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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/23/23 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 22, line 17 reads, “access cover 19”. It should read –access cover 18--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “second access cover located below the upper gate” (claim 5) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites, “the mobile transport device” in line 5. This element is previously referred to as “the mobile transport apparatus”. Consistency should be maintained throughout. 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 13 and 14 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. Claims 4, 13, and 14 disclose multiple elements that appear to be required elements by reciting “at least one…” then read, “or a combination of these” Which indicates that only two of the elements are required. It is unclear how many of the items in each of the listed claims are being positively claimed. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that the “or” identifier in conjunction with the word “combination” means only two of each group is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by van der Lely et al. (4,763,844).
Regarding claim 17, van der Lely discloses a system capable of delivering material to a planting system comprising:
A hopper surge bin (26)
At least a first work station (188) and a second work station (189)
Wherein each respective workstation is configured to discharge the hopper contents from the bottom (196) of each respective workstation (via outlet ports 197,198)
Wherein each workstation is comprised of either:
Four walls with at least one wall tapering inward from a wider top opening to a smaller bottom opening
Three walls with a t least one side tapering inward from a wider top opening to a smaller bottom opening, or
A circular wall tapering inward from a wider top opening to a smaller bottom opening (Figure 18), and
At least one gate (200,201) located below either the four walls, the three walls or the circular wall
Regarding claim 19, van der Lely discloses that the at least first and second workstations are connected at or near the center between them (Figure 17), wherein the respective workstations are configured to be filled by filling the top of the hopper surge bin and further discloses a holding frame (101) located below the first and second workstations.
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, 7, 10, 11, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Lely (4,763,844) in view of Anderson (2019/0135469).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, van der Lely discloses a system capable of delivering material to a planting system comprising:
A hopper surge bin (26)
At least a first work station (188) and a second work station (189)
Wherein each respective workstation is configured to discharge the hopper contents from the bottom (196) of each respective workstation (via outlet ports 197,198)
Wherein each workstation is comprised of either:
Four walls with at least one wall tapering inward from a wider top opening to a smaller bottom opening
Three walls with a t least one side tapering inward from a wider top opening to a smaller bottom opening, or
A circular wall tapering inward from a wider top opening to a smaller bottom opening (Figure 18), and
At least one gate (200,201) located below either the four walls, the three walls or the circular wall
While van der Lely discloses the system as described above, it fails to specifically disclose the method of using the mobile distributer to fill grow bags for trees. Like van der Lely,. Anderson also discloses a mobile distributer with a surge bin (602), workstation (605) and outlet for distributing agricultural material. Unlike van der Lely, Anderson discloses that the outlet on the mobile device can be directed such that it fills grow bags for trees and the mobile machine can advance to fill multiple grow bags quickly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize system of van der Lely to directionally distribute soil to grow bags as taught by Anderson as it would be applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claims 3 and 19, the combination of van der Lely and Anderson discloses that the at least first and second workstations are connected at or near the center between them (Figure 17), wherein the respective workstations are configured to be filled by filling the top of the hopper surge bin and further discloses a holding frame (101) located below the first and second workstations.
Regarding claim 7, the combination discloses a directed spout (Anderson - 610) below the at least one gate configured to direct potting media toward a grow bag.
Regarding claim 10, the combination discloses providing a mobile transport apparatus and an integrated planting vehicle comprised of the at least one workstation and mobile transport apparatus (Anderson – pgph 0037).
Regarding claim 11, the combination discloses that the at least one workstation is comprised of at least a pair of bilateral workstations (188,189) configured to dispense potting media (Anderson) from both sides of the planting vehicle.
Claim(s) 2, 13-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Lely (4,763,844) in view of Anderson (2019/0135469) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baars (EP4085752).
Regarding claims 2 and 18, the combination of van der Lely and Anderson discloses the invention as described above, but fails to disclose how the plant/tree is supported while the grow bag is filled. Like the combination of van der Lely and Anderson, Baars also discloses directionally distributing soil around a tree/plant in a planting container. Unlike the combination, Baars discloses the use of a control arm (690) (Figure 6A) (controls/power either at the location or remotely located are inherent to a control arm as disclosed by Baars).
Regarding claim 13, the combination discloses a robotic arm (690 - Baars) and a fertilizer system (Anderson – pgph 0017) and further, Baars discloses that the system of the combination utilizes an automated robotic arm.
Regarding claim 14, the combination discloses the invention as described above including a control system for the robotic arm but fails to specifically disclose that the automating apparatus is controlled by an algorithm AI, machine learning or a combination thereof. The examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in the art to utilize AI, algorithms or machine learning when dealing with controllers and/or automated processes. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize AI, machine learning or an algorithm to control the system of the combination.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the combination of van der Lely and Anderson discloses the invention as described above but fails to specifically disclose level sensors to determine when enough material has been added. Like the combination, Baars also discloses directionally distributing soil around a tree/plant in a planting container. Unlike the combination, Baars discloses the use of sensors to determine fill levels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize level sensors when filling the grow bags of the combination to ensure that each tree receives enough media without waste.
Claim(s) 4, 8, 9, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Lely (4,763,844) in view of Anderson (2019/0135469) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rosselot (2,511,514).
Regarding claims 4, 8 and 9, the combination discloses the invention as described above including a manual upper gate but fails to disclose a lower gate and/or an auger media transfer system located below the upper gate. Like the combination, Rosselot also discloses a directional distributing mechanism for agricultural product with two outlets. Unlike the combination, Rosselot discloses two transversely extending outlets with internal augers (driven by power take off from the vehicle motor – controlled by the operator in the cab by turning the vehicle on/off) and a lower manually operated gate (24,34) for adjustably metering material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the closed invention to include extending outlets and augers with adjustable gates in the combination as taught by Rosselot to allow the operator to access grow bags at various distances as a use of a known technique to improve similar methods/products in the same way (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claim 12, the combination further discloses that fertilizer can be included in the system. This fertilizer (disclosed by Anderson – pgph 0017) would utilize the same transverse outlets/augers and originate in a hopper/holding area (inherent) such that it is ejected into the grow bags.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Lely (4,763,844) in view of Anderson (2019/0135469) and Rosselot (2,511,514) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Wildes et al. (5,363,758).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the combination of van der Lely and Anderson discloses the invention as described above but fails to specifically disclose viewing windows or access panels. Like the combination, Wildes et al. also discloses a mechanical conveying system subject to blockages. Unlike the combination, Wildes discloses a monitoring window and an access panel to allow an operator to access areas of concern. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include viewing windows and access panels in the combination as taught by Wildes as the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)) as it would allow the operator to monitor operating conditions and allow access to any areas of concern for maintenance.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Lely (4,763,844) in view of Anderson (2019/0135469) and McCartney (7,104,204).
Regarding claim 20, van der Lely discloses a system capable of delivering material to a planting system comprising:
A hopper surge bin (26)
At least a first work station (188) and a second work station (189)
Wherein each respective workstation is configured to discharge the hopper contents from the bottom (196) of each respective workstation (via outlet ports 197,198)
Wherein each workstation is comprised of either:
Four walls with at least one wall tapering inward from a wider top opening to a smaller bottom opening
Three walls with a t least one side tapering inward from a wider top opening to a smaller bottom opening, or
A circular wall tapering inward from a wider top opening to a smaller bottom opening (Figure 18), and
At least one gate (200,201) located below either the four walls, the three walls or the circular wall
While van der Lely discloses the system as described above, it fails to specifically disclose the method of using the mobile distributer to fill grow bags for trees. Like van der Lely,. Anderson also discloses a mobile distributer with a surge bin (602), workstation (605) and outlet for distributing agricultural material. Unlike van der Lely, Anderson discloses that the outlet on the mobile device can be directed such that it fills grow bags for trees and the mobile machine can advance to fill multiple grow bags quickly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize system of van der Lely to directionally distribute soil to grow bags as taught by Anderson as it would be applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
While the combination of van der Lely and Anderson discloses the invention as described above, it fails to disclose a refill container and tubing for moving media from the refill container to the surge bin. Like the combination of van der Lely and Anderson, McCartney also discloses a distributing mechanism for agricultural purposes. Unlike the combination, McCartney discloses that the surge bin (18) can be refilled by material flowing through tubing (60) from a refill container (50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a refill container in the combination of van der Lely and Anderson as taught by McCartney as it would be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)) as having a larger hopper that can refill the surge bin during use would allow for increased working times without having stop to refill the surge bin.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DiTucci (3,587,675) also discloses a refill hopper/device for a mobile distributer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jamie L McGowan whose telephone number is (571)272-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00-5:00 CST.
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, Chris 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.
/JAMIE L MCGOWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671