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 .
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues, Jr. et al. (Pat. No.: 4,798,151; hereinafter Rodrigues) in view of Swanson (Pub. No.: 2006/0102058).
Regarding independent claim 1, Rodrigues discloses a fertilizer boot (generally 40) for a plough assembly (10) including
a body (50) with an upper solid fertilizer inlet and a lower solid fertilizer outlet (98) and a passageway (96) between the upper solid fertilizer inlet and the lower solid fertilizer outlet (98; See Fig. 6 for the upper solid fertilizer inlet depicted around labeled element 48; See cols. 3-4, lns. 63-1 for disclosure of the solid fertilizer dispending system),
wherein the fertilizer boot (40) further includes a liquid delivery tube (44) and a liquid delivery tube passageway (90) arranged to receive the liquid delivery tube (44), the liquid delivery tube passageway (90) including an outlet (94) at a base (54) of the fertilizer boot (See Fig. 6 and col. 5, lns. 14-29 for corresponding disclosure of the claimed liquid fertilizer delivery elements), and
wherein the outlet (94) of the liquid delivery tube passageway (90) is arranged with respect to the plough assembly to provide, in use, deep banding of liquid fertilizer (See col. 2, lns. 23-27 where it discloses the boot applies “both liquid and dry granular fertilizers in a deep band below the seed”).
The difference between the claim 1 and Rodriques is the claim recites a plurality of liquid delivery tubes respectively associated with a plurality of liquid delivery tube passageways and outlets, and wherein each of the plurality of liquid delivery tubes delivers a different liquid fertilizer to the respective outlet
Swanson discloses a similar fertilizer boot (300, See Fig. 13 reproduced below for immediate reference) that includes a plurality of liquid delivery tubes (308 and 310) and a plurality of liquid delivery tube passageways (318 and 316) arranged to receive the plurality of liquid delivery tubes (308 and 310), each liquid delivery tube passageway including an outlet at a base of the fertilizer boot (332, and see Fig. 13 below where the outlet associated with tube 310 is depicted but unlabeled). More specifically, Swanson teaches wherein each of the plurality of liquid delivery tubes delivers a different liquid fertilizer to the respective outlet (See para. [0060] where it discloses tube 308 dispenses liquid anhydrous ammonia, and See para. [0062] where it discloses tube 310 dispenses liquid ammoniated phosphate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the plurality of liquid delivery tubes and associated passageways, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the plurality of liquid delivery tubes deliver different liquid fertilizers to their respective outlets in order to provide a liquid fertilization pattern that “is the most usable by the plant; however, it is not commercially available and cannot be premixed in the tank, because the supply line would freeze during the delivery of the crystals therethrough” (See para. [0062]).
PNG
media_image1.png
654
859
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2, 9, 12-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues in view of Swanson and further in view of NPL: Groundhog from 3/28/2018; hereinafter Groundhog.
Regarding claim 2, the combination discloses the fertilizer boot of claim 1. Unlike the combination, Groundhog discloses wherein a lower body portion of the boot includes outwardly facing forward and rearward surfaces that are coated with a wear-resistant coating (See pg. 2 where it discloses “application of tungsten grit hard facing” which corresponds to the claimed wear-resistant coating, and See pg. 3 where the outwardly facing forward and rearward surfaces of the boot are depicted). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fertilizer boot surfaces of the combination, to include the wear-resistant coating of Groundhog, in order to increase the lifespan of the fertilizer boot resulting in a more effective fertilizer boot that needs less replacement over time.
Regarding claim 9, the combination discloses the fertilizer boot of claim 1. Rodrigues, of the combination, discloses the use of a similar resilient grommet (92) for connecting the liquid delivery tube passageway with the liquid delivery tube (as disclosed in col. 5, lns. 20-23). Unlike the combination, Groundhog discloses wherein a resilient grommet is arranged to be placed within the passageway to receive a solid fertilizer delivery tube and create a seal between the solid fertilizer delivery tube and the passageway (See pg. 3 where the plastic sleeve is depicted, the plastic sleeve corresponds to the claimed resilient grommet, See pg. 4 where the solid fertilizer delivery tube is depicted in green above the resilient grommet in yellow). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fertilizer boot of the combination, to include the resilient grommet of Groundhog, in order to provide a means of reinforcing the connection between the solid fertilizer delivery tube and passageway.
Regarding claim 12, the above combination discloses the fertilizer boot of claim 9. Rodrigues fails to disclose including liquid delivery tube guides along the body. However, in light of the modification made in claim 1, Swanson further teaches liquid delivery tube guides (320, 322, 324) along the body.
Regarding claim 13, the above combination discloses the fertilizer boot of claim 9. Rodrigues fails to disclose wherein the resilient grommet covers the internal surface of the passageway. However, in light of the modification made in claim 9, Groundhog further discloses wherein the resilient grommet covers the internal surface of the passageway (See pg. 3 where the thinner/bottom portion of the resilient grommet covers at least a portion of the internal surface of the passageway at the corresponding thicker part of the boot).
Regarding claim 14, the above combination discloses the fertilizer boot of claim 9. Rodrigues, of the combination, also discloses an attachment bracket (86) arranged to connect the fertilizer boot to a digging assembly of the plough assembly (as disclosed in col. 5, lns. 1-7).
Regarding claim 15, the above combination discloses the fertilizer boot of claim 12. Rodrigues, of the combination, also discloses an attachment bracket (86) arranged to connect the fertilizer boot to a digging assembly of the plough assembly (as disclosed in col. 5, lns. 1-7). Rodrigues fails to disclose wherein the attachment bracket includes the liquid delivery tube guides. However, in light of the modification made in claim 1, Swanson discloses an attachment bracket (306), wherein the attachment bracket include the liquid delivery tube guides (320, 322, 324).
Regarding claim 16, the combination discloses the fertilizer boot of claim 14. Rodrigues, of the combination, also discloses a spacer (18) that spaces (See Fig. 3 for the space between digging assembly and fertilizer boot) the fertilizer boot (40) from the digging assembly.
Regarding claim 18, the above combination discloses the fertilizer boot of claim 9. The combination discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the resilient grommet is made of rubber. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the plastic grommet to specifically be a rubber grommet, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is further noted that no details of criticality for this limitation are provided for by Applicant in the instant disclosure.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues in view of Swanson and NPL:Groundhog, and further in view of Carson Jr. et al. (Pub. No.: 2009/0090524; hereinafter Carson).
Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses the fertilizer boot of claim 2. Groundhog, of the combination, also discloses wherein the wear-resistant coating includes a tungsten-carbide material (See pg. 2 where it discloses “application of tungsten grit hard facing”). However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the wear-resisting coating includes a silicon ceramic material. Carson discloses a wear-resisting insert for a seeding tool made from a material including tungsten carbide (as disclosed in para. [0010]). More specifically, Carson discloses other super hard wear resistant materials such as ceramics may supplement/substitute the carbide tungsten and that “alternate ceramics for such applications include aluminum-based, silicon based” varieties (See para. [0050]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the wear-resistant coating that includes tungsten carbide of the combination to be the silicon ceramic material as disclosed by Carson, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of one skilled in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is further noted that there do not appear to be any details of criticality provided for by Applicant in the instant disclosure regarding the specific use and advantages of silicon ceramic material.
Regarding claim 4, the combination discloses the fertilizer boot of claim 2. Groundhog, of the combination, also discloses wherein the wear-resistant coating includes a tungsten-carbide material (See pg. 2 where it discloses “application of tungsten grit hard facing”). However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the wear-resisting coating includes an alumina ceramic material. Carson discloses a wear-resisting insert for a seeding tool made from a material including tungsten carbide (as disclosed in para. [0010]). More specifically, Carson discloses other super hard wear resistant materials such as ceramics may supplement/substitute the carbide tungsten and that “alternate ceramics for such applications include aluminum-based, silicon based” varieties (See para. [0050]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the wear-resistant coating that includes tungsten carbide of the combination to be the alumina ceramic material as disclosed by Carson, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of one skilled in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is further noted that there do not appear to be any details of criticality provided for by Applicant in the instant disclosure regarding the specific use and advantages of alumina ceramic material.
Regarding claim 5, the combination discloses the fertilizer boot of claim 4. The combination discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the wear-resisting coating is a composite of 9 wt% epoxy and 91 wt% alumina ceramic chips. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to select the presently claimed known material as the wear-resistant coating, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. It is further noted that there do not appear to be any details of criticality provided for by Applicant in the instant disclosure regarding the specific use and advantages of the presently claimed composite.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues in view of Swanson and NPL:Groundhog, and further in view of Wendte et al. (Pub. No.: 2013/0146317; hereinafter Wendte).
Regarding claim 6, the resultant combination discloses the fertiliser boot of claim 1. Groundhog, of the combination, also discloses wherein the body has an upper body portion above the lower body portion, and wherein the upper body portion includes outwardly facing surfaces (See pg. 4 where the upper body portion generally corresponds to the portion of the boot above the surface). However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the outwardly facing surfaces are coated with a second-wear resistant coating. Wendte discloses a tillage point (11, See Fig. 7) with a similar upper and lower body (See Fig. 7 where the lower body generally corresponds to element 43 and the upper body corresponds to the portion of the tool above the lower body). More specifically, Wendte discloses wherein sidewalls of the lower body (43) are coated with a wear-resistant coating (17) and outwardly facing surfaces of the upper body (portion of tool above 43 in Fig. 7) is coated with a second-wear resisting coating (17). Further See para. [0030] for a corresponding disclosure of the above elements taught by Wendte. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to coat the outwardly facing surfaces of the combination, with the second wear-resistant coating of Wendte, in order to provide wear-resistant coatings that “are concentrated at the high-wear areas” (See para. [0030]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination discloses the fertilizer boot of claim 6. The combination discloses the claimed invention except for the second-wear resisting coating includes a powder coating including 10-30 wt% barium sulfate and about 10 wt% titanium dioxide. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the above claimed material for the second wear resistant coating, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. It is further noted that there do not appear to be any details of criticality provided for by Applicant in the instant disclosure regarding the specific use and advantages of the presently claimed powdered second wear-resistant coating.
Regarding claim 8, the above combination discloses the fertilizer boot of claim 6. Wendte, of the combination, also discloses that the second-wear resistant coating has a film thickness in nanometers and that the thickness may be variable (See para. [0030] where it discloses “the different thicknesses may be achieved by applying more of the nanostructure material”). However, the combination fails to specifically disclose wherein the film thickness is between 40 to 60 nanometers. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the film thickness limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-25 and 27-30 are allowed.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 22 is directed towards a fertilizer boot for a plough assembly, the fertilizer boot including a body with an upper solid fertilizer inlet and a lower solid fertilizer outlet and a passageway between the upper solid fertilizer inlet and the lower solid fertilizer outlet, wherein a resilient grommet is arranged to be placed within the passageway to receive a solid fertilizer delivery tube and create a seal between the solid fertilizer delivery tube and the passageway. While similar resilient grommets are known (See pg. 3 of Groundhog NPL where the plastic sleeve is depicted which corresponds to the claimed resilient grommet). However, the prior art fails to disclose wherein the resilient grommet covers the entire internal surface of the passageway. And ultimately, such a modification to the resilient grommet would not have been obvious and only formed with an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and claims dependent thereon have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Audrey L Lusk whose telephone number is (571)272-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8am-5pm.
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.
/A.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights