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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “33” has been used to designate both "guide supports 33"of the main frames 31 (see para. [0055] and "fourth hydraulic actuator assemblies 33" (e.g. para. [0056]).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the fourth horizontal axes of claim 14 and transport locks of claim 20 must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 14 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 14 recites the limitation "the fourth horizontal axes" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
By virtue of its dependence on claim 14, this basis of rejection also applies to claim 15.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Steinlage et al. (US 12514145 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Steinlage discloses a farm implement (100) comprising:
a frame assembly including a carrier frame (110) and a pair of wing frame assemblies mounted to the carrier frame, each wing frame assembly including first (120), second (130), and third wing members (140) (Fig. 1) with the first wing members pivotally coupled to the carrier frame for rotation about first horizontal axes (102) (Fig. 3, col. 4 lines 13-15 “pivoting of the inner wing 120 relative to the main section 110 about the respective first axis 102”), the second wing members pivotally coupled to the first wing members for rotation about second horizontal axes (103) (Fig. 3, col. 4 lines 30-31 “pivoting of the outer wing 130 relative to the inner wing 120 about the second axis 103”), and the third wing members pivotally coupled to the second wing members for rotation about vertical axes (104) (Fig. 5, col. 4 lines 44-47 “pivoting of the flipper 140 relative to the outer wing 130 about the respective third axis 104…the third axis 104 extends in a direction transverse to the longitudinal axis 101, and is generally vertical”);
first (152) and second (153) hydraulic actuator assemblies (col. 5 lines 30-31 “each actuator 152, 153, 154 is provided in the form of…a hydraulic cylinder assembly”), wherein the first hydraulic actuator assembly is interconnected between the carrier frame and the first wing members of the wing frame assemblies for folding and unfolding the first wing members relative to the carrier frame about said first horizontal axes (col. 5 lines 18-21 “Each inner wing actuator 152 is connected between the main frame 112 and a corresponding inner wing frame 122 such that the inner wing actuators 152 are operable to pivot the inner wings 120 about the first axes 102”), and wherein the second hydraulic actuator assembly is interconnected between the first wing members and the second wing members of the wing frame assemblies for folding and unfolding the second wing members relative to the first wing members about said second horizontal axes (col. 5 lines 21-25 “Each outer wing actuator 153 is connected between a corresponding inner wing frame 122 and a corresponding outer wing frame 132 such that the outer wing actuators 153 are operable to pivot the outer wings 120 about the second axes 103”);
a third hydraulic actuator assembly (154) interconnected between the second wing members and the third wing members of the wing frame assemblies for folding and unfolding the third wing members relative to the second wing members about said vertical axes (col. 5 lines 25-29 “Each flipper actuator 154 is connected between a corresponding outer wing frame 132 and a corresponding flipper frame 142 such that the flipper actuators 154 are operable to pivot the flippers 140 about the third axes 104”), said third wing members being configured to pivot forward about said vertical axes from an extended working position (Figs. 1-5) to a folded transport position (Fig. 6) (col. 8 line 65 – col. 9 line 3); and
said third wing members comprise flex coupling systems (195) that allow said third wing members to float about third horizontal axes (105) relative to said second wing members when said third wing members are in their extended working positions (Figs. 3-4, col. 4 lines 63-65 “second flipper hinge 195 that permits limited pivoting of the flipper 142 about a longitudinally extending fourth axis 105”).
Regarding claim 18, Steinlage discloses the farm implement according to claim 1, wherein said third wing members (140) have preset gauge wheels (172) to control a depth of operation of the third wing members when the implement is lowered to its field working position (Fig. 3, col. 7 lines 16-22 “the ground interface mechanisms 172 of the flippers 140 are height-controlled ground interface mechanisms 182…to more precisely control the operating height of the flippers 140”).
Regarding claim 19, Steinlage discloses the farm implement according to claim 1, further comprising a gravity lock (214) for holding the third wing members (140) in their folded transport positions relative to the second wing members (130) (col. 9 lines 53-61 “As each outer wing 130 pivots toward its folded position, such pivoting drives the corresponding gravity hook 214 toward its latching position, thereby causing…movement of the flipper frame 142 relative to the outer wing frame 132 is inhibited. Thus…the flippers 140 are secured in their folded positions”).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinlage as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sivinski (US 20210105930 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Steinlage discloses the farm implement according to claim 1, wherein said flex coupling systems comprise main frames (194) pivotally connected to said second wing members for rotation about said vertical axes (104), wing frames (142) pivotally connected to said main frames for rotation about said third horizontal axes (105).
Steinlage fails to teach fourth hydraulic actuator assemblies coupled between said main frames and said wing frames for limiting a downward rotation of the wing frames about the third horizontal axes when the implement is raised and/or when the third wing members are being moved to their folded transport positions.
In the same area, Sivinski discloses a similar agricultural implement comprising a wing member (16) foldable about a vertical axis to a transport position (para. [0036]), wherein the wing member comprises a main frame (22) and a wing frame (24) such that the wing frame is configured to float/flex relative to the main frame about a horizontal pivot axis (26) during operation (Figs. 6-7), and wherein a hydraulic actuator (38) coupled between the main frame and the wing frame is configured to limit a downward rotation of the wing member about the horizontal pivot axis when the implement is raised and/or when the wing member is being moved to its folded transport position (para. [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar hydraulic actuator for preventing downward flexing of the wing frames of Steinlage when in the transport position, as taught by Sivinski, in order to prevent flexing or sagging of the wing during transport and thus minimize inadvertent damage to the wheels and/or support structure (Sivinski at para. [0004]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinlage in view of Sivinski as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Knobloch et al. (US 20120247378 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Steinlage in view of Sivinski discloses the farm implement according to claim 2. Steinlage fails to teach wherein said main frames of the flex coupling systems have guide supports that face inwardly and engage outer frame members of the second wing members when the third wing members are in their extended working positions, and wherein said wing frames of the flex coupling systems have guide supports that face rearwardly and engage front frame members of the second wing members when the third wing members are in their folded transport positions relative to the second wing members.
In the same area, Knobloch discloses a similar farm implement (14, Fig. 1) comprising first (32), second (34), and third wing members (36), wherein the third wing members are pivotally coupled to the second wing members and configured to pivot 180 degrees forward about vertical axes (110) (Fig. 3, para. [0033]) from an extended working position (Fig. 3) to a folded transport position (Fig. 5) (para. [0033]), and wherein the third wing members (36) have a first guide support (102) that faces inwardly and engage outer frame members (110) of the second wing members (34) when the third wing members are in their extended working positions (Fig. 3), and a second guide supports (98) that faces rearwardly and engage front frame members (144) of the second wing members (134) when the third wing members are in their folded transport positions relative to the second wing members (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to attach the third wing members of Steinlage at a forward portion of the implement such that they may pivot forwardly 180 degrees into the folded position, as taught by Knobloch, in order to further minimize the width of the implement for transport and yield predictable results. It would have been further obvious to include the guide supports as taught by Knobloch in order to retain the third wing member in each respective position.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinlage in view of Sivinski as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Limaye et al. (US 20200053950 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Steinlage in view of Sivinski discloses the farm implement according to claim 2, but fails to teach wherein said fourth hydraulic actuator assemblies are coupled to said wing frames by slots that allow a limited range of floating movement between said main frames and said wing frames.
In the same area, Limaye discloses a similar farm implement comprising inner wings (140,150) and an outer wing (160,170) which is configured to float/flex relative to the inner wing about a hinge assembly (200) (Fig. 1), wherein the hinge assembly comprises a hydraulic actuator (290) coupled to the outer wing by slots (265) that allow a limited range of floating movement between the inner and outer wings (para. [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar slot for limiting a range of floating movement of the outermost wing members as taught by Limaye in order to minimize damage to the working tools by preventing excessive upward/downward movement of the wing members
Regarding claim 5, Steinlage in view of Sivinski and Limaye discloses the farm implement according to claim 4. Limaye further teaches wherein said slots (265) extend generally perpendicularly to said horizontal pivot axes (330) and have inner ends that limit downward rotation of the wing frames (Limaye at para. [0039] “the outer wing frame section 160 may flex downward…until the inner ends of the slots 265…reach the position of…pin 340”), outer ends that limit upward rotation of the wing frames (para. [0040] “the outer wing frame section 160 may flex upward…until the outer ends of the slots 265…reach the position of…pin 340”), and a distance between said inner and outer ends that provides a range of floating movement between the main frames and the wing frames (Limaye at para. [0038] “the lengths of the slots 265 define the amount of travel permitted of the outer wing frame section 160 resulting from elevation changes in the terrain”).
Regarding claim 6, Steinlage in view of Sivinski and Limaye discloses the farm implement according to claim 5. Limaye further teaches wherein the hydraulic actuators (290) are coupled to the slots (265) by lug pins (340) that slide along the slots, and wherein said lug pins are moved closer to the inner ends of the slots when the fourth hydraulic actuator assemblies are retracted (Limaye at para. [0043] “Upon initial retraction…the actuator coupling member 294 pulls the fifth pin 340 through the slots 265 such that the fifth pin 340 engages the inner ends of the slots 265”).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinlage as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Knobloch et al. (US 20120247378 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Steinlage discloses the farm implement according to claim 1, wherein said third wing members (140) are configured to pivot 90 degrees instead of 180 degrees about said vertical axes (104) between said extended working positions (Fig. 2) and said folded transport positions (Fig. 6).
In the same area, Knobloch discloses a similar farm implement (14, Fig. 1) comprising first (32), second (34), and third wing members (36), wherein the third wing members are pivotally coupled to the second wing members and configured to pivot 180 degrees forward about vertical axes (110) (Fig. 3, para. [0033]) from an extended working position (Fig. 3) to a folded transport position (Fig. 5) (para. [0033] “outer wing portion 36 to be folded…forward….about vertical axis 110 approximately 180 degrees”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to attach the third wing members of Steinlage at a forward portion of the implement such that they may pivot forwardly 180 degrees into the folded position, as taught by Knobloch, in order to further minimize the width of the implement for transport and yield predictable results.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinlage as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barfels et al. (US 20140060035 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Steinlage discloses the farm implement according to claim 1, but does not explicitly detail wherein said first wing members and said second wing members are configured to be folded and unfolded with a single fold circuit.
In the same area, Barfels discloses a similar foldable implement comprising first wing members (40) and second wing members (50), wherein the first wing members are pivotable about first horizontal axes (46) via first hydraulic actuators (140) and the second wing members are pivotable about second horizontal axes (56) via second hydraulic actuators (150), wherein said first wing members and said second wing members are configured to be folded and unfolded with a single fold circuit (Fig. 10, para. [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a single hydraulic circuit to control the first and second wing members of Steinlage, as taught by Barfels, in order to simplify the folding and unfolding process to take place in a single sequence.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinlage as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stevens (US 4867245 A).
Regarding claim 20, Steinlage discloses the farm implement according to claim 1, further comprising a transport lock that automatically engages to lock the third wing members into their folded transport positions (col. 9 lines 53-61), but does not explicitly detail transport locks for locking the first and second wing members into their folded transport positions.
In the same area, Stevens discloses a similar wing fold implement comprising gravity locks (82,84) configured to automatically engage to lock first wing members (16,18) and second wing members (36,38) in their folded transport positions (see Fig. 6 and Abstract “inner and outer wing frames that include gravity actuated latching structure securing the wing frames in a folded position. The latching structure automatically locks the wing frames together as they are pivoted upwardly in the folded position toward a transport position and unlocks the wing frames as they are pivoted downwardly toward a transport position”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize similar gravity locks for the locking the first and second wing members of Steinlage in their folded transport positions, as taught by Stevens, in order to ensure that the wing members are automatically retained in the desired folded position without need for additional hydraulic circuitry or other complicated structures.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinlage et al. (US 12514145 B2) in view of Barfels et al. (US 20140060035 A1) and Limaye et al. (US 20200053950 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Steinlage discloses a farm implement (100) comprising:
a frame assembly including a carrier frame (110) and a pair of wing frame assemblies mounted to the carrier frame, each wing frame assembly including first (120), second (130) and third wing members (140), wherein the first wing members pivotally coupled to the carrier frame for rotation about first horizontal axes (102) (Fig. 3, col. 4 lines 13-15 “pivoting of the inner wing 120 relative to the main section 110 about the respective first axis 102”), the second wing members pivotally coupled to the first wing members for rotation about second horizontal axes (103) (Fig. 3, col. 4 lines 30-31 “pivoting of the outer wing 130 relative to the inner wing 120 about the second axis 103”), and the third wing members pivotally coupled to the second wing members for rotation about vertical axes (104) (Fig. 5, col. 4 lines 44-47 “pivoting of the flipper 140 relative to the outer wing 130 about the respective third axis 104…the third axis 104 extends in a direction transverse to the longitudinal axis 101, and is generally vertical”);
hydraulic actuator assemblies (152, 153, 154) configured to fold and unfold the wing members about the respective horizontal axes and vertical axes (col. 5 lines 18-29);
flex coupling systems on the third wing members comprising main frames (194) pivotally connected to the second wing members for rotation about the vertical axes (col. 4 lines 37-45), wing frames (195) pivotally connected to the main frames for rotation about longitudinal horizontal axes (col. 61-67);
adjustable gauge wheels (172) on the third wing members for controlling a depth of operation of the third wing members in their extended working positions (Fig. 3, col. 7 lines 16-22 “the ground interface mechanisms 172 of the flippers 140 are height-controlled ground interface mechanisms 182…to more precisely control the operating height of the flippers 140”); and
wherein the flex coupling systems enable the third wing members to float about the longitudinal horizontal axes in response to uneven terrain while maintaining alignment with the second wing members (col. 13 lines 4-13).
Steinlage fails to teach ground support wheels on the carrier frame, the first wing members, and the second wing members and a hydraulic system for moving the ground support wheels relative to the carrier frame and first and second wing members for moving the carrier frame and the first and second wing members between a lowered field working position and a raised transport position.
In the same area, Barfels discloses a similar farm implement comprising a center section (30), first wing members (40), and second wing members (50), wherein ground support wheels are coupled to the center section, the first wing members, and the second wing members and a hydraulic system (306,308) for moving the ground support wheels relative to each section and for moving the implement between a lowered field working position (Fig. 13) and a raised transport position (Fig. 14) (para. [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include similar hydraulic system for extending/retracting ground wheels of Steinlage, as taught by Barfels, in order to provide rolling support in use, turning, and/or transport positions.
Steinlage fails to teach a connection system allowing limited floating movement of the wing frames relative to the main frames, wherein said connection system including slotted guide supports with slots, and lug pins that slide within the slots.
In the same area, Limaye discloses a similar farm implement comprising inner wings (140,150) and an outer wing (160,170) which is configured to float/flex relative to the inner wing about a hinge assembly (200) (Fig. 1), wherein the hinge assembly comprises a hydraulic actuator (290) coupled to the outer wing by slotted guide supports (2600 having slots (265) and lug pins (340) that slide within the slots to allow a limited range of floating movement between the inner and outer wings (para. [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar slot for limiting a range of floating movement of the outermost wing members as taught by Limaye in order to minimize damage to the working tools by preventing excessive upward/downward movement of the wing members.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-13 are 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.
Claims 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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. Kinzenbaw et al. (US 20180255695 A1) discloses a pivoting implement frame. Fast (US 20140034341 A1) discloses a side folding toolbar. Borkgren et al. (US 20110258811 A1) discloses a hinge assembly for a frame having two pivot axes. Moser et al. (US 6675907 B2) discloses a flexible toolbar and operating hydraulic circuit. Smith et al. (US 6035942 A) discloses a full truss tool bar. Rousch et al. (US 5253717 A) discloses a foldable agricultural implement. Filbrun (US 4366867 A) discloses a horizontally folding agricultural implement and hinge. Ward (US 4171726 A) discloses a multi-section folding tool bar for an agricultural implement.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Christopher Sebesta, can be reached on (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 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