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 § 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(s) 1-3, 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean et al. 7,690,440 in view of Miller et al. US 2014/0277965 A1.
Independent Claim 1: Dean discloses a seed metering apparatus comprising:
a seed hopper (5);
a seed cup (the unnumbered compartment containing metering roller 1 in Figs. 2, 4) operatively connected to said seed hopper via an opening (the opening opened and closed by gate 4);
a bi-directional member (4) for closing said opening; and
a solenoid (80, col. 3, lns. 10-14, col. 7, lns. 17-20), operatively connected to said bi-directional member, to move said bi-directional member between an open state (Fig. 4) and a closed state (Fig. 2);
said open state corresponding to said opening being open and said closed state corresponding to said opening being closed;
a manual controller to manually control said solenoid (col. 2, lns. 55-63 and col. 7, lns. 51-59); and
a global positioning satellite based controller to automatically control the solenoid (80, 4, see col. 9, lns. 24-32), as per claim 1.
However, Dean fails to disclose wherein the manual controller being configured to override the global positioning satellite based controller, as per claim 1.
Miller discloses a similar seed metering apparatus wherein said manual controller is configured to override said global positioning satellite based controller (para. [0040], lns. 2-5), as per claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ability of a user to override the GPS control as taught by Miller on the seed metering apparatus of Dean in order to allow a user to debug or troubleshoot the GPS should it malfunction.
Independent Claim 8: Dean discloses a seed metering apparatus comprising:
a seed hopper (5);
a seed cup (the unnumbered compartment containing metering roller 1 in Figs. 2, 4) operatively connected to said seed hopper via an opening (the opening opened and closed by gate 4); and
a valve mechanism (4), operatively connected between said seed hopper and said seed cup, configured to control a flow of seed from said seed hopper to said seed cup;
a manual controller to manually control the valve mechanism (col. 2, lns. 55-63 and col. 7, lns. 51-59); and
a global positioning satellite based controller to automatically control the valve mechanism (80, see col. 9, lns. 24-32), as per claim 8.
However, Dean fails to disclose the manual controller being configured to override the global positioning satellite based controller, as per claim 8.
Miller discloses a similar seed metering apparatus wherein said manual controller is configured to override said global positioning satellite based controller (para. [0040], lns. 2-5), as per claim 8.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ability of a user to override the GPS control as taught by Miller on the seed metering apparatus of Dean in order to allow a user to debug or troubleshoot the GPS should it malfunction.
Dependent Claims 2-3, 9-11: Dean further discloses a seed tube (27) operatively connected to said seed cup (the unnumbered compartment containing metering roller 1 in Figs. 2, 4), as per claims 2, 10;
wherein said seed cup (the unnumbered compartment containing metering roller 1 in Figs. 2, 4) includes a metering mechanism (1) to regulate a flow of seed into said seed tube (27), as per claims 3, 11;
wherein said valve mechanism (4) includes a bi-directional member (also 4) and a solenoid (80, col. 3, lns. 10-14, col. 7, lns. 17-20), operatively connected to said bi-directional member, to move said bi-directional member between an open state (Fig. 4) and a closed state (Fig. 2);
said open state corresponding to said valve mechanism being open and said closed state corresponding to said valve mechanism being closed, as per claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Miller is void of any teaching or suggestion of a manual controller configured to override a global positioning satellite based controller. Specifically, applicant argues that Miller’s para. [0040], cited by the examiner in the art rejection, merely teaches that a GPS planting system can display information to a user to enable debugging or troubleshooting.
First, primary reference Dean, as rejected above, discloses that both a manual control and an automatic global positioning satellite based control are both known for operation of the claimed seed metering apparatus.
Second, secondary reference Miller discloses that it is known in the art to provide an operator interface (105, i.e., a manual control) to allow a user to quickly debug or troubleshoot an automatic GPS based control. It is unclear how this does not qualify as an “override”. Merriam-Webster.com defines “override” as: to prevail over or to set aside. Providing a manual control interface to allow a user to manually debug or troubleshoot the GPS system, as disclosed by Miller, is essentially allowing a user to manually “override” the automatic GPS control by “prevailing over” or “setting aside” the automatic GPS control, as claimed.
Furthermore, it is noted that the term “override” is given no special definition in the original disclosure that would preclude Miller. The rejection is therefore maintained.
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 Alicia M. Torres whose telephone number is 571-272-6997. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-6997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph M. Rocca, can be reached at (571) 272-8971.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the group receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-3600. The fax number for this Group is 571-273-8300.
/Alicia Torres/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 December 27, 2025