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 4 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(claim 4, line 3) “from to the frame that links that nozzle assembly” should be changed to “from the frame that links the nozzle assembly”.
(claim 16, line 2) “activate the cutting nozzle” should be changed to “activate the cutting head”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a ground translation device…shaped to physically contact the field as the agricultural implement travels across the field” in claim 1, “a tuning unit…configured to maintain the cutting head substantially perpendicular to the field surface along a vertical axis” in claim 1, “a precision guide…configured to promote the vertical movement while inhibiting the lateral movement of the cutting head” in claim 7, and “compressing unwanted ground surface materials with a ground translation device” in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification describes the ground translation device as a curved structure that physically contacts and rides along the field to be cultivated as the field device traversed across the field, the tuning unit as a plurality of parallel link arms, and the precision guide as two substantially vertical bodies spaced laterally apart to define a guide channel configured to guide a detachable post connected to the cutting head.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6, 13, 15-27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Butler et al. (US 2017/0303460).
As concerns clam 1, Butler shows a nozzle assembly attached to an agricultural implement (12) comprising a liquid jet soil processing system (10), the nozzle assembly comprising: a frame (14) configured to detachably mount to the agricultural implement (Fig. 1); a cutting head (20) connected to the frame, the cutting head configured to introduce a liquid jet, received from the liquid jet soil processing system, to a field surface below the cutting head (Fig. 1 & 2); a secondary nozzle (30) connected to the frame and disposed distal to the cutting head relative to a direction of travel of the nozzle assembly (Fig. 1 & 2); a ground translation device (42) connected to the frame, the ground translation device shaped to physically contact the field as the agricultural implement travels across the field (Fig. 1); and a tuning unit (44) dynamically connects the cutting head, the secondary nozzle and the ground translation device to the frame (Fig. 1), the tuning unit configured to maintain the cutting head substantially perpendicular to the field surface along a vertical axis as the ground translation device travels across the field (Fig. 1 & 2; paragraph 0043).
As concerns clam 2, Butler shows wherein the agricultural implement, including a rigid soil conditioner (22, 24), is configured to exert a first downward force on the field along the vertical axis (paragraph 0048), and wherein the ground translation device (42) of the nozzle assembly is adapted to exert a second downward force on the field along the vertical axis, wherein the first and second downward forces are different (paragraph 0052).
As concerns clam 3, Butler shows wherein the first downward force is greater than then second downward force (paragraph 0048 & 0052).
As concerns clam 4, Butler shows wherein the agricultural implement is configured to connect to a mobile device (tractor) via a linkage system (2-point or 3-point hitch) that is dynamically independent, along the vertical axis, from the frame that links the nozzle assembly to the agricultural implement (Fig. 1).
As concerns clam 5, Butler shows wherein the tuning unit (44) is configured to enable vertical movement of the cutting head along the vertical axis while inhibiting lateral movement of the cutting head (Fig. 1).
As concerns clam 6, Butler shows wherein the tuning unit comprises a plurality of parallel link arms (44) configured to connect the cutting head, the secondary nozzle and the ground translation device to the frame, the plurality of parallel link arms promoting the vertical movement while inhibiting the lateral movement of the cutting head (Fig. 1).
As concerns clam 13, Butler shows wherein the secondary nozzle is configured to deliver a secondary fluid with a pressure of between about 1000 pounds per square inch (PSI) and 5000 PSI (paragraph 0043; as seen in Fig. 1, pump 18 is connected to both the cutting head 20 and the secondary nozzle 30).
As concerns clam 15, Butler shows a set of high-pressure line connectors configured to connect to respective ones of a set of high-pressure lines from the liquid jet soil processing system to receive the liquid jet (Fig. 1 & 2).
As concerns clam 16, Butler shows a ground safety switch (29) configured to activate the cutting head and the secondary nozzle only when a load is detected on the translation device (paragraph 0048).
As concerns clam 17, Butler shows wherein at least one of the cutting head or the secondary nozzle is connected to an input system (31) of the liquid jet soil processing system for receiving and injecting at least one agricultural input (Fig. 1 & 2).
As concerns clam 18, Butler shows a transmission system operably connected to a pump (18) of the liquid jet soil processing system, the transmission system configured to increase the speed of a power unit received from the mobile device (pump 18 would be driven from a power source located on the implement and/or the tractor).
As concerns clam 19, Butler shows a method of seeding a field with a field device (12) comprising a liquid jet soil processing system (10), the method comprising: driving the field device over a field, the field device comprising a nozzle assembly detachably connected to an agricultural implement (12) incorporating the liquid jet soil processing system (Fig. 1); compressing unwanted ground surface materials with a ground translation device (42) of the nozzle assembly as the field device traverses across the field (Fig. 1); slicing the compressed materials with a jet of liquid delivered by a cutting head (20) of the nozzle assembly to produce a slit through the compressed materials (Fig. 1 & 2), wherein the jet of liquid is pressurized to over 10,000 PSI by the liquid jet soil processing system (paragraph 0043); traversing a rigid soil conditioner (22, 24) of the agricultural implement through the slit and a portion of adjacent soil to shape a seed trench (Fig. 1 & 2); and depositing one or more seeds into the seed trench (Fig. 2; paragraph 0047).
As concerns clam 20, Butler shows wherein the ground translation device (42) of the nozzle assembly produces a first downward vertical force on the unwanted ground surface materials (paragraph 0052) and the rigid soil conditioner (22, 24) produces a second downward vertical force on the portion of soil below the compressed materials (paragraph 0048).
As concerns clam 21, Butler shows wherein the second downward force is greater than the first downward force (paragraph 0048 & 0052).
As concerns clam 22, Butler shows wherein the ground translation device (42) has a curved shape and the cutting head (20) is located at an apex of the curved ground translation device (Fig. 1 & 2).
As concerns clam 23, Butler shows wherein the slicing of the compressed material by the cutting head occurs at the apex of the curved ground translation device (Fig. 1 & 2).
As concerns clam 24, Butler shows connecting the ground translation device (42) of the nozzle assembly to the agricultural implement, including the liquid jet soil processing system and the rigid soil conditioner, via a first linkage (44); and connecting a mobile device (tractor) to the agricultural implement via a second linkage (2-point or 3-point hitch), wherein the first and second linkages are dynamically independent from each other along a vertical axis (Fig. 1).
As concerns clam 25, Butler shows aligning and maintaining the cutting head and the rigid soil conditioner along a centerline of field device (Fig. 1 & 2).
As concerns clam 26, Butler shows guiding the nozzle assembly, including the cutting head and the ground translation device, to move along a vertical axis substantially perpendicular to a surface of the field below the nozzle assembly, while preventing the nozzle assembly from moving laterally (Fig. 1).
As concerns clam 27, Butler shows injecting, by a secondary nozzle (30) of the nozzle assembly, an agricultural input (31) into the slit formed by the cutting head, wherein the injecting of the agricultural input is prior to shaping the seed trench by the rigid soil conditioner (Fig. 1 & 2).
As concerns clam 30, Butler shows activating the slicing by the jet of liquid only when a load is detected on the ground translation device (paragraph 0048).
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 14, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler et al. alone.
As concerns claims 14 and 28, Butler discloses the claimed invention except for a brush buster connected to at least one of the tuning unit or the frame, the brush buster disposed proximal to the cutting head relative to the direction of travel of the nozzle assembly. The examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to use a brush buster or similar in front of a planting device for moving at least a portion of unwanted ground surface materials from a travel path. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a brush buster in front of the planting device for the expected benefit of clearing at least some of the ground residue prior to forming a furrow in the ground to allow seeds to be deposited into a desired position in the furrow. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a brush buster to brush at least a portion of the unwanted ground surface materials from a travel path would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Butler to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns clam 29, Butler shows minimizing drag from the unwanted ground surface materials via a ground contact attachment (42) coupled to (integrally formed) the translation device (Fig. 1). Butler discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the ground contact attachment is made from a non-incendive material. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. 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 ground contact attachment from a non-incendive material for the expected benefit of promoting smooth travel over the ground surface by minimizing direct contact with and drag from the unwanted ground surface material, thereby preventing sparking and/or friction build-up. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that forming the ground contact attachment from a non-incendive material would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Butler to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not appear to anticipate and/or render obvious a nozzle assembly attached to an agricultural implement comprising a liquid jet soil processing system, the nozzle assembly comprising: a frame configured to detachably mount to the agricultural implement; a cutting head connected to the frame, the cutting head configured to introduce a liquid jet, received from the liquid jet soil processing system, to a field surface below the cutting head; a secondary nozzle connected to the frame and disposed distal to the cutting head relative to a direction of travel of the nozzle assembly; a ground translation device connected to the frame, the ground translation device shaped to physically contact the field as the agricultural implement travels across the field; and a tuning unit dynamically connects the cutting head, the secondary nozzle and the ground translation device to the frame, the tuning unit configured to maintain the cutting head substantially perpendicular to the field surface along a vertical axis as the ground translation device travels across the field, wherein the tuning unit is configured to enable vertical movement of the cutting head along the vertical axis while inhibiting lateral movement of the cutting head, wherein the tuning unit comprises a plurality of parallel link arms configured to connect the cutting head, the secondary nozzle and the ground translation device to the frame, the plurality of parallel link arms promoting the vertical movement while inhibiting the lateral movement of the cutting head, wherein the tuning unit further comprises a precision guide disposed about the cutting head and configured to promote the vertical movement while inhibiting the lateral movement of the cutting head, and wherein the precision guide includes two substantially vertical bodies spaced laterally apart to define a guide channel configured to guide a detachable post connected to the cutting head.
The prior art of record does not show wherein the tuning unit is configured to enable vertical movement of the cutting head along the vertical axis while inhibiting lateral movement of the cutting head, wherein the tuning unit comprises a plurality of parallel link arms configured to connect the cutting head, the secondary nozzle and the ground translation device to the frame, the plurality of parallel link arms promoting the vertical movement while inhibiting the lateral movement of the cutting head, wherein the tuning unit further comprises a precision guide disposed about the cutting head and configured to promote the vertical movement while inhibiting the lateral movement of the cutting head, and wherein the precision guide includes two substantially vertical bodies spaced laterally apart to define a guide channel configured to guide a detachable post connected to the cutting head.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li et al. (CN 113068481) and Martel et al. (US 2020/0217044) each show a nozzle assembly having a cutting head configured to introduce a liquid jet to a field surface below the cutting head.
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
