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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 10, 12, 20-28 and 30-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
CLAIM 1 The specification, as originally filed, fails to provide support for a sensor configured to detect (3) seed type.
Claim 12 is similarly rejected for recitation of the limitation (3) seed type.
Claim 23 is similarly rejected for recitation of the limitation (3) seed type.
Claim 32 is similarly rejected for recitation of the limitation (3) seed type.
Claims 10, 21, 22 and 24-28 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Claims 20, 30, 31 and 33-37 are rejected because they depend from claim 12.
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, 12, 20-28 and 30-37 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 The claim is rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the controller, or any data processing means supported by the originally filed specification that are capable of using the seed speed and/or velocity to determine the seed position. In paragraphs [0085] and [0086] of the specification, Applicant discloses an embodiment of the claimed system (2700’), wherein speed/velocity data detected by two sensors (2710a, 2710b) is used by the controller (2704) to calculate a position or estimate a location of a seed; thus, the controller (or another means of data processing) is an essential element to the claim limitation.
Claim 12 is similarly rejected for the omission of data processing means.
Claim 21 is similarly rejected for the omission of data processing means.
Claims 10 and 22-28 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Claims 20 and 30-37 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 12, 21-28 and 30-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoller et al. (CA 3,031,395 A1) in view of Tribelhorn (US 2017/0086363 A1), and Schoeny et al. (US 2018/0310468 A1) or Walter et al. (US 2020/0390026 A1) or Casper et al. (US 2016/0134844 A1) or Anderson (US 2015/0163992 A1) or Stoller et al. (US 2017/0049044 A1).
CLAIM 1 Stoller et al. ‘395 (“Stoller”) discloses a crop input applicator system (1200, Fig. 12) comprising:
a fluid source (1290);
a conduit (inherent to fluid distribution within the system; e.g., feature labeled 260 in Fig. 2) connected to the fluid source1;
a seed delivery member (1240, inherent to a “planter” implement) configured to deliver a seed2;
a sensor (1252, “seed sensors” ; 1252, “downforce sensors”3 and “moisture sensors”) configured to sense at least one of: (1) seed velocity and/or seed speed to determine seed position; (2) seed orientation; (3) seed type; (4) seed color; (5) a residue amount; (6) a soil temperature; (7) a soil color; and (8) an organic matter level; and
a controller (1220, 1262) in communication with the sensor (p. 27, l. 28 – p. 28, l. 4);
wherein the controller (1220) is programmable4.
Stoller fails to teach a flow control valve. Tribelhorn discloses a crop input applicator system (100) comprising a fluid source (110), a conduit connected to the fluid source (inherent; and “micro-tubes” ¶0063), and a control valve (140, Fig. 1) connected to the conduit, wherein the control valve is configured for (a) adjustment in response to flow meters (150), which include flow sensors (¶¶0062, 0064), and (b) communication with a controller (200, ¶0067). 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 prior art system (Stoller, 1200) with the addition of a flow control valve (Tribelhorn, 140) connected to the conduit (Stoller) and in communication with the controller (Stoller, 1220, 1262) as suggested by Tribelhorn. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for regulating and limiting fluid flow in the conduit, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIMS 1 and 21 The prior art combination of Stoller and Tribelhorn fails to teach the sensor configured to sense seed velocity and/or speed. However, Schoeny et al. ‘468 (“Schoeny”) discloses a crop input applicator system comprising a sensor configured to detect seed velocity/speed (57). 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 sensor (Stoller, 1252) of the prior art system (Stoller, 1200, Fig. 12) such that it would have been configured to detect seed velocity/speed, as suggested by Schoeny. The motivation for making the modification would have been to preclude seed tumble during planting operations, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIMS 1 and 22 The prior art combination of Stoller and Tribelhorn fails to teach the sensor configured to sense seed orientation. However, Walter et al. ‘026 (“Walter”) discloses a crop input applicator system comprising a sensor configured to detect seed orientation (294, cl. 9). 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 sensor (Stoller, 1252) of the prior art system (Stoller, 1200, Fig. 12) such that it would have been configured to detect seed orientation, as suggested by Walter. The motivation for making the modification would have been to facilitate biasing of the seeds in a desired orientation (Walter, ¶¶0061, 0070, 0075), and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIMS 1 and 23 The prior art combination of Stoller and Tribelhorn fails to teach the sensor configured to sense seed type. However, Walter et al. ‘026 (“Walter”) discloses a crop input applicator system comprising a sensor configured to detect seed type (262). 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 sensor (Stoller, 1252) of the prior art system (Stoller, 1200, Fig. 12) such that it would have been configured to detect seed type, as suggested by Walter. The motivation for making the modification would have been to provide for a set of planting inputs associated with a specific seed type, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIMS 1 and 24 The prior art combination of Stoller and Tribelhorn fails to teach the sensor configured to sense color. However, Walter et al. ‘026 (“Walter”) discloses a crop input applicator system comprising a sensor configured to detect seed color (292, ¶0104). 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 sensor (Stoller, 1252) of the prior art system (Stoller, 1200, Fig. 12) such that it would have been configured to detect seed color, as suggested by Walter. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for assessing the quality of a seed supply and identifying abnormal seeds with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIMS 1 and 25 The prior art combination of Stoller and Tribelhorn fails to teach the sensor configured to sense residue amount. However, Casper et al. ‘844 (“Casper”) discloses a crop input applicator system comprising a sensor configured to detect an amount of residue (74, 78, ¶0020, cl. 1). 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 sensor (Stoller, 1252) of the prior art system (Stoller, 1200, Fig. 12) such that it would have been configured to detect residue amount, as suggested by Casper. The motivation for making the modification would have been to enhance the efficiency during planting by facilitating control of various operations based on the amount of residue (Casper, ¶0004), and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIMS 1 and 26 The prior art combination of Stoller and Tribelhorn fails to teach the sensor configured to sense soil temperature. However, Anderson ‘992 (“Anderson”) discloses a crop input applicator system comprising a sensor configured to detect soil temperature (1126, ¶0099). 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 sensor (Stoller, 1252) of the prior art system (Stoller, 1200, Fig. 12) such that it would have been configured to detect soil temperature, as suggested by Anderson. The motivation for making the modification would have been to optimize seed germination with the inclusion of means for assessing soil temperature, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIMS 1 and 27 The prior art combination of Stoller and Tribelhorn fails to teach the sensor configured to sense soil color. However, Anderson ‘992 (“Anderson”) discloses a crop input applicator system comprising a sensor configured to detect soil color (1126, ¶0099). 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 sensor (Stoller, 1252) of the prior art system (Stoller, 1200, Fig. 12) such that it would have been configured to detect soil color, as suggested by Anderson. The motivation for making the modification would have been to optimize seed germination with the inclusion of means for assessing soil characteristics such as moisture retention and heat absorption based on its color, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIMS 1 and 28 The prior art combination of Stoller and Tribelhorn fails to teach the sensor configured to sense the level of organic matter. However, Stoller et al. ‘044 (“Stoller ‘044”) discloses a crop input applicator system comprising a sensor configured to detect organic matter level (370, ¶0096; and 350, ¶0097). 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 sensor (Stoller, 1252) of the prior art system (Stoller, 1200, Fig. 12) such that it would have been configured to detect the level of organic matter, as suggested by Stoller ‘044. The motivation for making the modification would have been to provide for a set of planting inputs associated with the level of organic matter, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success
CLAIM 12 All of the limitations recited therein are inherent to use of the system taught by the prior art combination, as applied above to claim 1.
CLAIM 30 All of the limitations recited therein are inherent to use of the system taught by the prior art combination, as applied above to claim 21.
CLAIM 31 All of the limitations recited therein are inherent to use of the system taught by the prior art combination, as applied above to claim 22.
CLAIM 32 All of the limitations recited therein are inherent to use of the system taught by the prior art combination, as applied above to claim 23.
CLAIM 33 All of the limitations recited therein are inherent to use of the system taught by the prior art combination, as applied above to claim 24.
CLAIM 34 All of the limitations recited therein are inherent to use of the system taught by the prior art combination, as applied above to claim 25.
CLAIM 35 All of the limitations recited therein are inherent to use of the system taught by the prior art combination, as applied above to claim 26.
CLAIM 36 All of the limitations recited therein are inherent to use of the system taught by the prior art combination, as applied above to claim 27.
CLAIM 37 All of the limitations recited therein are inherent to use of the system taught by the prior art combination, as applied above to claim 28.
AllowableSubject Matter
Claims 29 and 38 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 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/
10 January 2026
1In Fig. 2, Stoller illustrates a system embodiment (200) that clearly identifies a conduit (260) connected between a fluid source (250) and a pump (254) for distribution from units (210-217), but the alternate system (1200) of Fig. 12 does not identify a conduit by reference numeral. A type of conduit must exist to convey fluid from the source (1290) to the pump (1256) for distribution (p. 27, ll. 14-23) to the application units (1280, 1281-128n).
2 On page 2 at line 2, Stoller defines a planter as useful for planting seeds of crops. Thus, a mechanism, or seed delivery member, must exist for seeds to be dispensed in/to the soil.
3 In the embodiment of Fig. 12, Stoller discloses the use of multiple devices 1252, including “downforce sensors.” These prior art sensors anticipate the “agronomic sensors” of Applicant’s claim 1 because they are configured to provide information about various soil characteristics, including soil density.
4 On page 25 at lines 27-30, Stoller teaches the controller (1220) including a logic processor (1226) “for executing software instructions of one or more programs.”