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
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description, specifically for the description of Fig. 6 on page 50, lns. 1-28: frame (62); coupling structure (64); coupling system (65); tractor (66); sowing elements (67); deformable parallelogram (68); hopper (69); metering and separation device (610) … etc.. 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. 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 objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because “the main beam” (63) is not in a typical “main beam” location/orientation, as seen in Fig. 6. 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 objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
reference numeral “69” has been used to refer to a hopper and a reservoir (e.g., page 50, lns. 10 and 11);
reference numeral “67” has been used to refer to sowing elements and sowing units (e.g., page 50, lns. 8 and 15).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 7, “it is injected” should be changed to –they are injected—.
Line 7, “the soil” should be changed to –a soil—or –soil—;
Line 8, “the device” should be amended to make whether applicant is referring to the separating device (line 4) or the application device (line 6);
Line 14, “the data” should be changed to –data—;
Line 15, “dressing composition” should be changed to –dressing composition based on the data—in order to correlate the application of the dressing and the sensed trajectory.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 3-4, “an application state” should be changed to –the applicable state— in order to align with the final line of claim 6, from which claim 7 depends. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 6-9, 11-17, and 23 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 1, lines 6-8, sets forth wherein the plant propagation materials are dressed when they are “external of the device”. However, claim 1 fails to recite any structure for either the separating device or the application device so that an exterior or interior is defined. The claim is therefore indefinite.
Claim 1, line 7, recites “the soil”. However, it is unclear how this soil is related to the “underlying agricultural surface” already set forth in line 2. Specifically, it is unclear if these are one and the same or two different mediums altogether.
Claim 1, in line 12, sets forth “a sensor array comprising at least one sensor”. However, Merriam-Webster defines an “array” as “a group of elements forming a complete unit”, which renders this limitation contradictory. It is therefore unclear if applicant means to claim an array of sensors (i.e., at least two sensors) or at least one sensor (i.e., the inclusion of a single sensor).
Claim 7, sets forth “a mixing control unit configured and operable to adapt the dressing composition by controlling… to a state and composition suitable for one or more environmental conditions” (to the penultimate line of claim 7, accounting for the series of “and/ors”). However, this limitation is awkward and unclear, rending the claim indefinite.
Claim 7 sets forth “a mixing control unit configured and operable to adapt the dressing composition by controlling… each of the plant propagation materials” (to the final line of claim 7, accounting for the series of “and/ors”). However, it is unclear how adaptation of the dressing composition can be made by controlling the plant propagation materials. The claim is therefore indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9, 11-17, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilkerson et al. 7,370,589.
Independent Claims 1, 23: Wilkerson discloses a precision seed drill for discharge of plant propagation materials onto an underlying agricultural surface for seed as per the method of claim 23, the drill comprising:
a. a reservoir container (seed hopper, not shown, see col. 4, lns. 34) for the plant propagation material,
b. a separating device (meter, not shown, col. 4, ln. 35-36) which is configured to separate plant propagation material (202) fed from the reservoir container, and to output them individually (col. 4, lns. 35-48, and see the seed positioning in Figs. 2-3), and
c. an application device (FD) configured to selectively apply an aliquot of a dressing composition (F) to the separated plant propagation materials directly before it is injected into the soil (204, the dressing is applied at TL as seen in Figs. 2 and 10, so the plant propagation material will cross the dressing just prior to or as it is entering the soil), and external of the device (as seen in Figs. 2 and 10);
wherein the application device is configured to apply the aliquot to the separated plant propagation materials while it falls freely onto the underlying surface (204, as seen in Figs. 2 and 10); and
wherein the application device comprises:
a sensor array (S) comprising at least one sensor (comprised of two optical sensors, see col. 11, lns. 58-60) for measuring the trajectory of the plant propagation materials (202, col. 5, lns. 31-37) while falling (see Fig. 2),
a controller (CONT) for calculating the trajectory (i.e., the magnitude of seed velocity/the direction of seed velocity, col. 11, lns. 58-63) from the data received from the sensor array and for coordinating and applying the dressing composition (col. 5, lns. 3-14); and
an outlet device (214) for dispensing an aliquot of the dressing composition (F) selectively onto the plant propagation materials (202) during free-falling (as seen at TL in Figs. 2 and 10), as per claims 1 and 23.
Dependent Claims 8-9, 11-17: Wilkerson further discloses a seed unit (seen in part in Fig. 2, see Fig. 1 for reference) for planting each of the separated plant propagation materials (202);
wherein the application device (FD) is integral with the seed unit (as seen in Fig. 2), as per claim 8;
wherein the outlet device (214) comprises a triggerable application nozzle (the outlet device applies dressing to each seed individually, see col. 4, lns. 21-23), as per claim 9;
wherein the application device (FD) comprises a valve (210) operatively controlled by the controller (CONT), as per claim 11;
wherein the application device (FD) has a sensor shaft (ST) which is open at both ends, wherein the sensor array (S, comprising two optical sensors, col. 11, lns. 58-60) is configured to be arranged in the sensor shaft (see Fig. 2), and wherein the application device is arranged in such a way that the separated plant propagation materials (202) fall through the sensor shaft on their path from the separating device (meter, not shown, col. 4, ln. 35-36) to the underlying surface (204), as per claim 12;
wherein the at least one sensor (S) for detecting the passage of a plant propagation material (202) through a sensor shaft (ST) is arranged in the sensor shaft,
wherein the triggerable application nozzle (214) for the dressing composition (F) is configured to apply the aliquot of the dressing composition to the plant propagation material having fallen through the sensor shaft, once the material is outside the sensor shaft,
wherein the controller (CONT) cooperates with the at least one sensor, the controller bringing about the triggering of the application nozzle in accordance with sensor signals generated by the at least one sensor, in order to apply the dressing composition to the material (col. 4, ln. 55-col. 5, ln. 14), as per claim 13;
wherein at least two sensors (S, col. 11, lns. 58-60) for detecting the passage of a material (202) through the sensor shaft (ST) are arranged one after the other along the sensor shaft. in the falling direction of the plant propagation materials, wherein the controller (35) is configured to calculate, on the basis of the sensor signals of the at least two sensors, a time delay after which it brings about the triggering of the application nozzle (214, col. 11, lns. 32-60), as per claim 14;
wherein the application nozzle (214) is configured to eject, each time it is triggered, the aliquot of the dressing composition (F) along a spraying trajectory (at θv), wherein the controller (CONT) is configured to calculate the position of an impact location (TL) at which the spraying trajectory and a fall line (Vsd) of the material (202) to which dressing is applied intersect, and wherein the controller is configured to calculate the time delay on the basis of the position of the impact location and a rate of fall of the material (col. 11, lns. 32-60), as per claim 15;
wherein the application nozzle (214) is oriented such that its spraying trajectory (at θv) intersects the fall lines (Vsd) of the plant propagation materials (202) at an acute angle of preferably 30°- 60° (seen best in Fig. 10), as per claim 16;
wherein a plurality of sensors (S), which detect a transverse position of the plant propagation materials (202) within the sensor shaft (ST), are arranged in the sensor shaft, and wherein the controller (CONT) is configured to calculate individually the time delay for each material taking into account the transverse position of the material (col. 11, ln. 64-col. 12, ln. 25), as per claim 17.
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkerson et al. in view of Thompson et al. 5,407,134.
Dependent Claims 6-7: The seed drill is disclosed as applied above. However, Wilkerson fails to disclose a diluent reservoir for a diluent suitable for diluting at least one agricultural compound and at least one additional component to form a dressing composition in applicable state, a per claim 6;
a mixing control unit configured and operable to adapt the dressing composition by controlling the flow of the dressing composition
and/or the diluent to obtain the dressing composition to an application state,
and/or to a state and composition suitable for one or more environmental conditions,
and/or each of the plant propagation materials, as per claim 7.
Thompson discloses a similar seed drill (22) comprising a diluent reservoir (26) for a diluent (col. 2, lns. 1-2) suitable for diluting at least one agricultural compound (insecticide/nematicide of 36) and at least one additional component (liquid fertilizer of 38) to form a dressing composition in applicable state, a per claim 6;
a mixing control unit (44) configured and operable to adapt the dressing composition by controlling the flow of the dressing composition (col. 3, lns. 37-54)
and/or the diluent to obtain the dressing composition to an application state,
and/or to a state and composition suitable for one or more environmental conditions,
and/or each of the plant propagation materials, as per claim 7.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the controlled mixture of diluent, agricultural compound and additional component as taught by Thompson on the seed drill of Wilkerson in order to provide soil and seed treatment at appropriately diluted levels during a sowing operation and at a predetermined rate.
Response to Arguments
With respect to claim 1, applicant argues that Wilkerson does not disclose “an application device (30) configured to selectively apply an aliquot of a dressing composition to the separated plant propagation materials (K) directly before it is injected into the soil… while it falls freely onto the underlying surface (B).” See Applicant’s Fig. 7 below left.
Specifically, applicant argues that Wilkerson instead discloses application of an aliquot of a dressing composition to a separated plant propagation material while it is in or on the soil, in other words after the conditions set forth in claim 1. See Wilkerson’s Fig. 10 below right.
PNG
media_image1.png
433
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the examiner maintains that Wilkerson anticipates claim 1 because its language leaves it relatively broad in scope when it comes to the precise moment of application of the dressing to the plant propagation material. Without the exact metes and bounds of the time and location of application, the claim fails to preclude Wilkerson whose application overlaps with that of the claim.
Claim 1 recites these two conditions at which the dressing is applied to the plant propagation material (K):
Directly before it is injected into the soil (cl. 1, ln. 7);
While it falls freely onto the underlying surface (B) (cl. 1, ln. 10).
First, while item (a) recites application directly before the plant propagation material is injected into the soil, applicant’s Fig. 7 shows that this “directly before” moment actually happens even before the halfway point between the tube outlet and the field. The disclosure fails to definitively define when or where this exactly moment of “directly before” is so as to preclude Wilkerson, as described below.
Second, in item (b), the “underlying surface (B)” is taken to be different than “the soil” of item (a) since the claim does not equate the two. Therefore, this underlying surface could therefore be taken to be the bottom of a furrow cut into the soil.
In light of this analysis, it can be seen that it is unclear exactly which moments or locations of dressing application to the material are precluded by these conditions (e.g., is “on top of the soil” precluded?).
Now, looking at Wilkerson, in column 5, lines 11-14 Wilkerson discloses that the predetermined time that the fluid dispenser FD deposits fluid F on each seed S can be set as the seed S reaches the target location TL. In claim 7, Wilkerson also recites application of the plant propagation material upon its dropping into the furrow. This appears to indicate that Wilkerson’s plant propagation material S is applied with a dressing F prior to it reaching the soil and/or underlying surface or at its arrival to the furrow and therefore discloses wherein the application occurs directly before the plant propagation material is injected into the soil (item a above) during free fall (item b above), as required by claim 1.
Looking at Wilkerson’s Fig. 2 below, while plant propagation material (202) is shown at a moment in time, if one were to extrapolate its trajectory, it can be seen that it would first cross the width of the dressing spray (at the right-most spray line of F) directly before being injected into the soil (item (a) above) and during free fall to the underlying surface (204) (item (b) above), as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
420
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The applicant argues that the lead line to TL (target location) where application is set to occur, in Wilkerson’s Fig. 2 above, points to the ground. However, given the scale of the figure, it appears that TL can only be shown at its general vicinity which is near the ground. However, as argued above, even if Wilkerson’s seed is sprayed at the ground, Wilkerson still reads on claim 1 in light of the claim language.
Also with respect to claim 1, applicant argues that the estimations of Wilkerson’s sensors (S) are not a “trajectory” but it is unclear how the seed velocity, including its direction, is less of a trajectory than that claimed.
The rejection is therefore maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alicia M. Torres whose telephone number is 571-272-6997. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-6997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph M. Rocca, can be reached at (571) 272-8971.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the group receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-3600. The fax number for this Group is 571-273-8300.
/Alicia Torres/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights