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
Claim 1 is objected to because it recites "the draw bar" in line 14, line 15, and line 16 (instead of "the draw-bar" as recited elsewhere throughout the claims). Consistent terminology is required. Accordingly, appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) 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. Given the claim language in light of the specification, "one or more wheels" introduced in claims 1 and 11 and "a cart" introduced in claims 9 and 20 are interpreted to be elements of (i.e., parts of) the claimed device (i.e., the agricultural implement).
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 5, 6, and 12-20 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "at least the wheels of the center section" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The wheels introduced in claim 1 (from which claim 5 depends) are not "of the center section" as recited in claim 5. Rather, claim 1 recites "each of the center section, the left wing section, and the right wing section is supported on the ground by one or more wheels;" in lines 10-12. Claim 5 is being further examined as though "at least the wheels of the center section" reads "at least the one or more wheels supporting the center section" in lines 1-2.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "at least the wheels of the center section" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The wheels introduced in claim 1 (from which claim 6 depends) are not "of the center section" as recited in claim 6. Rather, claim 1 recites "each of the center section, the left wing section, and the right wing section is supported on the ground by one or more wheels;" in lines 10-12. Claim 6 is being further examined as though "at least the wheels of the center section" reads "at least the one or more wheels supporting the center section" in lines 1-2.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the left and right support linkages" in line 21 an. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 is being further examined as though "the left and right support linkages" reads "the first and second support linkages" in line 21 and in line 23. Additionally, claims 13-20 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 12.
Claim 16 recites "each of the left wing section, the right wing section, and the center section is supported on the ground by separate wheels," in lines 1-3. However, claim 12 (from which claim 16 depends) previously sets forth "each of the center section, the left wing section, and the right wing section is supported on a ground surface by one or more wheels," in lines 8-10. It is unclear if the "separate wheels" in claim 16 are of or in addition to the one or more wheels set forth in claim 12. Thus, the metes and bounds of the wheels in claim 16 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 16 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "at least the wheels of the center section" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The wheels introduced in claim 12 (from which claim 16 depends) are not "of the center section" as recited in claim 16. Again, claim 12 previously sets forth "each of the center section, the left wing section, and the right wing section is supported on a ground surface by one or more wheels," in lines 8-10. Claim 16 is being further examined as though "at least the wheels of the center section" reads "at least the one or more wheels supporting the center section" in line 3.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "at least the wheels of the center section" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The wheels introduced in claim 12 (from which claim 17 depends) are not "of the center section" as recited in claim 17. Again, claim 12 previously sets forth "each of the center section, the left wing section, and the right wing section is supported on a ground surface by one or more wheels," in lines 8-10. Claim 17 is being further examined as though "at least the wheels of the center section" reads "at least the one or more wheels supporting the center section" in lines 1-2.
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 1-5, 7, 11-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applequist et al. (US 4,664,202)
Regarding claim 1, Applequist discloses an agricultural implement configured to be propelled over the ground by a prime mover, said implement comprising:
a toolbar comprising a center section (including or of 22), a left wing section (including 62), and a right wing section (including 60), wherein the toolbar is a front-folding toolbar (front-folding about 64 and 66) configured to be shifted between an operational configuration (see Fig. 1) in which the left and right wing sections extend laterally from the center section and a transport configuration (see Fig. 6) in which the left and right wing sections extend forward from the center section;
wherein each of the center section, the left wing section, and the right wing section is configured to support a plurality of agricultural tools (e.g., 142 and/or 144), and wherein each of the center section, the left wing section, and the right wing section is supported on the ground by one or more wheels (including 26 and 104); and
an elongated draw-bar (including 12) extending forward from the center section of the toolbar, wherein a rear end of the draw-bar is connected to the center section via a pivot connection (at 48 and/or 58) that permits the draw-bar to vertically rotate (about 48 and/or 58) with respect to the center section, wherein a front end of the draw-bar is configured to be connected (via 14) to the prime mover (see col. 3, lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 2, Applequist discloses the agricultural implement with respect to claim 1, wherein in the operational position (see Fig. 1), the toolbar extends generally perpendicularly to a direction of travel of the agricultural implement (to the left in Fig. 1), and wherein in the transport position (see Fig. 6), at least a portion of the toolbar extends generally parallel to a direction of travel of the agricultural implement (to the left in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 3, Applequist discloses the agricultural implement with respect to claim 1, wherein each of the left wing section (including 62) and the right wing section (including 60) is connected to the center section (including or of 22) via a pivot connection (at 64 and 66), such that each of the left wing section and the right wing section is configured to vertically rotate (about 72, shown in Fig. 4) with respect to the center section (see Figs. 9-11).
Regarding claim 4, Applequist discloses the agricultural implement with respect to claim 1, wherein when the toolbar is in the transport configuration (see Fig. 6), the left and right wing sections (including 62 and 60) extend forward from the center section (including or of 22) of the toolbar and are in general alignment with the draw-bar (including 12; see Fig. 6), and wherein the left and right wing sections are configured to rotate vertically in unison with the draw-bar (about 48 and/or 58) with respect to the center section.
Regarding claim 5, Applequist discloses the agricultural implement with respect to claim 1, wherein at least the one or more wheels (including 26) supporting the center section (including or of 22) are configured to raise and lower the toolbar (via 28) with respect to the ground.
Regarding claim 7, Applequist discloses the agricultural implement with respect to claim 1, wherein the plurality of agricultural tools (e.g., 142 and/or 144) is selected from one or more of the following: seeding tools, nutrient applicators, pesticide applicators, and fertilizer applicators (142 for penetrating and opening a furrow in the soil, which is used for seeds, nutrients, pesticides, and/or fertilizer in normal drilling operations).
Regarding claim 11, Applequist discloses the agricultural implement with respect to claim 1, further comprising a pair of support linkages (including 110 and 108) extending between the draw-bar (including 12) and each of the left and right wing sections (including 62 and 60) of the toolbar, wherein the support linkages are configured such that when the draw-bar rotates upward and/or downward (i.e., when 12 rotates relative to 22 about 48 and/or 58), the support linkages cause a corresponding forward and/or rearward shifting of the left and right wing sections (with respect to the center section) when the toolbar is in the operational configuration (see Fig. 1, wherein 110 and 108 retain 62 and 60 in the position shown, whereas 22 moves forward and/or rearward, or vice versa depending on its position about 48 and 58).
Regarding claim 12, Applequist discloses an agricultural implement configured to be propelled by a prime mover, said implement comprising:
a toolbar comprising a left wing section (including 62), a right wing section (including 60), and a center section (including or of 22), wherein the toolbar is a front-folding toolbar (front-folding about 64 and 66) with the left and right wing sections being configured to be shifted forward and/or rearward with respect to the center section;
wherein each of the center section, the left wing section, and the right wing section is configured to support a plurality of agricultural tools (e.g., 142 and/or 144), and wherein each of the center section, the left wing section, and the right wing section is supported on a ground surface by one or more wheels (including 26 and 104);
an elongated draw-bar (including 12) with a rear end connected to the center section of the toolbar, wherein the draw-bar extends forward from the toolbar to a front end configured to be coupled (via 14) with the prime mover (see col. 3, labeled lines 8-11), wherein the draw-bar is rotatably connected (at 48 and/or 58) with the center section of the toolbar such that the draw-bar is configured to rotate upward and downward (about 48 and/or 58) with respect to the toolbar; and
a first support linkage (including 110) extending from the draw-bar to the left wing section of the toolbar (see Fig. 1);
a second support linkage (including 108) extending from the draw-bar to the right wing section of the toolbar (see Fig. 1);
wherein the first and second support linkages are configured such that when the draw-bar rotates upward and/or downward with respect to the center section of the toolbar (i.e., when 12 rotates relative to 22 about 48 and/or 58), the first and second support linkages cause a corresponding forward and/or rearward shifting of the left and right wing sections of the toolbar with respect to the center section of the toolbar (see Fig. 1, wherein 110 and 108 retain 62 and 60 in the position shown, whereas 22 moves forward and/or rearward, or vice versa depending on its position about 48 and 58).
Regarding claim 13, Applequist discloses the agricultural implement with respect to claim 12, wherein each of the left wing section (including 62) and the right wing section (including 60) is configured to rotate vertically (about 72, shown in Fig. 4) with respect to the center section (including or of 22; see Figs. 9-11).
Regarding claim 14, Applequist discloses the agricultural implement with respect to claim 12, wherein when the left and right wing sections (including 62 and 60) of the toolbar are shifted forward, the toolbar is in a transport configuration (see Fig. 6), wherein when the left and right wing sections of the toolbar are shifted rearward, the toolbar is in an operational configuration (see Fig. 1), and wherein a width of the agricultural implement in the transport position is less than the width of the agricultural implement in the operational position (see Fig. 6 in comparison to Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Applequist discloses the agricultural implement with respect to claim 14, wherein in the transport configuration (see Fig. 6), the left and right wing sections (including 62 and 60) extend forward from the center section (including or of 22) of the toolbar and are in general alignment with the draw-bar (including 12; see Fig. 6), and the left and right wing sections are configured to rotate vertically in unison with the draw-bar (about 48 and/or 58) with respect to the center section.
Regarding claim 16, Applequist discloses the agricultural implement with respect to claim 12, wherein each of the left wing section (including 62), the right wing section (including 60), and the center section (including or of 22) is supported on the ground by separate wheels (including respective, separate 26 and 104; see Fig. 1), wherein at least the one or more wheels (including 26) supporting the center section are configured to raise and lower the toolbar (via 28) with respect to the ground.
Regarding claim 18, Applequist discloses the agricultural implement with respect to claim 12, wherein the plurality of agricultural tools (e.g., 142 and/or 144) is selected from one or more of the following: seeding tools, nutrient applicators, pesticide applicators, and fertilizer applicators (142 for penetrating and opening a furrow in the soil, which is used for seeds, nutrients, pesticides, and/or fertilizer in normal drilling operations).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applequist in view of Frasier (US 6,076,613).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Applequist discloses the agricultural implement with respect to claims 5 and 16, as set forth above. Applequist does not explicitly disclose the one or more wheels supporting the center section being configured to castor. However, Frasier teaches an agricultural implement comprising a toolbar having a left wing section (including 46), a right wing section (including 48), and a center section (including 44), wherein each of the left wing section, the right wing section, and the center section is supported on the ground by separate wheels (including 26, 28, 18), wherein the wheels are configured to castor (col. 3, lines 52-65).
Frasier is analogous because Frasier discloses a towed agricultural implement comprising a front-folding toolbar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the implement of Applequist with castoring means as taught by Frasier in order to conveniently level the implement in a coordinated fashion. (See Frasier, col. 3, lines 52-65.)
Claims 8-10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applequist in view of Ryder et al. (US 8,893,629)
Regarding claims 8-10, 19, and 20, Applequist discloses the agricultural implement with respect to claims 7 and 18, as set forth above. Applequist also discloses the plurality of agricultural tools (e.g., 142 and/or 144) being selected from one or more of the following: seeding tools, nutrient applicators, pesticide applicators, and fertilizer applicators (142 for penetrating and opening a furrow in the soil, which is used for seeds, nutrients, pesticides, and/or fertilizer in normal drilling operations). Applequist does not explicitly disclose a tank supported on the ground by a cart as claimed. However, Ryder teaches an agricultural implement comprising a toolbar (including 14) configured to support a plurality of row units, a draw-bar (including 12), and a tank (including 60) to hold agricultural products to be deposited into or onto the ground by the row units, wherein the tank is supported on the ground by a cart (including 62), wherein the cart includes its own wheels (64), and wherein the cart is connected to the toolbar via a connection assembly that permits the cart to rotate with respect to the toolbar (via a towing hitch).
Ryder is analogous because Ryder discloses a towed agricultural implement comprising a folding toolbar and a tank. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the implement of Applequist with tank means as taught by Ryder for storing various flowable particulate materials. (See Ryder, col. 5, lines 14-26.)
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,284,932. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent anticipate the limitations of those in the instant application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Hornung (US 3,791,673) discloses an agricultural implement comprising a toolbar having left and right wing sections (including 56 and 54), an elongated draw-bar (including 40) rotatably connected to the toolbar (at 48 and 50), a pair of support linkages (including or of 24 and 26) extending between the draw-bar and each of the left and right wing sections (see Fig. 1), wherein the support linkages are configured such that when the draw-bar rotates upward and/or downward, the support linkages cause a corresponding forward and/or rearward shifting of the left and right wing sections when the toolbar is in the operational configuration (see Fig. 1, wherein the pivots of the implement are configured to impart such movement).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joel F. Mitchell whose telephone number is (571)272-7689. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00.
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 at (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 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.
/JFM/9/30/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights