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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 16, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the phrase “are also disclosed” on line 9. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-9, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (USPGPub 2020/0337200).
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 14: Smith discloses a method of operating and an agricultural implement (as seen in figures 1-5) comprising:
a main frame (as seen in figure 2, area of 40) having a support bar (as seen in figure 2, area of 46) oriented in a direction generally transverse to a direction of travel when the implement is used to work a field;
a plurality of rotating ground-engaging elements (as seen in figure 2, area of 44) aligned along a length of the support bar (as seen in figure 2); and
a plugging detection system (as seen in figure 4, at 100 and also, page 4, paragraph [0033]) configured to alert an operator if one or more of the ground-engaging elements have an acceleration different from an acceleration of remaining ground-engaging elements by at least a threshold amount (pages 5-6, paragraph [0043]), the plugging detection system comprising
an accelerometer (figure 4, at 114; also, page 4, paragraph [0032]) for each of the plurality of ground-engaging elements and
a control module (as seen in figure 4, at 116) that compares accelerometer data of each ground-engaging element to accelerometer data of the remaining ground-engaging elements (pages 5-6, paragraphs [0041]-[0046]).
Regarding claims 2 and 3: Smith discloses the agricultural implement of claim 1. Further, Smith discloses wherein each accelerometer is in wireless/Bluetooth communication with the control module (page 7, paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claims 4 and 5: Smith discloses the agricultural implement of claim 1. Further, Smith discloses wherein the support bar comprises a toolbar (as seen in figure 2, area of 46), and further comprising a plurality of row units (as seen in figure 2, at 42 also, pages 2-3, paragraph [0024]) spaced along the toolbar and wherein each ground-engaging element is carried by one of the row units (as seen in figure 2, at 44 also, pages 2-3, paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 6: Smith discloses the agricultural implement of claim 5. Further, Smith discloses wherein the plugging detection system is configured to compare an acceleration of a ground-engaging element carried by one of the row units with an acceleration of a ground-engaging element carried by another of the row units (pages 5-6, paragraphs [0041]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 7: Smith discloses the agricultural implement of claim 4. Further, Smith discloses wherein each row unit is coupled to the toolbar by a parallel linkage (as seen in figure 2, at 52 and 54).
Regarding claims 8 and 9: Smith discloses the agricultural implement of claim 4. Further, Smith discloses wherein each row unit can comprise a planter row unit or a fertilizer row unit (page 2, paragraphs [0019] and [0023]).
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 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (USPGPub 2020/0337200) in view of DeGarmo (USP 10,765,052).
Regarding claims 10-12: Smith the discloses the agricultural implement substantially as discussed above but fails to show the wing structure of the implement or the attachment of the ground-engaging elements. However, DeGarmo teaches that it is well known to incorporate such features in concert with an implement having a plugging detection system (Abstract). DeGarmo discloses the toolbar comprises a first section and at least one wing section hingedly coupled to the first section (as seen in figure 1) and a mounting arrangement wherein a plurality of spacer spools (as seen in figure 3, at 42) between adjacent disc blades (as seen in figure 3, at 20) configured to maintain a spacing of the disc blades along the support bar (as seen in figure 3), wherein each sensor (as seen in figure 4, at 52) is within one of the spacer spools and wherein each ground-engaging element is mounted to the support bar with a spring (figure 4, at 38) and a bearing (figure 4, at 40), and wherein the sensor for each of the plurality of ground-engaging elements is integrated with the bearing (column 4, lines 58-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to provide the device of Smith with DeGarmo since it would be a simple matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable results of an agricultural implement having a plugging detection system having greater operational range and effectiveness, absent any showing to the contrary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smith et al. (USPGPub 2021/0029865) discloses an implement having a material accumulation system employing an accelerometer.
Glovier (USPGPub 2023/0397520) discloses a system and method for detecting disk gang plugging employing a sensor mounted on bearing structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT ERIC PEZZUTO whose telephone number is (703)756-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/ROBERT E PEZZUTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights