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 filed 20 June 2022 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. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Foreign patent document citation no. 1 (DE 102013112229 A1) has been considered to the extent of information disclosed in English in the International Search Report and Written Opinion (filed 20 June 2022) of corresponding international application PCT/EP2019/086935.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following figures mentioned in the description: Figures 2-7.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it references specific claim numbers. Delete all references to specific claim numbers throughout the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
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 1-10 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.
With regard to claim 1, the scope of the claimed invention is indefinite because it is not clear to what scenarios the recitation “in each case” refers. For the purpose of prosecution on the merits, the examiner has considered the scope of the claimed invention exclusive of the phrase.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Conrad et al. (US 2018/0014456 A1).
Conrad et al. ‘456 (“Conrad”) discloses a method for single-grain application of seed by means of an agricultural sowing unit (16) with at least one sowing element (Figs. 7A-7D), the sowing element having
with regard to claim 1,
a metering device (Fig. 7A, ¶¶0063-64) for the single-grain placement of the seed along or within a seed furrow arranged in the soil and a single grain laying device (134, 140, 144, 120), wherein
a single grain of the seed is deposited along or within the seed furrow, adjacent to other individual seed grains at a first distance that can be selected or adjusted as required, characterized in that
- to each single grain of the seed is assigned a number (x) of seed capsules that can be selected or specified as required (by meter 38),
- the seed capsules are placed adjacent to the assigned single grain along or within the seed furrow, and
- active or stimulating substances contained in the seed capsules (¶0050) are released to support or stimulate the associated single grain; and
with regard to claim 7,
characterized in that the seed capsules (¶0050) are placed essentially simultaneously with the assigned single grain by means of the sowing element (Figs. 7A-7D) along or within the seed furrow, whereby the seed capsules and the assigned single grain are arranged in the immediate vicinity to each other;
with regard to claim 8,
characterized in that the seed capsules (¶0050) are placed or deposited with a time offset in relation to the assigned single grain by means of the sowing element (Fig. 7D, exclusively) along or within the seed furrow, whereby the seed capsules and the assigned single grain are arranged in the immediate vicinity and at a second distance from one another, which second distance is specified on the basis of the time offset (¶0051, as set by the master controller 40);
with regard to claim 9,
characterized in that the sowing element (Figs. 7A-7D) has at least one first metering device (38) for placing the seed capsules and at least one second metering device (¶¶0063-64) for depositing the assigned single grain, and wherein the seed capsules and the assigned single grain are placed or deposited via a common single-grain laying device (134, 140, 144, 120) along or within the seed furrow; and
with regard to claim 10,
characterized in that the sowing element (Figs. 7A-7D) has a common metering device (30, ¶0043) for placing the seed capsules and for depositing the associated single grain, by means of which both the seed capsules and the seeds are separated, and wherein the seed capsules and the associated single grain are placed over the single grain laying device along or within the seed furrow.
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishida et al. (JP H0597561 A).
Nishida et al. ‘561 (“Nishida”) shows a seed capsule (p. 6) suitable for single grain placement by means of an agricultural sowing unit with at least one sowing element, characterized in that the seed capsule consists of:
with regard to claim 11,
at least of one receiving volume (2) containing active or stimulating substances (fertilizer) and of at least one soluble or decomposable encasing layer (1) enveloping the receiving volume (2), whereby the encasing layer (1) is dissolvable or decomposable (“biodegradable”) for releasing of the active or stimulating substances contained therein; and
with regard to claim 14,
characterized in that the at least one encasing layer (1) is soluble or decomposable and is a carbonaceous material, a gel structure, a starchy material, or a biodegradable plastic (“biodegradable polymer”).
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad et al. (US 2018/0014456 A1) in view of Nishida et al. (JP H0597561 A).
With regard to claims 2-4, Conrad is silent as to the composition of the seed capsule. Nishida et al. ‘561 (“Nishida”) shows a seed capsule (p. 6) suitable for single grain placement by means of an agricultural sowing unit with at least one sowing element, characterized in that the seed capsule has at least of one receiving volume (2) containing active or stimulating substances (fertilizer) and of at least one soluble or decomposable encasing layer (1) enveloping the receiving volume (2), whereby the encasing layer (1) is dissolvable or decomposable (“biodegradable polymer”) for releasing of the active or stimulating substances contained therein. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated use of the Nishida seed capsules in the method of Conrad, since the seed capsules include active or stimulating substances. The motivation for making the modification would have been to improve the consistency of nutrient availability to the seeds.
With regard to claim 4, in the combination of Conrad and Nishida, the time interval between the placement of the seed capsules and the release of the active or stimulation substances (Nishida, fertilizer) is optionally selectable as a result of the encasing layer (Nishida, 1), which degrades after a period of time.
With regard to claim 5, in the combination of Conrad and Nishida, the thickness of the encasing layer (Nishida, 1) on the seed capsule inherently affects the time required for its degradation.
Claim(s) 12, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al. (JP H0597561 A) in view of Krysiak et al. (US 2005/0172551 A1).
With regard to claim 12, Nishida teaches a water-soluble polymer layer (3) and a second decomposable layer (1) but fails to teach expressly the water-soluble polymer layer as active or stimulating. Krysiak et al. ‘551 (“Krysiak”) teaches the use of water-soluble polyacrylamide (WSPAM) as beneficial in agricultural operations for amending soil to minimize water run-off and bind nutrients and microbes (¶0007). 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 water-soluble layer (Nishida, 3) of the prior art seed capsule (Nishida) such that it would have comprised WSPAM, as suggested by Krysiak. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for pre-conditioning the soil prior to release of the core active substance (2), and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regard to claim 13, in the combination of Nishida and Krysiak, the active or stimulatory substances (fertilizer) contained in the at least one receiving volume (2) have at least one bio-stimulator.
With regard to claim 15, the at least one bio-stimulator is beneficial bacteria (Alcaligenes faecalis).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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.
Conclusion
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/
18 September 2025