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 § 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) 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kowalchuk (2019/0289768).
Regarding claim 17, Kowalchuk discloses a row unit lift control system for an agricultural seeding implement comprising a controller (206) comprising a processor (208) and a memory (210), wherein the controller is configured to:
Determine a side load on an opener (102) of the at least one row unit of the agricultural seeding implement (pgph 0043 – radial loading on the spindle to which the opener 102 is mounted is at least partially indicative of side load on the opener)
Control the at least one actuator to lift the at least one row unit of the agricultural seeding implement in response to determining the side load is greater than a threshold side load (pgph 0057)
Regarding claim 19, the controller is configured to determine the side load based on feedback from a force sensor (204) coupled to the opener (102) of the ate last one row unit.
Regarding claim 20, the at least one actuator comprises a tool frame actuator, a row unit downforce actuator or a combination thereof.
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) 1-5, 8-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plattner (2020/0154627) in view of Schnaider et al. (2016/0330948).
Regarding claim 1, Plattner discloses a row unit lift control system for an agricultural seeding implement, comprising a controller comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the controller is configured to:
A controller (310,316) configured to determine a differential between a sensed value of a left row unit positioned at left portion of a frame of the agricultural seeding implement and a sensed value of a right row unit positioned at a right portion of the frame of the agricultural seeding implement (pgph 0063)
Control at least one left actuator and one right actuator (100,500) of the agricultural seeding implement to lift one of the left or right row units based on the sensed value to minimize drift (one side moving ahead of the other side)(pgph 0036-0037) (pgph 0049-0052)
While Plattner discloses the invention as described above, it discloses monitoring downpressure/load differential and not specifically the differential of forward speed between the row units on the left and right sides. Plattner does, however disclose that the control system can include speed sensors (pgph 0026) and discloses that the control system is used to prevent drift (one side moving ahead (faster) than the other side). Like Plattner, Schnaider et al. discloses an agricultural vehicle having a toolbar with independently actuated wings. Unlike Plattner, Schnaider discloses that the wings can be monitored to determine a speed differential between the wings and actuated accordingly (pgph 0043). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize speed sensors to monitor the differential between the speed of the wings of Plattner as taught by Schnaider as the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, the combination discloses that the controller is configured to determine the forward speed differential based on feedback from a left speed sensor and a right speed sensor.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, the combination discloses that the left speed sensor and the right speed sensor comprises, a wheel speed sensor, an accelerometer (pgph 0064 – Schnaider), an IMU, a spatial locating device OR a combination thereof.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, the combination discloses the invention a described above but fails to specifically disclose a gyroscopic sensor. Schnaider does, however, disclose that rotation on multiple planes is possible and should be monitored. It would have been an obvious matter of art recognized equivalence to utilize a gyroscopic sensor, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by the combination of Plattner and Schnaider.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the combination discloses that the controller is configured to determine the forward speed differential based on a route of the agricultural seeding implement through a field and a location of the agricultural seeding implement within the field (pgph 0049).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, the combination discloses that the at least one actuator comprises tool frame actuator, a row unit downforce actuator (100, 500) or a combination thereof.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 14-15 and 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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