DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 April 2026 has been entered.
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 Amendment
The prior rejections of CLAIMS 1, 10, 12, 20-28 and 30-37 under §§ 112(a) and 112(b) have been overcome by amendments filed with the RCE on 15 April 2026.
Claim Objections
CLAIM 38 is objected to because of the following informalities: minor claim drafting error.
On line 8, insert --to-- immediately following “fluid” and prior to “power.”
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 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 40, 41, 43 AND 44 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 21 recites the limitation "the sensor configured to sense seed velocity and/or seed speed" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
CLAIM 30 is similarly rejected.
CLAIM 24 recites the limitation "the sensor configured to sense seed color" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
CLAIMS 27, 33 AND 36 are similarly rejected.
CLAIM 40 recites the limitation “based on data received from the sensor to control an amount of the fluid delivered to an individual seed based on a position of the seed.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation because a sensor configured to detect seed position is not recited in CLAIM 1.
CLAIMS 41, 43 AND 44 are similarly rejected.
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.
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.
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.
CLAIMS 1, 12, 21, 22, 24-28, 30, 31, 33-37 AND 39-44 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”; and 1254) configured to sense at least one of:
(1) seed orientation;
(2) a residue amount in or adjacent a seed furrow;
(3) a soil temperature in or adjacent a seed furrow; and
(4) an organic matter level in or adjacent a seed furrow; 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, 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, 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, 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, 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 in or adjacent a seed furrow (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, 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 in or adjacent a seed furrow (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, 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, 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 in or adjacent a seed furrow (370, ¶0096; 350, ¶0097; and 2530, ¶0083). 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 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.
CLAIM 39 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.
CLAIMS 40, 41, 43, 44 In the prior art combination, Stoller ‘395 teaches sensors (1254) for detecting passage of a seed (i.e., a specific location), data processing systems (throughout), and also a processor incorporated in the controller (1220, 1262)(p. 27, ll. 28-30).
CLAIM 42 All of the limitations recited therein are inherent to use of the system taught by the prior art combination, as applied above to CLAIM 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
CLAIM 38 is objected to because it contains a minor drafting error, but would be allowable if rewritten to correct the informality.
CLAIMS 10 AND 20 are 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.
CLAIM 29 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1 AND 12
Applicant argues “The cited references therefore fail to teach or suggest the use of any of the recited sensed parameters to control fluid delivery to a seed in a crop input applicator system.” The examiner contends the recited sensed parameters are taught by the prior art. The sensed parameter:
(1) seed orientation is suggested by Walter ‘026;
(2) a residue amount in or adjacent a seed furrow is suggested by Casper ‘844;
(3) a soil temperature in or adjacent a seed furrow is suggested by Anderson ‘992; and
(4) an organic matter level in or adjacent a seed furrow is suggested by Stoller ‘044.
Applicant argues neither Stoller nor Tribelhorn discloses (a) sensing the claimed parameters in or adjacent to a seed furrow, and (b) using such sensed data to control actuation of a flow control valve to control fluid delivery to a seed. The examiner disagrees for the following reasons.
(a) Stoller teaches the crop input applicator system (1200) in combination with a machine (1202), such as a tractor or combine (p. 25, ll. 5-8), which travels adjacent agricultural rows. Thus, the sensors (1252, 1254) are configured to function adjacent a seed furrow.
(b) 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 (i) adjustment in response to flow meters (150), which include flow sensors (¶¶0062, 0064), and (ii) communication with a controller (200, ¶0067).
Applicant argues (1) Walter, (2) Casper, (3) Anderson, and (4) Stoller ‘044 are all non-analogous art. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case:
(1) Walter recites (cl. 9) a planting system comprising a sensor for detecting “seed orientation” for delivery to a furrow ([0049]);
(2) Casper recites a residue management system (cl. 1) “utilized to determine the amount of surface residue before, after or during a farming operation” ([0020]), such as tillage, planting or seeding ([0069], [0070], [0080]);
(3) Anderson teaches expressly a sensor configured to detect soil temperature ([0099]) in or adjacent a seed furrow ([0028], [0040], [0075]); and
(4) Stoller ‘044 discloses a sensor configured to detect organic matter level in or adjacent a seed furrow (370, [0096]; 350, [0097]; and 2530, [0083]).
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/
11 June 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.”
Prosecution Insights