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) filed 21 January 2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609.
Non-patent literature (NPL) citation no. 1 has not been considered because it lacks the place of publication.
It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
The information disclosure statement filed 21 January 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed.
NPL citation no. 2 has not been considered because a legible copy of the reference has not been filed.
NPL citation no. 3 has not been considered because a legible copy of the reference has not been filed. In one of the information disclosure statements filed 05 December 2023, a copy of Ag Leader SureSpeedTM was submitted but does not support consideration of the citation for Ag Leader Integra.
It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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.
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. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waterman (US 1,178,765 A) in view of Adams et al. (US 2012/0048159 A1).
CLAIMS 1, 5 AND 7
CLAIM 1 Waterman ‘765 (“Waterman”) teaches an agricultural planting system comprising:
one or more row units (Fig. 1), each row unit comprising:
(a) a soil engaging member (34, 55, 56, 57, collectively) shaped to penetrate at least one sidewall of a trench and urge soil over a seed (p. 3, ll. 70-83);
wherein the soil engaging member comprises a rotating member (55) disposed at a distal end (34) of the soil engaging member, and wherein the rotating member is constructed and arranged to penetrate the at least one sidewall (“widens the furrow” per patent claim 1).
Waterman fails to teach a sensor. Adams et al. ‘159 (“Adams”) discloses an agricultural planting system comprising a row unit (16) and at least one sensor (97) in operative communication (via 96) with at least one soil engaging member (42, 46), wherein the at least one sensor is configured to measure one or more seed trench parameters (¶ 0050). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the prior art agricultural planting system (Waterman, generally) such that it would have further included at least one sensor (Adams, 97) in operative communication with the at least one soil engaging member (Waterman, 55), as suggested by Adams. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for detecting soil moisture level in the seed trench to determine a suitable working depth for the at least one soil engaging member (Adams, ¶ 0050), and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
In the combination of Waterman and Adams, the soil engaging member (Waterman, 55, 56, 57) includes at least one angled portion (Waterman, per concave configuration), and the angled portion penetrates the sidewall of the trench and urges soil from the sidewall of the trench over a seed (p. 3, ll. 70-83).
CLAIM 5 In the combination of Waterman and Adams, the at least one sensor (Adams, 97) measures soil moisture (Adams, ¶ 0050).
CLAIM 7 In the combination of Waterman and Adams, the at least one sensor (Adams, 97) is a strain gauge (Adams, ¶ 0032).
CLAIMS 8 AND 10-12
CLAIM 8 Waterman ‘765 (“Waterman”) teaches a row unit comprising:
(a) at least one opening disc (75);
(b) a soil engaging member (34, 55, 56, 57, collectively) constructed and arranged to penetrate a sidewall of a seed trench and displace soil from a sidewall to cover a seed (p. 3, ll. 70-83), the soil engaging member having an angled portion (34); and
(c) a rotating member (55) disposed at a distal end of the angled portion (34) of the soil engaging member, and wherein the rotating member (55) is constructed and arranged to penetrate the sidewall (“widens the furrow” per patent claim 1); and
(d) at least one closing disc (21) constructed and arranged to urge soil into the seed trench to close the trench.
Waterman fails to teach (e) a sensing system comprising a sensor. Adams et al. ‘159 (“Adams”) discloses a row unit (16) comprising at least one sensor (97) operatively engaged (via 96) with at least one soil engaging member (42, 46), wherein the at least one sensor is configured to measure one of sidewall compaction and moisture (¶¶ 0032, 0050). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the prior art row unit (Waterman, generally) such that it would have further included at least one sensor (Adams, 97) operatively engaged with the at least one soil engaging member (Waterman, 55), as suggested by Adams. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for detecting the level of soil moisture or workability of the seed trench to determine a suitable working depth for the at least one soil engaging member (Adams, ¶ 0050), and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 10 In the combination of Waterman and Adams, the at least one sensor (Adams, 97) measures soil moisture (Adams, ¶ 0050).
CLAIM 11 In the combination of Waterman and Adams, the at least one sensor (Adams, 97) is a strain gauge (Adams, ¶ 0032).
CLAIM 12 In the combination of Waterman and Adams, the strain gauge (Adams,
¶ 0032) inherently measures the force exerted on the soil engaging member during operation to infer sidewall compaction.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. (US 2012/0048159 A1) in view of Waterman (US 1,178,765 A).
CLAIM 15 Adams et al. ‘159 (“Adams”) teaches a planting system comprising a plurality of row units (16), each row unit comprising:
(a) at least one opening disc (42) configured to open a seed trench;
(c) at least one strain gauge (97, ¶ 0032);
(d) one or more moisture sensors (97, ¶ 0050) configured to measure soil moisture; and
(e) a closing wheel (46) configured to fill a remainder of the seed trench not filled in a first stage of closing.
Adams fails to teach a soil engaging member. Waterman ‘765 (“Waterman”), as best viewed in Fig. 1, discloses a row unit comprising a soil engaging member (34, 55, 56, 57, collectively) comprising an angled portion (34) at a distal end of the soil engaging member configured to engage a sidewall of the trench during a first stage of closing to cover a seed with moist soil (p. 3, ll. 70-83; patent claim 1). It would have been an obvious modification for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the prior art planting system (Adams, Fig. 1) such that it would have included a soil engaging member (Waterman, 55) configured to engage a seed trench sidewall (Waterman, claim 1), as suggested by Waterman. The motivation for making the modification would have been to promote seed propagation with the provision of means for incorporating “new soil” (Waterman, p. 1, ll. 25-41), and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have placed the strain gauge (Adams, 97, ¶ 0032) in operative communication with the soil engaging member (Waterman) to measure force on the same during planting operations. The motivation for making the modification would have been to have included means for monitoring and assessing soil characteristics in real-time at the point of interaction with the soil engaging member, and to have done so with means already present in the planting system.
Additionally, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have disposed at least one soil sensor (Adams, 97, ¶ 0050) on the soil engaging member (Waterman). The motivation for making the modification would have been to have included means for monitoring and assessing soil moisture in real-time at the point of interaction with the soil engaging member, and to have done so with means already present in the planting system.
CLAIM 16 In the combination of Adams and Waterman, the force on the soil engaging member (Waterman) during planting operations is a measure of sidewall compaction.
CLAIM 17 In the combination of Adams and Waterman, target downforce on the row unit (Adams, 16) is decreased or increased in response to the measure of sidewall compaction1.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §103
In response to Applicant’s arguments filed 21 January 2026, the examiner has clarified the interpretation of Waterman as it is applied above to the rejection of independent claims 1 and 8.
Applicant's arguments filed 21 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because the prior art combination of Adams and Waterman teaches a two-stage closing system conducted first by the soil-engaging member (Waterman, 34, 55, 56, 57, collectively) and second by the closing wheel (Adams, 46).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Summach et al. (US 2005/0263049 A1) show various configurations for a seed knife having an angled portion.
Swanson (US 7,004,090 B2) shows a planting system comprising an injector wing (26) that includes an angled portion (56) for penetrating the upper sidewall of a seed trench (Figs. 8 and 9).
Schilling et al. (US 2014/0109808 A1) show a planting system comprising a soil-engaging member (44) shaped to penetrate at least one sidewall of a seed trench (¶ 0022, Fig. 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, Joseph 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/tm/
13 March 2026
1 In paragraph 0032, Adams discloses the use of a controller (96) for adjusting row unit downforce in response to signals received from the sensor assembly (97), inclusive of the strain gauge and moisture sensor.