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 .
Drawings
Figure 2a & 2b should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “wherein the coulter connection is pivotable relative to the frame connection about a pivot axis via an actuating element” in claim 1, and “wherein the coulter connection is lockable relative to the frame connection via a locking mechanism” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification describes the actuating element as a hydraulic cylinder, and the locking mechanism as a locking lever.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3 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.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "in particular" (two occurrences) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It appears that the phrase should be deleted.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the pivot bearing" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that claim 9 should be dependent upon claim 2 instead of claim 1 to provide proper antecedent basis for this limitation.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauman (US 11,166,402) and further in view of Engel et al. (US 2020/0221638).
As concerns claim 1, Bauman shows a coulter holder (300) having a frame connection (2) for attaching to a machine frame (toolbar [not shown in Fig. 3 & 4]) and a coulter connection (3) for attaching a coulter unit (10, 17), wherein the coulter connection is pivotable relative to the frame connection about a pivot axis (7) via an actuating element (5) between a working position (Fig. 3) and a raised position (Fig. 4) and is lockable relative to the frame connection via a locking mechanism (60) for fixing the coulter unit in the working position (Fig. 3, 8 & 9). Bauman discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the locking mechanism is operatively connected to the actuating element and can be actuated by actuating the actuating element. Engel teaches wherein a locking mechanism (48) is operatively connected to an actuating element (46) and can be actuated by actuating the actuating element (Fig. 2; paragraph 0025 & 0026). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Bauman, as taught by Engel, to operatively connect the locking mechanism to the actuating element for the expected benefit of combining the operation of pivotably moving the coulter connection relative to the frame connection and fixing the coulter connection relative to the frame connection. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that operatively connecting the locking mechanism to the actuating element would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the expected result of this configuration improves versatility/adaptability/efficiency of the coulter holder design.
As concerns claim 2, Bauman shows wherein the actuating element (5) extends between a pivot bearing (5a) configured at the frame connection and a pivot bearing (5b) configured at the coulter connection.
As concerns claim 4, the combination teaches wherein the locking mechanism (Engel: 48) has at least one locking lever (Engel: 48L) pivotable about a locking axis (Engel: Fig. 2).
As concerns claim 5, the combination teaches wherein the locking lever is connected on one side of the locking axis via a lever bearing to the pivot bearing arranged on the frame connection and has a locking element on the other side of the locking axis (Engel: Fig. 2; paragraph 0026).
As concerns claim 6, the combination teaches wherein a locking force acting on the locking element can be applied via the actuating element (Engel: Fig. 2; paragraph 0025 & 0026).
As concerns claim 7, the combination teaches wherein the locking element (Engel: 48L) is hook-shaped (Engel: Fig. 2).
As concerns claim 9, Bauman shows wherein the frame connection (2) and the coulter connection (3) each have a mounting region for detachable mounting on the machine frame and/or of the coulter unit (Fig. 3 & 4).
As concerns claim 10, Bauman shows wherein the pivot axis (7) is arranged at an end of the coulter connection opposite the mounting region and the pivot bearing (5b) is arranged between the pivot axis and the mounting region.
As concerns claim 11, Bauman shows wherein the mounting region of the frame connection is configured complementary to a mounting region of the machine frame and the mounting region of the coulter connection is configured complementary to a mounting region of the coulter unit (Fig. 3 & 4).
As concerns claim 12, Bauman shows wherein a weight force acting on the coulter-connection-side end of the actuating element in the working position is greater than a lever force acting on the frame-connection-side end of the actuating element (Fig. 3 & 4).
As concerns claim 13, Bauman shows a sowing machine having a machine frame and a plurality of coulter units arranged transversely to a running direction parallel to one another, at least one of the coulter units being attached to the machine frame via a coulter holder, wherein the coulter holder is configured according to claim 1 (abstract; Fig. 3 & 4).
As concerns claim 14, Bauman shows wherein several coulter units arranged transversely to the running direction parallel to each other, which are alternatingly attached directly to the machine frame or indirectly to the machine frame via a coulter holder (abstract; Fig. 3 & 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 8 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 claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not appear to anticipate and/or render obvious:
a) a coulter holder having a frame connection for attaching to a machine frame and a coulter connection for attaching a coulter unit, wherein the coulter connection is pivotable relative to the frame connection about a pivot axis via an actuating element between a working position and a raised position and is lockable relative to the frame connection via a locking mechanism for fixing the coulter unit in the working position wherein the locking mechanism is operatively connected to the actuating element and can be actuated by actuating the actuating element, wherein the actuating element extends between a pivot bearing configured at the frame connection and a pivot bearing configured at the coulter connection, and wherein the pivot bearing arranged at the frame connection is mounted movably in a bearing guide, movably transversely to the pivot axis, and movably between an upper stop and a lower stop of the bearing guide.
b) a coulter holder having a frame connection for attaching to a machine frame and a coulter connection for attaching a coulter unit, wherein the coulter connection is pivotable relative to the frame connection about a pivot axis via an actuating element between a working position and a raised position and is lockable relative to the frame connection via a locking mechanism for fixing the coulter unit in the working position wherein the locking mechanism is operatively connected to the actuating element and can be actuated by actuating the actuating element, wherein the locking mechanism has at least one locking lever pivotable about a locking axis, wherein the locking element is hook-shaped and can be locked on a locking bolt arranged on the coulter connection, and wherein, in the working position, the locking bolt is supported by a stop of a supporting bearing configured at the frame connection in order to absorb forces applied via the coulter unit.
The combination of Bauman (US 11,166,402) and Engel et al. (US 2020/0221638) does not show wherein the pivot bearing arranged at the frame connection is mounted movably in a bearing guide, movably transversely to the pivot axis, and movably between an upper stop and a lower stop of the bearing guide, or wherein the locking element is hook-shaped and can be locked on a locking bolt arranged on the coulter connection, and wherein, in the working position, the locking bolt is supported by a stop of a supporting bearing configured at the frame connection in order to absorb forces applied via the coulter unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights