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 .
The current application is a CON. of application No. 16/740691, now Pat. No. 12290020 and a CON. of application No. 15/586743, now Pat. No. 10548260 which filed on May 4, 2017.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive to overcome the rejection. Examiner responds to the Applicant’s argument as the following reasons:
Regarding the Claimed Amendment: Applicant amended claim 7 which raise new subject matter that is not described in the current application’s specification. A new 112(a) Rejection is added as shown below.
Regarding the Double Patent Rejection: Withdrawn based on the Applicant’s remark.
Regarding the 103 Rejection: Applicant traverses on the remark that Morgan does not disclose “producing an output signal based on the received signal to automatically adjust a downforce set point based on the received signal unit until at least the received signal falls within a dead band around the downforce set point”. Examiner disagrees to the Applicant’s remark.
Examiner Response: Morgan teaches at [0019]-[0021 that the monitor 50 is in data communication with seed sensor, the downforce sensor, the drives, actuator for controlling the downforce with adjustment actuator to modify the position of the depth adjustment rocker for a desired depth with desired seed to soil contact and to prevent movement of seeds, see [0042]+ & [0053]+ which is equivalent to “producing an output signal based on the received signal to automatically adjust a downforce set point based on the received signal unit until at least the received signal falls within a dead band around the downforce set point”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites of “receiving a second signal …of soil compaction in at least one sidewall of a second furrow; producing a second output signal based on …a second controllable down force applied by to a second gauge wheel that controls a depth of the second furrow and independently of the controllable down force applied…” raised new subject matter cause this limitation is not described in the application’s specification.
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) 2-5 & 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan (20180184581).
With regard to claim 2, Morgan discloses method of suppressing over-compaction of soil to support optimal root growth while an agricultural row unit is forming a furrow into which seeds are to be planted, comprising the steps of:
receiving a signal indicative of soil compaction in at least one sidewall of the furrow (monitor 50 communicates with sensors mounted to the planter 10 which generating signals related to the soil characteristics with respectively of soil in the trench 38, preferably at or adjacent the bottom of the trench (sidewall), see [0024]-[0032]+);
producing an output signal based on the received signal to automatically adjust a downforce set point based on the received signal until at least the received signal falls within a dead band around the downforce set point, the downforce set point being indicative of a controllable down force applied by to a gauge wheel that controls a depth of the furrow (The monitor 50 is in data communication with components associated with each row unit including the drives 315, the seed sensor, the downforce sensor, the downforce valves, the depth adjustment actuator, and etc. for downforce control, see [0019] & [0021]+; wherein, the downforce sensor 392 is preferably to generate a signal related to the amount of force imposed by the gauge wheels 248 on the soil surface 40, see [0019] which is equivalent to the “signal falls within a dead band around the downforce set point … indicative of a controllable down force applied by a gauge wheel the controls a depth of the furrow”); and
causing the agricultural row unit to traverse a ground while applying the controllable down force to the gauge wheel according to the adjusted downforce set point (a tractor 5 traverses on a ground, wherein the tractor 5 includes the monitor 50 which monitors and controls downforce valves, the depth adjustment actuator, see [0021]-[0027]+ & [0032]-[0033]+).
Although Morgan’s disclosure is not described as same world languages but Examiner interprets Morgan’s disclosure of a tractor 5 includes a monitor 50 which communicates with the sensors, actuators, and etc. of the planter 10 for monitoring and controlling downforces to the actuators for depth and width of the furrow trench as described above are equivalent as the current application’s claim invention for support optimal root growth. For this reason, Morgan is obvious suggestively, if not anticipatory, of the claimed subject matter.
With regard to claim 3, Morgan teaches that the method of claim 2, wherein the controllable down force is applied by an actuator, the method further comprising the step of supplying the actuator with a control signal representing the down pressure set point (the row unit 200 has an opening disc 244 which sets the depth of the trench 38, see [0019]. The monitor 50 monitors and controls the downforce valves and the depth adjustment actuator, see [0021]+).
With regard to claim 4, Morgan teaches that the method of claim 2, wherein received signal is indicative of a force or strain detected by a compaction sensor positioned between a ground line and a bottom of the furrow downstream of the gauge wheel (the monitor 50 communicates with the reflectivity sensors 350 which indicates the reflectivity of soil being worked by the planter row unit 200, see [0023]+).
With regard to claim 5, Morgan teaches that the method of claim 4, wherein the compaction sensor includes lateral projections configured to extend into each of the at least one sidewall of the furrow and another sidewall of the furrow (the extension to be in contact with the sidewalls of trench 38, see [0041]-[0042]+).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sauder (20140214284).
With regard to claim 8, Morgan discloses the tractor comprises a toolbar operatively supporting multiple row units 200, a monitor 50 which monitors and controlling a depth of the row units, and monitoring soil compacted on the row, see [0020]-[0025]+). However, Morgan is silent of:
producing a second output signal based on the received second signal to automatically adjust a second downforce set point based on the received second signal until at least the received second signal falls within a second dead band around the second downforce set point, the second downforce set point being indicative of a second controllable down force applied by to a second gauge wheel that controls a depth of the second furrow; and
independently of the controllable down force applied to the agricultural row unit, causing a second agricultural row unit to traverse the ground while applying the second controllable down force to the second gauge wheel according to the second adjusted downforce set point.
Sauder discloses a system for controlling the downforce applied to an agricultural implement having multiple row units 10(see the abstract). The system comprises a monitor 42 (including processor, memory, and a graphical user interface), a controller 300 which receives signals from multiple sensors, control forces on the gauge wheels represents the downforce on the row units 10, see [0027]-[0029]+. The processor determining and setting the desired down pressure and lift pressure in actuators 32 for each row unit 10, see [0035]. Each process is used for each row to determine the individual down and lift force to teach actuator, see [0036]-[0037]+. Wherein, the monitor obtains the current downforce measurement for the row from the associated sensor 52.
Based on the above findings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the agricultural operation monitoring system of Morgan with the system for controlling the downforce applied to an agricultural implement having multiple row unit as taught by Sauder for effectively providing sufficient depth of each row.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 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 claim.
Conclusion
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 NGA X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5217. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30AM - 2:30PM.
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, JELANI SMITH can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/NGA X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights