CTNF 19/031,529 CTNF 82904 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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. The present application’s preliminary amendment with new claims 2-8 filed on 03/20/2026. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). 08-34 AIA Claim 2-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10548260 . Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 2-8 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1-15 of US Patent No.10548260 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 8 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 8, recites “the method of claim 2, the agricultural row unit comprising a plurality of row units each carrying out the method of claim 2 independently from one another”, is indefinite because it claims both an apparatus and method steps. (See MPEP 2173.05 (p) (II), “Product and Process in the Same Claim”). Below are cited references that teach the claimed subject matter as best understood. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 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, Adam 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]+); 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]+). With regard to claim 8, Morgan teaches that the agricultural row unit comprising a plurality of row units (see Fig.1) . Allowable Subject Matter 07-43 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. Prior Arts Cited 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Adam (20120048160) discloses an agricultural implement system which has a down force cylinder extending between a tool bar and a chassis. A down force control valve is in fluid communication with the down force cylinder, and regulates a flow of fluid to the down force cylinder to adjust contact force. An actuator is coupled to the down force control valve and in fluid communication with a depth control cylinder, where the actuator automatically adjusts the contact force by varying the flow of fluid through the down force control valve based on fluid pressure within the depth control cylinder. Conclusion 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 Examiner Art Unit 3662 /NGA X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/031,529 Page 2 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/031,529 Page 4 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/031,529 Page 5 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/031,529 Page 6 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/031,529 Page 7 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/031,529 Page 8 Art Unit: 3662
Prosecution Insights