FINAL 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 10/16/2025, with respect to independent claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Harrell as part of US 8613234 B1, hereinafter referred to as Harrell, and of all subsequent dependent claims thereof, has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025, with respect to independent claims 14 and 19, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In light of the amendments made, examiner sustains the rejections of claims 14 and 19, as well as all of their dependent claims.
Examiner wishes to respond to specific arguments made by the applicant:
Regarding the amended language of claim 1, examiner acknowledges that Harrell fails to teach of “…the ground-engaging member [comprising] a perforated mesh configured to engage with a surface traversed by the vehicle, thereby providing traction to the vehicle…” (emphasis added). While examples of meshes used in soil sampling assemblies are common in prior art, no such assemblies were found wherein the soil sampling apparatus directly provided the vehicle it was mounted on or integral to with traction on the ground surface that it was sampling.
In light of this determination, the arguments presented with regard to the rejection of claims 5-7 under 35 USC 103 as being obvious, specifically in regard to the combination of Harrell in view of Swanson et al as part of US 20210123936 A1, hereinafter referred to as Swanson, are moot; however, examiner wishes to address these arguments in the interest of compact prosecution.
Examiner agrees that in light of the amendments made to claim 1, claims 5-7 are allowable over prior art for reasons described above. Applicant notes that Swanson teaches of a filter, which “may be in the form of a screen mesh” (Swanson, Page 9, paragraph 356). Applicant disagrees that the utilization of a screen mesh filter, such as disclosed by Swanson, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed, on account of the location not being directly integrated to the collection device and instead being disposed within a mixing container. Applicant further states that the additionally cited references do not fulfill the deficiency of Harrell. Examiner agrees with this statement.
Examiner finds the applicant’s arguments with regard to the obviousness of utilizing a screen as part of a soil sampling apparatus unpersuasive. In the case of Perfect Web Tech., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328-29, 92 USPQ2d 1849, 1854 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit held:
“A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.”
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed would have understood the utility of utilizing a screen mesh or other means of particulate filtration as beneficial in the process of collecting soil samples. In the case of Swanson, “The screen includes a plurality of preselected size openings to filter out larger solids or particles from the soil slurry” (Swanson, page 9, paragraph 356). Examiner posits that the end goal of filtering large particulates would be a desirable outcome, and utilizing a mesh with preselected opening sizes would be within the ordinary creativity of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to achieve this end.
Regarding the amended language of claim 14, applicant argues that Harrell does not teach of an apparatus, “wherein the prime mover is mechanically coupled to the ground-engaging member, thereby being configured to drive the ground-engaging member”. Applicant argues that the drum 114 of Harrell is pivotally affixed to the trailer frame 106, and that the trailer frame comprises no such prime mover that is “configured to drive the ground engaging member”. Applicant acknowledges that the winch cited by the examiner is operable to move the drum between an operative and non-operative position. Applicant further argues that Harrell makes no indication that the prime mover of the self-propelled vehicle described by Harrell would be “configured to drive” the soil sampler.
Examiner does not find these arguments persuasive. According to Merriam-Webster, a prime mover is defined as “an initial source of motive power (such as a windmill, waterwheel, turbine, or internal combustion engine) designed to receive and modify force and motion”. Examiner cedes that an addition definition of a prime mover is “a powerful tractor or truck usually with all-wheel drive”, though that definition is not explicitly required to be used in the language of the amended claim 14. Examiner notes that there is no requirement for the prime mover which is “configured to drive” the ground engaging member to be part of the vehicle’s propulsion method. Further, there is no requirement for the prime mover to “drive the ground engaging member” in a rotational direction or capacity. Examiner holds that the winch 146 sufficiently embodies the above definition of a prime mover as an initial source of motive power for drum 114, and that winch 146 is ”configured to drive” drum 114 between an operative and non-operative position.
For the same reasons, examiner sustains the rejections of dependent claims 15-18.
Regarding the amended claim 19, applicant argues that Harrell does not teach of “a perforated outer surface to allow material to pass therethrough, the perforated outer surface comprising a first perforation and a second perforation axially offset from the first perforation”. Applicant cites that Harrell requires only a "tapered probe projecting outwardly from a central perimeter of the drum." (Harrell, col. 1, Line 66 – col. 2, line 2).
Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Harrell does not only require a single probe projecting outwardly from a central perimeter of the drum, and instead states clearly that “It is another object of the invention to provide a mobile, automatic soil sampling apparatus comprising a drum and at least one tapered soil sampling probe connected thereto.” (Harrell, Col. 2, line 27-29, emphasis added). Harrell does not specify the maximum number of probes, and as such may comprise “a first perforation and a second perforation” as part of the “at least one” probe, and the only requirement for such probes is to “…project outwardly from a central perimeter of the drum…” as applicant acknowledges. Further, the amended claim language does not specify the axis in which these probes need to be axially offset. As such, any location along the perimeter of the drum that the second probe is located would be sufficiently “axially offset from the first perforation”, as the axial definition being used for the first perforation is entirely arbitrary.
For the same reasons above, examiner sustains the rejection of dependent claim 20.
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.
Claim 19 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.
Regarding Claim 19: Claim 19 recites the limitation “…a perforated outer surface to allow material to pass therethrough, the perforated outer surface comprising a first perforation and a second perforation axially offset from the first perforation”. The claim language makes no distinction of a defined axis by which the first perforation or second perforation are being located along, which makes the limitation of “a second perforation axially offset from the first perforation” indefinite. For the purposes of examination, examiner will interpret the relevant axis by which the first perforation is being located through the center of the first and center perforations in a radial direction.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Harrell as part of US 8613234 B1, hereinafter referred to as Harrell.
Regarding Claim 14: Harrell teaches of a vehicle (Col. 3, Line 43-51, Sampler 100 may be supported on a self-propelled vehicle or towed as a trailer), comprising:
a plurality of ground-engaging members (Fig. 1/3, Wheels 104 and drum 114 engage the ground);
a power source supported by the plurality of ground-engaging members;
a prime mover electrically coupled to the power source (Fig. 3, Winch 146 operably moves pivot arm 122; winch 146 being electrically powered and supported by the frame 106 and therefore wheels 104, as would any required electrical power source; Col. 4, Line 32-45);
a sample collector disposed within an inner region of a ground-engaging member of the plurality of ground-engaging members, such that the ground-engaging member and the sample collector form a sample collection assembly (Fig. 3/4b, Probe 150 threads into the wall of drum 114 to interface with the opening 116, forming a sample collecting assembly),
Wherein the prime mover is mechanically coupled to the ground-engaging member, thereby being configured to drive the ground-engaging member (Fig. 3, Winch 146 is mechanically coupled to drum 114 via pivot arm 122, which drives drum 114 upward or downward between an operative or non-operative position).
Regarding Claim 19: Harrell teaches of a sample collection assembly (Fig. 1, Soil sampling apparatus 100 for use with vehicle 112), comprising:
a ground-engaging member (Fig. 3, Drum 114 engages the ground) comprising:
a terrain interaction feature (Fig. 1-3, Drum 114 comprises blades 118);
and a perforated outer surface to allow material to pass therethrough (Fig. 3, Drum 114 comprises perforations that allow material to pass through from the exterior to the opening 116 of drum 114), the perforated outer surface comprising a first perforation and a second perforation axially offset from the first perforation (Col. 2, line 27-29, the drum consists of at least one probe by which soil samples may pass through, indicating a first and second perforation; Col. 1, Line 66 – Col. 2, line 2, the probes are located along the perimeter of drum 114, extending radially outward, with no limitation or designation on required offset, indicating that the at least one probes would be radially axially offset from one another in any position other than 180 degrees apart);
and a sample collector disposed beneath a top region of the ground-engaging member relative to a surface traversed by the ground-engaging member (Fig. 3, during sample collection, drum 114 rotates, positioning probe 150 beneath the ground engaging surface of drum 114 relative to the soil), such that material passing through the perforated outer surface at the top region of the ground-engaging member is collected within a cavity of the sample collector (Fig. 3/4b, Probe 150 threads into the wall of drum 114 to interface with the opening 116, allowing material to pass into the opening 116 of drum 114 through ID 202 of cylindrical pipe 200).
Regarding Claim 20: Harrell teaches of the assembly taught in claim 19.
Harrell further teaches wherein:
the ground engaging member comprises a first axial region and a second axial region (Fig. 2, First axial region can be defined as the width of blade 118, second axial region can be defined as the edge of blade 118 to opening 116);
the sample collector is disposed beneath the first axial region (Fig. 2, Probe 150 collects samples as it rotates into an alignment beneath drum 114 and is positioned within the first axial region);
the first axial region is perforated (Fig. 3, the surface of drum 114 comprises holes to allow passage of material to the interior of the drum and the mounting of probe 150 thereon the first axial region);
and the second axial region is not perforated (Fig. 2/3, the surface of drum 114 between the edge of blades 118 and opening 116 is not perforated).
Regarding Claim 21: Harrell teaches of the assembly taught in claim 19.
Harrell further teaches wherein the perforated outer surface comprises one or more slots configured to permit material to pass therethrough (Col. 2, line 27-29, the drum consists of at least one probe by which soil samples may pass through, indicating a plurality of slots configured to permit material to pass therethrough).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrell, further in view of Bermejo et al as part of US 8939017 B2, hereinafter referred to as Bermejo.
Regarding Claim 15: Harrell teaches of the assembly described above in claim 14.
Harrell further teaches wherein:
the sample collection assembly is a first sample collection assembly (Fig. 3: Drum 114 and probe 150 form a first sample collection assembly);
wherein the ground-engaging member and the sample collector of the first sample collection assembly is a first ground-engaging member and a first sample collector (Drum 114 and probe 150 may be referred to as a first drum and a first probe).
Harrell does not teach of a second sample collection assembly.
Bermejo teaches of first and second sample collection assemblies comprising sample collectors and ground engaging elements (Bermejo: Fig. 6, teaches of a plurality of ground engaging elements and sample collectors as part of rolls 3).
Harrell does not explicitly teach of a first and second sample collection assemblies. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to duplicate the singular assembly taught by Harrell, as is supported by the teaching of Bermejo which includes multiple sampling assemblies comprising a collector and a ground engaging element, as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960); see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B).
Regarding Claim 16: Harrell in view of Bermejo teaches of the apparatus described in claim 15.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 15, Bermejo further teaches wherein the first sample collection assembly and the second sample collection assembly are located at opposing ends of the vehicle (Bermejo: Fig. 6, sample collection assemblies are opposed from one another in a linear arrangement with respect to the direction of travel).
Regarding Claim 17: Harrell in view of Bermejo teaches of the apparatus described in claim 15.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 15, Harrell further teaches wherein the first sample collection assembly is configured to capture material having a set of characteristics that is different from the second sample collection assembly (Col. 5, Line 13-22, probe 150 may be changed for different sampling requirements; different probes may be used on the different sampling assemblies for different sampling characteristics).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrell, further in view of Swanson et al as part of US 20210123936 A1, hereinafter referred to as Swanson.
Regarding Claim 18: Harrell teaches of the assembly described above in claim 14.
Harrell does not teach wherein the vehicle further comprises an image capture device.
Swanson teaches of the vehicle further comprising an image capture device supported by the plurality of ground-engaging members and the image capture device is positioned to observe at least a part of the sample collection assembly (Swanson: Vision system 6200 comprises one or more cameras 6201 that capture real time images of the field during the sampling process, mounted to a sampling vehicle 5750).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to modify the automated vehicle taught by Harrell with the vision system taught by Swanson to allow for an operator monitor the status and position of the sample collecting vehicle remotely (Swanson: Page 52, Paragraph 726, vision system 6200 comprises one or more cameras 6201 that capture real time images during operations such as sampling). Such a modification would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of monitoring the system while it is operating.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 11-13 are allowable over prior art.
As stated above, while examples of meshes used in soil sampling assemblies are common in prior art, after a complete and thorough search, no such assemblies were found wherein the soil sampling apparatus directly provided the vehicle it was mounted on or integral to with traction on the ground surface that it was sampling.
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
While prior art such as Swanson and Mansfield teach of meshes and filter systems, and mesh sizing is dependent on scale desired by the user or designer, following a complete and thorough search there is no obvious reasoning represented in prior art as to why two meshes of different sized would be integrated into the outer and bottom surfaces of the sample collection assembly of Harrell or other sample collections assemblies known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EVAN ANTHONY BREGEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0922. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 Eastern, M-F.
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 J 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.
/EVAN A BREGEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671