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 22, 34-35, and 46 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22 line 2 “mounting apparatus” should be –a mounting apparatus--.
Claim 34 lines 1-2 “wherein at least one ground working element” should be --wherein the at least one ground working element--.
Claim 35 line 2 “mounting apparatus” should be –a mounting apparatus--.
Claim 46 line 3 “to a width defined the” should be –to a width defined by the--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 15-28 and 46 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 in lunes 17-18 recites the broad recitation ", and the claim also recites " which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because as “one or more” implies only one ground working element is required, while “at least three different ground working elements” implies a minimum of three different ground working elements is required to be couplable to the extension member. For purposes of examination, the Examiner has interpreted this portion of the claim as reading –wherein the extension member is couplable to at least three different ground working elements— as the Examiner believes Applicant intended to claim three different ground working elements as a required feature of the claim.
By virtue of their dependence on claim 15, this basis of rejection also applies to dependent claims 16-28.
Claim 46 recites the limitation "the cutting axis" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 29 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/992883 (Pub No. US 20230157195 A1) in view of Claussen (US 20160165787 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is obvious that the narrower apparatus claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/992883 (Pub No. US 20230157195 A1) covers the broader apparatus claim 29 of the instant application, wherein “a cleaner apparatus…wherein the cleaner apparatus comprises a pair of cleaners” of the copending Application No. 17/992883 (Pub No. US 20230157195 A1) covers “at least one ground working element configured to engage the ground surface and work the ground surface” of the instant application. While claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/992883 (Pub No. US 20230157195 A1) does not explicitly recite that the cleaners engage the ground between a first crop row and a second crop row, such a modification is obvious in view of Claussen (US 20160165787 A1) which discloses a similar implement apparatus configured to engage the ground “between planted rows of vegetation or crops” (see Fig. 8, para. [0004]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 30-41 are provisionally rejected under the nonstatutory double patenting rejections, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claim 29.
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 29 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Claussen (US 20160165787 A1).
Regarding independent claim 29, Claussen discloses an implement apparatus (510, Figs. 9A-9G) couplable to a vehicle (“tractor”, para. [0057]) configured to traverse a ground surface between a first crop row and a second crop row immediately adjacent to the first crop row (Fig. 8, para. [0105] “the plurality of implements…passing in between rows of crops represented by lines 413”), wherein the implement apparatus comprises:
an extension member (530) couplable to the vehicle and extending between a proximal end portion and a distal end portion (Fig. 9A); and
a roller apparatus (540) coupled to the extension member and configured to engage the ground surface between the first crop row and the second crop row when the vehicle traverses the ground surface, wherein the roller apparatus comprises:
a cylindrical portion (541) defining an outer cylindrical surface (543) and lying along a roller axis configured to rotate as the vehicle traverses the ground surface; and
a plurality of ground displacing elements (560) coupled to the cylindrical portion and extending from the outer cylindrical surface of the cylindrical portion, wherein each ground displacing element of the plurality of ground displacing elements defines a chisel edge (587) and is configured to extend into the ground surface to displace a ground material when the roller apparatus is engaged with the ground surface as the vehicle traverses the ground surface (para. [0115]); and
wherein the extension member is couplable to at least one ground working element configured to engage the ground surface and work the ground surface between the first crop row and the second crop row when the vehicle traverses the ground surface (para. [0106] “one or more ground breaking apparatus…may be coupled to any of the implements or systems described herein”), and
wherein the implement apparatus is configured to be positioned between the first crop row and the second crop row (Fig. 8, implements positioned between crop rows 413).
Regarding claim 34, Claussen discloses the implement apparatus of claim 29, wherein at least one ground working element is configured to engage the ground surface between the first crop row and the second crop row (Fig. 8, implements positioned between crop rows 413).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 14, 30-31, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claussen (US 20160165787 A1) in view of Figueroa et al. (US 20200146201 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Claussen discloses an implement apparatus (510, Figs. 9A-9G) couplable to a vehicle (“tractor”, para. [0057]) configured to traverse a ground surface (12), wherein the implement apparatus comprises:
an extension member (530) couplable to the vehicle and extending between a proximal end portion and a distal end portion (Fig. 9A);
a roller apparatus (540) coupled to the extension member and configured to engage the ground surface when the vehicle traverses the ground surface, wherein the roller apparatus comprises:
a cylindrical portion (541) defining an outer cylindrical surface (543) and lying along a roller axis configured to rotate as the vehicle traverses the ground surface; and
a plurality of ground displacing elements (560) coupled to the cylindrical portion and extending from the outer cylindrical surface of the cylindrical portion, wherein each ground displacing element of the plurality of ground displacing elements defines a chisel edge (587) and is configured to extend into the ground surface to displace a ground material when the roller apparatus is engaged with the ground surface as the vehicle traverses the ground surface (para. [0115]); and
a ground working element (para. [0106] “one or more ground breaking apparatus…may be coupled to any of the implements or systems described herein”).
Claussen fails to teach a mounting apparatus movably coupled to the distal end portion of the extension member and configured to move between a first configuration to position the ground working element to engage the ground surface when the vehicle traverses the ground surface and a second configuration to position the ground working element so as to not engage the ground surface when the vehicle traverses the ground surface.
Figueroa discloses an apparatus for working soil comprising a ground-working element (72) (Fig. 1) and a mounting apparatus (84) movably coupled to the distal end portion of an extension member (80), wherein the mounting apparatus is configured to move between a first configuration (Fig. 2) to position the ground working element to engage the ground surface (para. [0061] “a deployed or first position…in which the one or more baskets 72 are in contact with, or engaged with, the support surface 26”) and a second configuration (Fig. 3) to position the ground working element so as to not engage the ground surface (para. [0061] “a stowed or second position…in which the one or more baskets 72 are not in contact with, or are disengaged from, the support surface 26”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar movable mounting apparatus for positioning a ground-working element in Claussen, as taught by Figueroa, in order to allow for selective adjustment between deployed and stowed positions as desired, thereby allowing the user to avoid clogging when working in muddy conditions and/or disengage the ground-working element when the user does not want to use it (Figueroa at bottom of para. [0023]).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 30-31, Claussen or Clausssen in view of Figueroa discloses the implement apparatuses of claims 1 and 29, wherein the ground working element comprises one or more of a crumbleras per claims 2 and 30, and wherein the crumbler is configured to crumble the ground material, as per claims 3 and 31 (rolling basket 72 of Figueroa and/or ground breaking apparatuses of Claussen may all be considered a “crumbler” as they are each configured to break up clods/clumps in the soil).
Regarding claim 6, Claussen in view of Figueroa discloses the implement apparatus of claim 1. Claussen further teaches wherein the ground working element is configured to engage the ground surface between a first crop row and a second crop row immediately adjacent to the first crop row (Claussen at Fig. 8, para. [0105] “the plurality of implements…passing in between rows of crops represented by lines 413”).
Regarding claims 7 and 35, Claussen or Claussen in view of Figueroa discloses the implement apparatuses of claims 1 and 29. Figueroa further teaches a locking apparatus, wherein the mounting apparatus is configured to engage the locking apparatus to retain the mounting apparatus in the second configuration (Figueroa at bottom of para. [0062] teaches a secondary lock system configured to secure the rolling basket assembly 14 in the stowed position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar locking apparatus as taught by Figueroa in order to retain the ground working element in a stowed position when not in use.
Regarding claim 14, Claussen in view of Figueroa discloses the implement apparatus of claim 1. Claussen further teaches wherein the implement apparatus is configured to be positioned between a first crop row and a second crop row immediately adjacent to the first crop row (Claussen at Fig. 8, para. [0105] “the plurality of implements…passing in between rows of crops represented by lines 413”).
Claims 15-18, 21-22, 30-31, 42-43, 49-50, and 52-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claussen (US 20160165787 A1) in view of Hoffman et al. (US 20190166753 A1).
Regarding independent claim 15, Claussen discloses an implement apparatus (510, Figs. 9A-9G) couplable to a vehicle (“tractor”, para. [0057]) configured to traverse a ground surface between a first crop row and a second crop row immediately adjacent to the first crop row (Fig. 8, para. [0105] “the plurality of implements…passing in between rows of crops represented by lines 413”), wherein the implement apparatus comprises:
an extension member (530) couplable to the vehicle and extending between a proximal end portion and a distal end portion (Fig. 9A); and
a roller apparatus (540) coupled to the extension member and configured to engage the ground surface between the first crop row and the second crop row when the vehicle traverses the ground surface, wherein the roller apparatus comprises:
a cylindrical portion (541) defining an outer cylindrical surface (543) and lying along a roller axis configured to rotate as the vehicle traverses the ground surface; and
a plurality of ground displacing elements (560) coupled to the cylindrical portion and extending from the outer cylindrical surface of the cylindrical portion, wherein each ground displacing element of the plurality of ground displacing elements defines a chisel edge (587) and is configured to extend into the ground surface to displace a ground material when the roller apparatus is engaged with the ground surface as the vehicle traverses the ground surface (para. [0115]); and
wherein the extension member is couplable to one or more ground working elements configured to engage the ground surface and work the ground surface between the first crop row and the second crop row when the vehicle traverses the ground surface (para. [0106] “one or more ground breaking apparatus…may be coupled to any of the implements or systems described herein”).
Claussen fails to teach wherein the one or more ground working elements comprise at least three different ground working elements configured to engage the ground surface and work the ground surface in a different way than each other.
In the same area, Hoffman discloses a reconfigurable tillage system (10, Fig. 1) for tilling the areas between crop rows, wherein at least three different ground working elements are configured to engage the ground surface and work the ground surface in a different way than each other (para. [0072,0074] tillage assemblies 18,20 comprise a plurality of interchangeable tillage implements 80, 112, 142, 148).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the extension member of Claussen to be couplable to a plurality of interchangeable tillage elements, as taught by Hoffman, in order to allow any desired combination or order of tillage elements to be may varied, changed, or adjusted to meet specific tillage requirements (Hoffman at bottom of para. [0073]).
Regarding claim 16, Claussen in view of Hoffman discloses the implement apparatus of claim 15, wherein the implement apparatus is configured to be positioned between the first crop row and the second crop row (Claussen at Fig. 8, the plurality of implements pass between rows of crops represented by lines 413).
Regarding claims 17-18 and 30-31, Claussen or Claussen in view of Hoffman discloses the implement apparatus of claims 15 and 29, wherein the at least three different ground working elements comprise one or more of a crumbler, as per claims 17 and 30, wherein the crumbler is configured to crumble the ground material, as per claims 18 and 31 (ground breaking apparatuses of Claussen and tilling discs 80, reels 112 and 142, and finishing element 148 of Hoffman may all be considered a “crumbler” as they are each configured to break up clods/clumps of the soil, see para. [0045], [0054], [0087]).
Regarding claim 21, Claussen in view of Hoffman discloses the implement apparatus of claim 1, wherein each of the at least three different ground working elements is configured to engage the ground surface between the first crop row and the second crop row (Hoffman at Fig. 6, ground working elements 78, 104, 116, 124, 148 all engage the ground between crop rows 170).
Regarding claim 22, Claussen in view of Hoffman discloses the implement apparatus of claim 15 further comprising. Hoffman further teaches a mounting apparatus (106, 126) configured to couple each of the at least three different ground working elements to extension member (12) (para. [0074]); and
a locking apparatus, wherein the mounting apparatus is configured to engage the locking apparatus to retain the mounting apparatus (para. [0076] teaches “pins, locking pins, cotter pins, clamps, and the like”. Note the claim language does not specify retaining the mounting apparatus in any required position, therefore the locking pins of Hoffman function to retain the mounting apparatus in engagement with each ground working element).
Regarding independent claim 42, Claussen discloses an implement apparatus (510, Figs. 9A-9G) couplable to a vehicle (“tractor”, para. [0057]) configured to traverse a ground surface (12), wherein the implement apparatus comprises:
an extension member (530) couplable to the vehicle and extending between a proximal end portion and a distal end portion (Fig. 9A);
a roller apparatus (540) coupled to the extension member and configured to engage the ground surface when the vehicle traverses the ground surface, wherein the roller apparatus comprises:
a cylindrical portion (541) defining an outer cylindrical surface (543) and lying along a roller axis configured to rotate as the vehicle traverses the ground surface; and
a plurality of ground displacing elements (560) coupled to the cylindrical portion and extending from the outer cylindrical surface of the cylindrical portion, wherein each ground displacing element of the plurality of ground displacing elements defines a chisel edge (587) and is configured to extend into the ground surface to displace a ground material when the roller apparatus is engaged with the ground surface as the vehicle traverses the ground surface (para. [0115]); and
a ground working element coupled to the extension member (para. [0106] “one or more ground breaking apparatus…may be coupled to any of the implements or systems described herein”).
Claussen fails to teach wherein the ground working element includes a chopping apparatus comprising a plurality of cutting blades adapted to rotate relative to the ground surface and oriented such that each of the cutting blades are perpendicular to a direction the vehicle is traversing along the ground surface.
In the same area, Hoffman discloses a reconfigurable tillage system described above, wherein the ground working elements include a chopping apparatus (104, 124, or 148) comprising a plurality of cutting blades adapted to rotate relative to the ground surface and oriented such that each of the cutting blades are perpendicular to a direction the vehicle is traversing along the ground surface (Figs. 3 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar chopping apparatus in the apparatus of Claussen, as taught by Hoffman, in order to further cut or pull vegetation growing in the soil being tilled and/or cut into and break up the soil itself (Hoffman at para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 43, Claussen in view of Hoffman discloses the implement apparatus of claim 42. Hoffman further teaches wherein the chopping apparatus (e.g. 104) further comprises an attachment portion configured to selectively couple the chopping apparatus to the extension member, the attachment portion comprises:
a mounting portion (108) fixedly coupled to a proximal end portion (40) of the extension member (12) (Fig. 4, para. [0051]); and
a rotatable portion (114) rotatably coupled to the mounting portion and fixedly coupled to the plurality of cutting blades, wherein each of the plurality of cutting blades extend from the rotatable portion (Fig. 3 and para. [0054] first reel mount permits rotational movement of the first reel 112 and includes a plurality of blades arranged thereabout).
Regarding claim 49, Claussen in view of Hoffman discloses the implement apparatus of claim 42, wherein the chopping apparatus is positioned forward from the roller apparatus (from combination, Hoffman teaches that reel 112 is positioned toward a front portion of the frame as seen in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 50, Claussen in view of Hoffman discloses the implement apparatus of claim 42. Hoffman further teaches wherein the implement apparatus further comprises a second chopping apparatus (124 or 148) that is positioned rearward from the roller apparatus (Hoffman at Fig. 1, 3 and para. [0064] tillage element 124 comprises a second reel 142 which is substantially similar to the first reel 112 and a finishing element 148, each positioned toward a rear portion of the frame).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a second rearwardly disposed chopping element in the apparatus of Claussen, as taught by Hoffman, in order to further break down any remaining clumps of soil and also provide a final leveling of the soil if desired (Hoffman at para. [0087]).
Regarding claim 52, Claussen in view of Hoffman discloses the implement apparatus of claim 42. Claussen further teaches wherein the outer cylindrical surface (543) is configured to engage the ground surface (12) when the cylindrical portion (541) is rolled over the ground surface (Claussen at para. [0006] “the cylindrical portion may define an outer surface configured to engage the ground surface when the cylindrical portion is rolled over the ground surface”).
Regarding claim 53, Claussen in view of Hoffman discloses the implement apparatus of claim 42. Claussen further teaches wherein the plurality of ground displacing elements (560) are arranged in at least one row circumferentially extending around the outer cylindrical surface (543) of the cylindrical portion (541) (Fig. 9B, para. [0109] “the plurality of ground displacing elements 560 may be arranged in a plurality of rows (each row being noted as being between a pair of the dotted lines 555) that circumferentially extend around the outer cylindrical surface 543”).
Regarding claim 54, Claussen in view of Hoffman discloses the implement apparatus of claim 42. Claussen further teaches wherein at least one ground displacing element (560) of the plurality of ground displacing elements defines a forward edge (601) and a rearward edge (602) opposite the forward edge, wherein each of the forward edge and the rearward edge define the chisel edge (587) (Fig. 9F, para. [0116] “the chisel edge 587…defined on the forward or leading edge 601 of the blade portion 562 and the rear or trailing edge 602”).
Regarding claim 55, Claussen in view of Hoffman discloses the implement apparatus of claim 42. Claussen further teaches wherein at least one ground displacing element (560) of the plurality of ground displacing elements defines a forward edge (601) and a rearward edge (602) opposite the forward edge, wherein the rearward edge is curved (Fig. 9F, para. [0116] “rearward edge 602 is curved or defines a curve”).
Regarding claim 56, Claussen in view of Hoffman discloses the implement apparatus of claim 42. Claussen further teaches wherein the plurality of ground displacing elements (560) comprises four or more ground displacing elements (Figs. 9A-9D).
Regarding claim 57, Claussen in view of Hoffman discloses the implement apparatus of claim 42. Claussen further teaches wherein a radius of the cylindrical portion (541) perpendicular to the roller axis extends from the roller axis to the outer cylindrical surface (543), wherein at least one ground displacing element (560) of the plurality of ground displacing elements extends from the outer cylindrical surface to a distal edge defining an element length, wherein the element length is greater than the radius of the cylindrical portion (para. [0016] “the element length is greater than the radius of the cylindrical portion”).
Claims 4-5, 8-9, 12-13, 19-20, 23-24, 27-28, 32-33, 36-37, and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claussen or the combinations of Claussen as applied to claims 1, 15, and 29 above, and further in view of Watson (US 0950084 A).
Regarding claims 4-5, 19-20, and 32-33, Claussen or the combinations of Claussen disclose the implement apparatuses of claim 1, 15, and 29, but fail to teach wherein the ground working element comprises a hipper configured to direct the ground material perpendicularly away from an axis of travel along the ground surface, as per claims 4, 19, and 32, or wherein the ground working element comprises a bermer configured to direct the ground material perpendicularly towards an axis of travel along the ground surface, as per claims 5, 20, and 33.
However, such a ground working element is extremely old and well-known.
Watson discloses a ground working apparatus configured to travel between rows of crops (page 1 lines 89-90), wherein the ground working apparatus comprises a set of disks (25) configured to direct the ground material perpendicularly away from an axis of travel along the ground surface (i.e. a hipper) or perpendicularly towards an axis of travel along the ground surface (i.e. a bermer) (Fig. 2, page 3 lines 4-10 disks 25 are reversible so as to throw the dirt inward or outward).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize similar adjustable and reversible disks in the apparatus of Claussen, as taught by Watson, in order to turn the soil and throw it toward or away from the plant rows as desired, as well as to provide a final leveling of the soil (Watson at page 1 lines 14-26).
Regarding claims 8-9, 23-24, and 36-37, Claussen or the combinations of Claussen disclose the implement apparatuses of claims 1, 15, and 29, but fail to teach wherein the ground working element comprises: a first wheel movably coupled to a first bracket, the first bracket configured to be attached to the mounting apparatus in a first position and a second position; and a second wheel movably coupled to a second bracket, the second bracket configured to be attached to the mounting apparatus in a third position and a fourth position, as per claims 8, 23, and 36, such that when the first bracket is mounted in the first position and the second bracket is mounted in the third position, the ground working element is configured to act as a hipper configured to direct material perpendicularly away from an axis of travel along the ground surface, and when the first bracket is mounted in the second position and the second bracket is mounted in the fourth position, the ground working element is configured to act as a bermer configured to direct material perpendicularly towards the axis of travel along the ground surface, as per claims 9, 24, and 37.
However, such a ground working element is extremely old and well-known.
Watson discloses a ground working apparatus described above comprising a mounting apparatus (12,13) attached to the distal end portion of a frame (5) (Fig. 1), wherein the ground working apparatus includes a set of disks (25) comprising a first wheel and a second wheel (Fig. 2), wherein each wheel is movably coupled to a respective bracket (26), and wherein each bracket is configured to attach to the mounting apparatus in at least two positions such that the set of disks may be oriented in a first (i.e. hipper) configuration to direct the ground material perpendicularly away from an axis of travel along the ground surface and/or a second (i.e. bermer) configuration to direct material perpendicularly towards an axis of travel along the ground surface (Fig. 2, page 3 lines 4-10 disks 25 are reversible by removing the bolts 23 and reversing the position of the disks in order to selectively set the disks to throw dirt inward or outward).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize similar adjustable and reversible disks in the apparatus of Claussen, as taught by Watson, in order to turn the soil and throw it toward or away from the plant rows as desired, as well as to provide a final leveling of the soil (Watson at page 1 lines 14-26).
Regarding claims 12-13, 27-28, and 40-41, Claussen or the combinations of Claussen disclose the implement apparatuses of claims 1, 15, and 29, but fail to teach wherein the ground working element comprises a hipper configured to direct material perpendicularly away from an axis of travel along the ground surface, the hipper comprising: a first wheel configured to be mounted to the mounting apparatus at a first toe in angle and a second toe in angle; and a second wheel configured to be mounted to the mounting apparatus at a third toe in angle and a fourth toe in angle, as per claims 12, 27, and 40, or wherein the ground working element comprises a bermer configured to direct material perpendicularly towards an axis of travel along the ground surface, the bermer comprising: a first wheel configured to be mounted to the mounting apparatus at a first toe in angle and a second toe in angle; and a second wheel configured to be mounted to the mounting apparatus at a third toe in angle and a fourth toe in angle, as per claims 13, 28, and 41.
However, such a ground working element is extremely old and well-known.
Watson discloses a ground working apparatus described above comprising a mounting apparatus (12,13) attached to the distal end portion of a frame (5) (Fig. 1), wherein the ground working apparatus includes a set of disks (25) comprising a first wheel and a second wheel (Fig. 2), wherein the set of disks may be oriented in a first (i.e. hipper) configuration to direct the ground material perpendicularly away from an axis of travel along the ground surface and/or a second (i.e. bermer) configuration to direct material perpendicularly towards an axis of travel along the ground surface (Fig. 2, page 3 lines 4-10 disks 25 are reversible so as to throw the dirt inward or outward and therefore may function as either a hipper or a bermer), wherein each wheel may be mounted to the mounting apparatus at a plurality of different toe in angles in either configuration (page 3 lines 11-13 disks 25 may be adjusted at any angle or inclination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize similar adjustable and reversible disks in the apparatus of Claussen, as taught by Watson, in order to turn the soil and throw it toward or away from the plant rows as desired, as well as to provide a final leveling of the soil (Watson at page 1 lines 14-26).
Claims 10, 25, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claussen or the combinations of Claussen as applied to claims 1, 15, and 29 above, and further in view of Roth et al. (US 20140197249 A1).
Regarding claims 10, 25, and 38, Claussen or the combinations of Claussen disclose the implement apparatuses of claims 1, 15, and 29, but fail to teach a first dropper configured to dispense fertilizer to a first crop row; and a second dropper configured to dispense fertilizer to second crop row immediately adjacent to the first crop row.
Roth discloses an inter-row apparatus (10) comprising a plurality of drop tubes (30) configured to apply fertilizer to respective standing crop row areas (22) adjacent inter-row areas (20) (Figs. 1 and 3, para. [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize similar fertilizer drop tubes in the apparatus of Claussen, as taught by Roth, in order to allow for application of fertilizer to the crop rows as desired, e.g. to coincide with the stage of growth when nutrient uptake by the plants is increasing rapidly and thus reduce exposure to environmental conditions which could cause the fertilizer to be lost in runoff (Roth at para. [0058]).
Claims 11, 26, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claussen or the combinations of Claussen as applied to claims 1, 15, and 29 above, and further in view of Le Maigat (US 5765649 A).
Regarding claims 11, 26, and 39, Claussen or the combinations of Claussen disclose the implement apparatuses of claims 1, 15, and 29, but fail to teach a dropper coupled to the proximal end portion of the extension member and configured to dispense fertilizer between a first crop row and a second crop row immediately adjacent to the first crop row.
Le Maigat discloses a similar implement for loosening soil in the area between crop rows while simultaneously supplying fertilizer into the soil (col. 1 lines 22-25) via a liquid-fertilizer distributor (44, 45) (Fig. 1, col. 4 lines 25-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar liquid-fertilizer distributor for depositing fertilizer between the crop rows of Claussen, as taught by Le Maigat, in order to provide an implement capable of both loosening the soil and digging in liquid fertilizer simultaneously, thereby ensuring the soil is more aerated, retains more water, has better biological activity, and obtain a more satisfactory mineral supply to the plant (Le Maigat at col. 6 lines 17-23).
Claims 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claussen in view of Hoffman as applied to claim 42 above, and further in view of Figueroa et al. (US 20200146201 A1).
Regarding claims 47-48, Claussen in view of Hoffman discloses the implement apparatus of claim 42. Hoffman further teaches wherein the chopping apparatus (104, 124, or 148) is configurable is a working configuration, wherein the plurality of cutting blades, when in the working configuration, are positioned proximate the ground surface (Fig. 1), as per claim 47, and in contact with the ground surface, as per claim 48, but fails to teach a storage configuration wherein the plurality of cutting blades are further above the ground surface than when in the working configuration.
Figueroa discloses an apparatus for working soil comprising a ground-working element (72) configured to move between a first configuration (Fig. 2) to position the ground working element to engage the ground surface (para. [0061] “a deployed or first position…in which the one or more baskets 72 are in contact with, or engaged with, the support surface 26”) and a second configuration (Fig. 3) to position the ground working element so as to not engage the ground surface (para. [0061] “a stowed or second position…in which the one or more baskets 72 are not in contact with, or are disengaged from, the support surface 26”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar movable mounting apparatus for positioning the ground-working element, as taught by Figueroa, in order to allow for selective adjustment between deployed and stowed positions as desired, thereby allowing the user to avoid clogging when working in muddy conditions and/or disengage the ground-working element when the user does not want to use it (Figueroa at bottom of para. [0023]).
Claims 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claussen in view of Hoffman as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of Martindale (US 20110220373 A1).
Regarding claim 44, Claussen in view of Hoffman discloses the implement apparatus of claim 43. Hoffman further teaches wherein each of the plurality of cutting blades extends radially from the rotatable portion (114) (Fig. 1, 3), but does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of cutting blades are spaced apart from one another about the rotatable portion between a 45 degree angle to a 75 degree angle.
Martindale in the same area discloses a similar chopping apparatus comprising a plurality of blades (P) spaced approximately 45° or more apart, wherein the blades are configured to engage the soil surface while chopping crop residues (Fig. 10, para. [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the chopper of Hoffman similar to the chopper of Martindale, wherein the blades are circumferentially spaced apart by approximately 45° or more, since this is a mere simple substitution of one known chopper blade arrangement for breaking up soil, clods, and/or crop residue for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 45, Claussen in view of Hoffman discloses the implement apparatus of claim 43. Hoffman does not explicitly disclose wherein the chopping apparatus further comprises a cutting axle rotatably coupling the rotatable portion to the mounting portion.
Martindale in the same area discloses a similar chopping apparatus described above wherein the chopping apparatus comprising a rotatable cutting axle (Q) coupled to a rotatable portion of the reel chopper (see end plates and mid-plates of Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the chopper of Hoffman to utilize a central cutting axle for rotatably coupling the rotatable portion to the mounting portion, since this is a mere simple substitution of one known mounting arrangement for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 46, Claussen in view of Hoffman discloses the implement apparatus of claim 45, wherein each of the plurality of cutting blades defines a length between a first end and a second end (opposite lateral ends) in a direction substantially parallel to the cutting axis, wherein the length is substantially similar to a width defined the rotatable portion in a direction substantially parallel to the cutting axis (Hoffman at Fig. 3, width between ends of 114 is substantially similar to length of cutting blades of 112).
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claussen in view of Hoffman as applied to claim 42 above, and further in view of Shwez (US 4690224 A).
Regarding claim 51, Claussen in view of Hoffman discloses the implement apparatus of claim 42, but fails to teach wherein the chopping apparatus further comprises a cutting blade cover configured to block ground material being dispersed from the plurality of cutting blades in a generally upward direction.
However, such a structure is old and well-known.
Shwez discloses a chopper assembly (4) comprising a plurality of cutting blades (5) and a cutting blade cover (6) configured to block ground material being dispersed from the plurality of cutting blades in a generally upward direction (Figs. 1,7-8 and col. 4 lines 26-32)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar cover for the chopping apparatus of Hoffman, as taught by Shwez, in order to prevent the shredded particles from flying in all directions (Shwez at col. 2 lines 21-26).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Horst (US 0301597 A) discloses a ridger, hiller, and furrower. Patterson (US 0635581 A) discloses a two-row disk cultivator comprising a hipper and a bermer. Hinton (US 0774249 A) discloses a chopper and chopper shield. Bushong (US 2204569 A) discloses a ground working machine. Kalla et al. (US 2764925 A) discloses a rotary cultivator configured to cultivate the soil between rows of growing vegetation and leave the tilled bed even. Chance (US 4199030 A) discloses a set of reversible disks for turned soil toward or away from a centerline. Condrey (US 20070089888 A1) discloses a single pass plow having a support art attachable to many different types of ground working implements such as a hipper. Martin et al. (US 20130000535 A1) discloses an agricultural field preparation device. Hoffman et al. (US 20130199807 A1) discloses a tillage system with interchangeable modules. Preller et al. (US 20200323124 A1) discloses a row unit for field cultivation. Sivinski et al. (US 20250000001 A1) discloses a strip till unit having a bermer raisable to a transport position.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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 on (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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights