DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 19/092,768 filed on March 27, 2025 in which claims 10-33 were presented for examination and the Election filed June 9, 2026 in which claims 19-29 were elected and claims 10-18 and 30-33 were withdrawn.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 19-29 are pending, of which claims 19-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); claims 19, 20, 22, 23, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2); and claims 21 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed June 27, 2025 and April 30, 2026 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. They have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. §§ 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 19-29 in the reply filed on June 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Title of the Invention
37 C.F.R. § 1.72(a) states: “The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible” (emphasis added). Specifically, nothing in the claims relate to “vision guidance,” and, thus, the title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive.
A new title is required that is more clearly and more specifically indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the terms “pivot links” at l. 10 and “floating pivots” at l. 12 lack antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 19, this claim is indefinite for two reasons. First, this claim includes the limitation “the support linkage comprising fixed pivots disposed proximate the support frame.” (Emphasis added). The term “proximate” in this context is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, a person would not know how close the fixed pivots had to be to the support frame to constitute being “proximate.”
Second, this claim includes the limitation “pivot links pivotally connected to the fixed pivots and projecting forwardly and downwardly away from the toolbar in the operative direction, and floating pivots on the pivot links which support one or more of the cutting devices so that the one or more cutting devices float relative to the toolbar and engage with the ground.” (Emphasis added). In this particular instance, the “so that” clause is subject to two, mutually exclusive interpretations. This may be interpreted as merely stating the intended use of the floating pivots; namely that they are used so that the cutting devices will float and engage the ground. Under this interpretation, the “so that” clause would not be subject to any patentable weight.
This limitation may also be interpreted as defining the structure of the pivot links; specifically that they are place in a manner so that the cutting devices float relative to the toolbar and engage the ground. Under this interpretation, the “so that” clause would be subject to patentable weight.
“[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). See also Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416 (PTAB 2017) (precedential) (affirming the holding in Ex parte Miyazaki).
Therefore, this claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 23, this claim uses the term “depends downwardly,” This does not appear to be a known term of art nor is its meaning defined in the present specification. Therefore, the examiner cannot determine the metes and bounds of this term, rendering the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, the examiner shall interpret “depends downwardly” as “directed downwardly.”
Regarding claims 20-29, each of these claims depends from at least one of the claims above and, therefore, inherits the rejection of that claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19, 20, 22, 23, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ptacek et al., US Publication 2020/0359546 (hereinafter Ptacek).
Regarding claim 19, Ptacek discloses a towable agricultural implement mountable to a tractor towing through a field in an operative direction.” (Ptacek ¶ 32, First Sentence). Additionally, Ptacek discloses “the agricultural implement comprising: a main mounting assembly, which is mountable to the tractor” (Ptacek ¶ 32) in the form of frame 12. Further, Ptacek discloses “a toolbar supported rearwardly on the main mounting assembly in a lateral position to align the toolbar relative to crop rows, the toolbar including at least one row unit configured to pass between crop rows for working ground between the crop rows” (Ptacek ¶ 32, Fig. 4a) where toolbars 22 are shown in such a manner. Moreover, Ptacek discloses “each the row unit comprising a support frame mounted to the toolbar” (Ptacek ¶¶ 32, 39 and Figs. 4a, 5a) where “ground openers 20” are row units and shown to be mounted to the toolbar (Ptacek ¶ 32 and Fig. 4a) and upper bar 64 is shown in Fig. 5a to be a support frame (Ptacek ¶ 39, Fig. 5a).
Likewise, Ptacek discloses “one or more cutting devices supported on the support frame by a support linkage configured as a four-bar linkage that allows the cutting devices of the row units to float relative to the toolbar” (Ptacek ¶¶ 39, 41) where ground opener 20 (i.e., one or more cutting devices) are “in the form of … a four-bar linkage assembly” (Ptacek ¶ 39) and later indicating that the cutting device may float. (Ptacek ¶ 41). Ptacek also discloses “the support linkage comprising fixed pivots disposed proximate the support frame” (Ptacek ¶ 40 and Fig. 6) where pivot joints 70 and 74 (i.e., a fixed pivots) are shown proximate to upper bar 64. In addition, Ptacek discloses “pivot links pivotally connected to the fixed pivots and projecting forwardly and downwardly away from the toolbar in the operative direction” (Ptacek ¶ 40 and Fig. 6) where links are shown to be connected to the pivot points in a downward manner (Ptacek Fig. 6) and further indicating that pivot joints 70 and 74 are forwardly mounted. (Ptacek ¶ 40). Finally, Ptacek discloses “floating pivots on the pivot links which support one or more of the cutting devices so that the one or more cutting devices float relative to the toolbar and engage with the ground.” (Ptacek ¶ 40).
Regarding claim 20, Ptacek discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 19 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Ptacek discloses “wherein each the row unit comprises a plurality of the cutting devices including a leading cutting device and trailing cutting device disposed rearwardly of the leading cutting device.” (Ptacek Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 22, Ptacek discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 20 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Ptacek discloses “wherein the support linkage supports the leading cutting device and permits independent, vertical movement of the leading cutting device relative to the toolbar” (Ptacek ¶ 38) where the firming wheel is pressed (i.e., vertically moved) down via a spring so that it maintains contact with the ground. Each ground opener has its own spring, meaning that it moves independent of the other cutting devices.
Regarding claim 23, Ptacek discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 20 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Ptacek discloses “wherein the support frame angles rearwardly as it depends downwardly from the toolbar, which positions the fixed pivots below and toward a rear edge of the toolbar and positions the floating pivots forwardly and downwardly of the fixed pivots.” (Ptacek Fig, 4b).
Regarding claim 27, Ptacek discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 19 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Ptacek discloses “wherein each the row unit further comprises an actuator unit, which is operable for adjusting the down force generated by the cutting devices with the ground” (Ptacek ¶ 49) where several types of actuators may be used to perform this function.
Regarding claim 28, Ptacek discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 27 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Ptacek discloses “wherein the actuator unit is also operable to lift the row unit” (Ptacek ¶ 49) where the actuators may raise the ground openers.
Regarding claim 29, Ptacek discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 27 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Ptacek discloses “wherein one of the pivot links comprises a control arm which extends rearwardly beyond the fixed pivots and is driven by the actuator unit to control pivoting of the pivot links” (Ptacek ¶ 49 and Fig. 6) where Fig. 6 shows that mount arm 94 extends rearwardly beyond the fixed pivot point 70 and is attached to the actuator 90, meaning that it is driven by the actuator.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ptacek in view of Trumm, US Patent 4,821,807 (hereinafter Trumm), as cited on the Information Disclosure Statement dated April 30, 2026.
Regarding claim 21, Ptacek discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 20 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Ptacek does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein at least one of the leading cutting device and the trailing cutting device is configured as a sweep.”
However, Trumm discloses an agricultural implement “wherein at least one of the leading cutting device and the trailing cutting device is configured as a sweep” (Trumm col. 2, l. 60-col. 3, l. 10) by disclosing that it is widely known that sweeps may be used on tractor mounted cutting devices.
Ptacek and Trumm are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of agricultural implements including cutting devices.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ptacek and Trumm before him or her to modify the cutting devices of Ptacek to include the sweeps of Trumm.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the use of sweeps are highly effective in weed control, which is a known desirable feature.
Regarding claim 24, Ptacek discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 23 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Ptacek does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the pivot links support a cutter frame pivotally connected to the floating pivots on which the leading cutting device is supported forwardly and downwardly of a front edge of the toolbar.”
However, Trumm discloses an agricultural implement “wherein the pivot links support a cutter frame pivotally connected to the floating pivots on which the leading cutting device is supported forwardly and downwardly of a front edge of the toolbar” (Trumm col. 2, l. 60-col. 3, l. 10) by disclosing that the cutters may be pivotably mounted in a forwardly projecting manner.
Ptacek and Trumm are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of agricultural implements including cutting devices.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ptacek and Trumm before him or her to modify the direction of the lead cutting device of Ptacek to include the forwardly directed cutting device of Trumm.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of simple substitution. See KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Ptacek differs from the claimed invention by including a rearwardly directed lead cutting device in place of the claimed forwardly directed lead cutting device. Further, Trumm teaches that a forwardly directed lead cutting device was well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted direction of the lead cutting devices because both include cutting devices in the same location and such a modification would merely require turning the lead cutting devices.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Ptacek and Trumm discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 24 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Ptacek and Trumm discloses “wherein the cutter frame further supports the trailing cutting device thereon, which is disposed rearwardly of the leading cutting device and below the toolbar.” (Ptacek Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Ptacek and Trumm discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 24 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Ptacek and Trumm discloses “wherein the cutter frame includes one or more ground-contacting wheels rotatable on an axle supported on the cutter frame.” (Ptacek Fig. 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure because these references were cited in the prosecution of parent application 17/499,333:
Wei et al., US Publication 2007/0001097
Kremmer et al., US Publication 2020/0236833
Stanhope, US Publication 2020/0390022
Ellaboudy et al., US Publication 2021/0000006
Dickson et al., US Patent 6,385,515
Badger et al., US Patent 8,201,638
Mitchel et al., US Patent 9,913,422
Saunder et al., US Patent 10,238,023
Leopold Einbӧck, EP-3766319-B1
Henry Kassabaum Orthman, DE-2849580-A1
Fox et al., GB-2598141-A
Qin Ma, CN-113128576-A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights