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
Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in the information disclosure statements 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).
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, the references have not been considered unless they have been (a) cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, or (b) cited by Applicant in an information disclosure statement and initialed by the examiner.
The information disclosure statements filed 10 October 2024 and 22 December 2025 fail 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. They have all been placed in the application file, but some of the information referred to therein has not been considered.
IDS FILED 10-OCT-2024 (M23QD16YWFYGX59)
Foreign patent document citation nos. 4, 7, 8, and 10-12 have not been considered.
IDS FILED 10-OCT-2024 (M23QRS7UWFYGX58)
Foreign patent citation nos. 11 and 14 have not been considered.
IDS FILED 10-OCT-2024 (M23R92EAWFYGX52)
Foreign patent citation nos. 4, 5, and 8 have not been considered.
IDS FILED 10-OCT-2024 (M23RUESAWFYGX52)
Foreign patent citation no. 3 has not been considered.
The information disclosure statements filed 10 October 2024 and 22 December 2025 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i), which requires a concise explanation of the relevance, as presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. They have all been placed in the application file, but some of the information referred to therein has not been considered.
IDS FILED 10-OCT-2024 (M23R92EAWFYGX52)
Foreign patent citation no. 14 has not been considered.
IDS FILED 10-OCT-2024 (M23RUESAWFYGX52)
Foreign patent citation nos. 1 and 2 have not been considered.
IDS FILED 22-DEC-2025
Foreign patent citation nos. 8 and 9 have not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 10 October 2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because each listed publication is not identified by a date and/or place of publication. See 37 1.98(b)(5). It has been placed in the application file, but at least some of the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
IDS FILED 10-OCT-2024 (M23R92EAWFYGX52)
Non-patent literature citation nos. 1 and 2 have not been considered.
IDS FILED 10-OCT-2024 (M23RUESAWFYGX52)
Non-patent literature citation nos. 1-12 have not been considered.
Drawings
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 objections to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities.
The drawing sheets are not numbered. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(t).
In Figures 1-4B, the lines, numbers, and letters shown are not durable, clean, uniformly thick and well-defined to permit comprehension and adequate reproduction. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(l).
In Figures 4C, 4D, and 5, the shaded areas reduce legibility. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(m).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed; specifically, only a method is claimed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: inadequate description of disclosed examples. Appropriate correction is required.
In the Brief Summary, Examples 1-18 are disclosed. However, in the Detailed Description, only Examples 1-4 are further described. Additionally, the descriptions provided do not align with the examples disclosed in Brief Summary. For example, in paragraph 009 of the originally filed specification, Example 4 is briefly disclosed a method for reducing the speed of the flighted belt, but in paragraph 089, Example 4 is described in detail as a method for increasing the speed of the flighted belt.
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 4 and 6-9 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 4 The scope of the claimed invention is indefinite because the formula recited on line 3 does not yield a “reduction of speed”, which would be an amount of change from the initial speed of the flighted belt. The recited formula appears to yield the ideal speed of the flighted belt after decrease.
CLAIM 6 The scope of the claimed invention is indefinite because the formula recited on line 3 does not yield an “increase of speed”, which would be an amount of change from the initial speed of the flighted belt. The recited formula appears to yield the ideal speed of the flighted belt after increase.
CLAIM 7 On line 1, the step of “inputting” renders the scope of the claimed invention indefinite because it is unclear where the additional parameters are intended to be input. CLAIMS 8 and 9 are rejected because they depend from CLAIM 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
CLAIMS 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Radtke et al. (US 2014/0230705 A1).
Radtke et al. ‘705 (“Radtke”) discloses a method for delivering seeds to a seed trench comprising:
CLAIM 1 determining an ideal spacing of flights per seed (Fig. 9A, step 1107)1; and
adjusting a speed of a flighted belt such that the ideal spacing of flights per seed is an integer (Fig. 9A, 1120), wherein the speed of the flighted belt is adjusted such that ejection speed of the seed is approximately equal to ground speed of a planter ([0111])2;
CLAIM 2 further comprising determining a nearest larger integer and nearest smaller integer for the ideal spacing of flights per seed (inherently)3;
CLAIM 3 further comprising reducing the speed of the flighted belt (140) when the ideal spacing of flights per seed is closer to the nearest smaller integer than the nearest larger integer (inherently)4; and
CLAIM 5 further comprising increasing the speed of the flighted belt (140) when the ideal spacing of flights per seed is closer to the nearest larger integer than the nearest small integer (inherently)5.
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.
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.
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.
CLAIMS 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radtke et al. (US 2014/0230705 A1) in view of Baurer et al. (US 2015/0201549 A1).
CLAIM 7 Radtke fails to teach the step of inputting one or more of a flight tip diameter, a pulley diameter, and row spacing. Baurer et al. ‘549 (“Baurer”) discloses a seed delivery system comprising a central processor (120) that functions to (a) receive various inputs, including row spacing ([0059]-[0061]), and (b) determine the rotational speed of a seed meter that is necessary to achieve a desired spacing between seeds delivered to a furrow (step 850, Fig. 8). 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 method of Radtke with the step of inputting row spacing, as suggested by Baurer. The motivation for making the modification would have been to have determined the ideal seed spacing with greater accuracy, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 8 In the combination of Radtke and Baurer, Radtke discloses the step of determining the ground speed of the planter ([0110]).
Allowable Subject Matter
CLAIM 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Although CLAIMS 4 and 6 have not been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103, the examiner withholds any indication of allowability because the scope of the claimed invention is unclear.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wilhelmi et al. (US 2019/0098828 A1) teaches the use of a controller for setting the motor speed of a seed delivery system (450), the motor speed being based on a variety of inputs, including ground speed and population ([0098]).
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/
09 April 2026
1 Radtke discloses a method and apparatus for populating an agricultural field with accuracy ([0002]), wherein the apparatus includes a flight gap (118) between adjacent flights (142) of a conveyor belt (140). To perform the step of populating, or planting the desired number of seeds per acre ([0108]), the speed of the flighted belt is adjusted such that seeds are received from a seed meter (50) at a desired frequency, which correlates to the number of flights per seed.
2 In Radtke, the number of flights per seed determined as ideal (Fig. 9, 1107) must be an integer because a single flight gap (118) exists between adjacent flights. Thus, seeds can only be positioned in a flight gap with whole flights therebetween; for example, it is not possible to have 1.2 or 1.7 flights between seeds.
3 Id.
4 Id.
5 Id.
Prosecution Insights