DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 fluid system configured to permit on-the-go adjustments to a downforce on the agricultural planter or the agricultural implement thereof such that the plurality of row units are allowed to flex and float with changing terrain or soil conditions across which the agricultural planter moves” in claim 2.
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 fluid system as a hydraulic system and an accumulator such that displacement of a hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic system causes a gas in the accumulator to compress at the same time, allowing for isolation among the plurality of row units.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 8,544,397, claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 8,544,398, claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 8,776,702, claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,763,713, and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,055,712. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending application presents claims covered by the parent patents.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 8,544,397, claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 8,544,398, claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 8,776,702, claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,763,713, and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,055,712 in view of claims 1, 8-12 and 18-21 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,171,152. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending application presents claims covered and/or rendered obvious by the parent patents.
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 pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Sheppard et al. (US 2008/0093093).
As concerns claim 2, Sheppard shows a system (Fig. 1-7) configured to permit on-the-go adjustments to a downforce applied to an agricultural planter or an agricultural implement thereof, comprising: an agricultural implement (48) on a row unit (12) of a plurality of row units (paragraph 0013); and a fluid system (68) configured to permit on-the-go adjustments to a downforce on the agricultural planter or the agricultural implement (48) thereof such that the plurality of row units are allowed to flex and float with changing terrain or soil conditions across which the agricultural planter moves (paragraph 0030 & 0031), wherein each row unit of the plurality of row units can float upwards or downwards independently of every other row unit of the plurality of row units (paragraph 0030 & 0031).
As concerns claim 3, Sheppard shows wherein an upward or downward adjustment to the downforce associated with one row unit of the plurality row units does not cause a corresponding movement of any other of the plurality of row units (paragraph 0030 & 0031).
As concerns claim 4, Sheppard shows an agricultural planter having a cab, wherein a downforce on one row unit or on a group of row units of the plurality of row units is remotely adjustable from the cab independently of the downforce adjusted using the fluid system (paragraph 0028).
As concerns claim 5, Sheppard shows wherein the fluid system (68) includes a hydraulic system (paragraph 0019) and an accumulator (90) such that displacement of a hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic system causes a gas in the accumulator to compress at the same time, allowing for isolation among the plurality of row units (paragraph 0021, 0030 & 0031).
As concerns claim 6, Sheppard shows wherein the accumulator (90) includes a check valve (94) having a bidirectional orifice system for two-way damping motion (Fig. 1-3; paragraph 0030).
As concerns claim 7, Sheppard shows wherein the hydraulic system includes a hydraulic cylinder (60) having a double-acting ram configured to move in opposing directions to cause upward or downward adjustment of the downforce (paragraph 0017 & 0030).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sheppard et al. alone.
As concerns claims 8-10, Sheppard discloses the claimed invention except for a global positioning system (GPS) and a control system configured to automatically raise each row unit of the plurality of row units as the agricultural planter enters a headland to avoid disrupting rows already planted in the headland based on the GPS, being a human-less farming system incorporated into a robotic machine that moves autonomously about a field, and being configured to emit a wireless signal for communicating status performance to an online monitoring system, wherein the status performance is evaluating using a smartphone. The examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to use a global positioning system and a control system for automatically controlling an agricultural implement, a human-less farming system incorporated into a robotic machine for automatically controlling an agricultural implement, and a monitoring system for communicating implement data to a remote device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized a global positioning system and a control system, a human-less farming system incorporated into a robotic machine, and a monitoring system for the expected benefit of automatically controlling an agricultural implement and for communicating implement data to a remote device. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a global positioning system and a control system, a human-less farming system incorporated into a robotic machine, and a monitoring system in the system configured to permit on-the-go adjustments to a downforce applied to an agricultural implement would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Sheppard to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Janelle et al. (US 5,562,165) shows a hydraulic floating system for downpressure control of seeding tools.
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. 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