DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner's consideration of the information disclosure statements is limited to a cursory review of the cited references due to the high number of references listed and the breadth of topics covered by the references. If Applicant is aware of particular references or particular portions of the cited references that are particularly pertinent to the claims, Applicant is invited to highlight those references/portions for more thorough consideration by Examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 4/3/2025 (starting with US 114,002; labeled 2/2 in the application file) fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Copies of EP 1143784 and WO 0123241 have not been included. It has been placed in the application file, but the information related to these references has not been considered. (However, EP 1143784 B1 in the information disclosure statement of 1/14/2026 has been considered.)
The information disclosure statement filed 4/3/2025 (starting with US 114,002; labeled 2/2 in the application file) fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language (including BE 551372, DE 335464, DE 1108971, SU 392897, SU 436778, SU 611201, SU 625648, SU 1410884 A1, and SU 1466674). This IDS has been placed in the application file, but the information related to these references has not been considered.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which Applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 9 and 10 are 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 9 recites "the display optionally including a touchscreen and depicting a control panel relative to the touchscreen." It is unclear if these "optional" features are required in any way. Thus, the metes and bounds of claim 9 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 9 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, such that clarification and correction are required. Claim 9 is being further examined as though optional features are optional and not required. Additionally, claim 10 is rejected because of its dependency on claim 9.
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, 4-6, 11-15, 17, 19-21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Duello (US 6,389,999).
Regarding claims 2, 12, 13, and 17, Duello discloses an agricultural machine, comprising:
a plurality of row units (including 6);
an agricultural implement (including 2); and
a control system including an electrical controller (including "microprocessor," shown as 42) operatively coupled to the row units to cause at different times selective application of at least an up force and a down force (via 32, which may be "in combination with springs") relative to the agricultural implement in response to or at least partially based on at least a GPS coordinate signal received from a GPS system (see col. 4, line 39 - col. 5, line 5; and see col. 7, line 60 - col. 8, line 18).
Regarding claims 4, 14, and 19, Duello discloses the agricultural machine, wherein the electronic controller is configured to cause the down force to be adjusted based on a soil-hardness signal (from 52, since the pressure sensed by 52 is indicative of a hardness of soil that the agricultural implement is traversing).
Regarding claims 5, 15, and 20, the abstract of Duello recites: "Through the processor, the controllable downpressure source may dynamically alter the pressure applied through the depth control structure to cause a desired excess downpressure and prevent an undesirably large or small amount of downpressure upon the depth regulation member." In "dynamically alter[ing] the pressure" to "prevent an undesirably large ... amount of downpressure" as recited, down force is decreased, which is a selective application of up force relative to previous down force.
Regarding claims 6 and 21, Duello discloses the electronic controller being configured to form a soil condition map from at least the GPS coordinate signal (see col. 7, line 60 - col. 8, line 18).
Regarding claim 11, Duello discloses the GPS coordinate signal being indicative of a position of the agricultural implement ("Global Positioning System" indicating positioning; Duello refers to GPS in used for specific sites or locations in col. 4, line 39 - col. 5, line 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Duello in view of Sauder et al. (US 2010/0010667)
Regarding claims 3 and 18, Duello discloses the control system and agricultural machine with respect to claims 3 and 18, respectively, as set forth above. Duello does not explicitly disclose the GPS coordinate signal being indicative of a speed of the agricultural machine as claimed. However, Sauder teaches an agricultural machine (including 10 and 1000) that receives a GPS coordinate signal, wherein the GPS coordinate signal is indicative of a speed of the agricultural machine (see para. 0033).
Sauder is analogous because Sauder discloses an agricultural machine having a plurality of row units and down force control therefor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the controller of Duello with speed indicating means as taught by Sauder for display to the operator. (See Sauder, para. 0033.)
Claims 7-10 and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Duello in view of Tiede et al. (US 6,041,582)
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Duello discloses the control system of claims 2 and 4, as set forth above. Duello does not explicitly disclose the electronic controller receiving sensor signals from the agricultural implement and/or a ground-engaging tool to develop a graphical representation of a field as claimed. However, Tiede teaches a control system for an agricultural implement (including 40), the control system comprising an electrical controller (including 116), wherein the electronic controller is configured to receive sensor signals from the agricultural implement and/or a ground-engaging tool (with corresponding 148, 150, and/or 160) to develop a graphical representation of a field (particularly see col. 12, lines 22-40).
Tiede is analogous because Tiede discloses a control system for an agricultural implement, comprising an electrical controller that operates in response to or at least partially based on at least a GPS coordinate signal received from a GPS system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the controller of Duello with graphical representation developing means as taught by Tiede in order to plot visible indicia of the soil condition or force data (see Tiede, col. 12, lines 22-40) and to aid in achieving a particular desired farming result (see Tiede, col. 6, line 57 - col. 7, line 14).
Regarding claim 8, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 7, Tiede teaches the electronic controller (including 116) being configured to provide an interactive map with GPS coordinate locations of conditions associated with the field (particularly see col. 12, lines 22-40, wherein "116 typically plots the map in real time as the force and location signals are received").
Regarding claim 9, in view of the modification made in relation to claims 7 and 8, Tiede teaches the control system in combination with a display (including 128) configured to display the interactive map. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the above combination with display means as taught by Tiede in order to "show a field map including the soil condition values, including soil compaction, and other sensed data." (See Tiede, Abstract.)
Regarding claim 10, in view of the modification made in relation to claims 7-9, Tiede teaches the conditions including soil compaction (see col. 10, line 31 - col. 11, line 13) or moisture (see col. 13, lines 6-41).
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 2-21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,389,816. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent include all the limitations of the instant claims. Instant claims 2-21 are anticipated by respective patent claims 2, 3 or 5, 4 or 7, 8, 6 or 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 3, 4, 6, 14, 2 and 14, 5 and 14, 7 and 14, and 8 and 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Particularly regarding up force, Wendte (US 6,827,029; cited in the IDS of 4/3/2025) describes providing a down pressure assembly with a double acting cylinder that provides both down pressure and up pressure in col. 12, line 44 - col. 13, line 4. Regarding speed and position, Adamchuk et al. (US 7,028,554) teaches geographic position (longitude and latitude) as well as true travel speed can be determined with a GPS (Global Positioning System) receiver in col. 4, lines 6-11.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joel F. Mitchell whose telephone number is (571)272-7689. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00.
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 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.
/JFM/9/26/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights