame section relative to the intermediate frame section (¶ 58; “e.g., LIDAR”). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
Honey does teach causing a second actuator operably coupled to the wing frame section and the intermediate frame section to change an angle between the wing frame section and the intermediate frame section to be different than an angle between the intermediate frame section and the center frame section (¶¶ 60, 71-72). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 13, Honey does not expressly teach determining, with a first sensor, a position of the intermediate frame section relative to the center frame section comprises measuring the angle between the intermediate frame section and the center frame section. Arnett teaches determining, with a first sensor, a position of the intermediate frame section relative to the center frame section comprises measuring the angle between the intermediate frame section and the center frame section (¶ 60; to measure, e.g., “furrow angle of a furrow sidewall”). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 14, Honey does not expressly teach determining, with a first sensor, a position of the intermediate frame section relative to the center frame section comprises measuring a linear displacement of the first actuator. Arnett teaches determining, with a first sensor, a position of the intermediate frame section relative to the center frame section comprises measuring a linear displacement of the first actuator (¶ 53; “a sensor comprising an array of sensing pixels to determine the location of objects in 3D space”). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 15, Honey teaches changing an angle between the wing frame section and the intermediate frame section comprises changing the angle between the wing frame section and the intermediate frame section at a different rate than changing the angle between the intermediate frame section and the center frame section (¶ 14; as some supports have “a restricted rotation caster wheel” and others “may be operable to freely rotate about a steering axis a full 360 degrees in either rotational direction”).
As per Claim 16, Honey teaches changing an angle between the wing frame section and the intermediate frame section comprises causing the second actuator to change the angle between the wing frame section and the intermediate frame section after causing the first actuator to rotate the intermediate frame section relative to the center frame section (¶¶ 78-79).
As per Claim 17, Honey teaches that changing an angle between the wing frame section and the intermediate frame section comprises changing the angle between the wing frame section and the intermediate frame section (¶¶ 71-72) at the same time as causing the first actuator to rotate the intermediate frame section relative to the center frame section (¶¶ 78-79).
As per Claim 18, Honey teaches a control system for an agricultural implement (¶¶ 57; agricultural implement 100 of Figure 1).
Honey does not expressly teach: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor. Arnett teaches:
at least one processor (¶ 86); and
at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon (¶ 86; “hard disk drives”).
Honey teaches causing the control system to: cause a first actuator to rotate an intermediate frame section relative to a center frame section by a first amount (¶¶ 78-79; actuator 962 of Figure 2).
Honey does not expressly teach: receiving, from a first sensor, an indication of a position of the intermediate frame section relative to the center frame section; and receiving, from a second sensor, an indication of a position of a wing frame section relative to the intermediate frame section. Arnett teaches:
receiving, from a first sensor, an indication of a position of the intermediate frame section relative to the center frame section (¶ 60; to measure, e.g., “furrow angle of a furrow sidewall”); and
receiving, from a second sensor, an indication of a position of a wing frame section relative to the intermediate frame section (¶ 58; “e.g., LIDAR”).
Honey does teach causing a second actuator to rotate the wing frame section relative to the intermediate frame section by a second amount different than the first amount, at a different time than the intermediate frame section is rotated relative to the center frame section, or both (¶¶ 60, 71-72). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 19, Honey teaches that the instructions cause the control system to cause the second actuator to rotate the wing frame section relative to the intermediate frame section by the second amount (¶ 72; “the angle may be about 45 degrees”).
As per Claim 20, Honey teaches that the control system is configured to cause the second actuator to rotate the wing frame section relative to the intermediate frame section at a different time than the first actuator causes the intermediate frame section to rotate relative to the center frame section (¶ 107; as rotation depends on “the forces transferred through ground engager 600” of Figure 4B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATUL TRIVEDI whose telephone number is (313)446-4908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
ATUL TRIVEDI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/ATUL TRIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights