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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that Newman fails to disclose furrows is not persuasive as Newman discloses this in fig. 20 and col. 10 ll. 32-51. Applicant’s argument that Man (‘190) teaches using a non-adjustable roller which creates divots and not furrows and thus the teachings are not applicable to Newman is not persuasive since Man is only used to teach a desired spacing between rows which can be achieved by adjusting the distance between the wheels of Newman. Applicant’s argument that Alt fails to disclose how the planting was achieved and thus the claim is not obvious over Newman and Alt is not persuasive since the equipment of Newman is capable of this as recited in col. 2 ll. 45-50.
Applicant’s argument that Newman fails to disclose a second planting operation which passes over planted soil is accurate but Kinzenbaw (US 4648334 A) discloses this as discussed infra.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, 12-14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman (US 4023511 A) in light of Newman (US 4164190 A), hereinafter Man and Kinzenbaw (US 4648334 A), hereinafter Kin.
With respect to claim 1, Newman discloses a method of seeding a field with a planter to produce planted rows, comprising: performing a first planting operation seeding a plurality of individual seeded rows defining a first set of rows (leftmost, middle, and rightmost rows in fig. 1); performing a second planting operation seeding a plurality of individual seeded rows defining a second set of rows (row on each side of the middle row in fig. 1) such that each of the seeded rows of the second set of rows are disposed between the seeded rows of the first set of rows (shown in fig. 1); wherein each of the individual seeded rows of the first set of rows are less than ten inches from a seeded row of the second set of rows (col. 1 ll. 34-39, col. 2 ll. 30-35).
However, while Newman discloses about 4 inches in col. 1 ll. 34-36, for the sake of compact prosecution, this will not be interpreted to read on 3 or less inches.
Nevertheless, Man discloses using a spacing of 3 inches or less for seeds which may be soybeans (col. 1 ll. 40-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a spacing of 3 or less inches between rows in Newman as taught by Man in order to result in an increased yield of crop on a per-acre basis as taught by Man (col. 1 ll. 46-53).
Newman also fails to disclose the second planting operation performed by a planter passing over already planted soil.
Nevertheless, Kin discloses a first planter (18 and 13 A-E) which performs a first planting operation by planting seeds in rows and a second planter (19 and 12A-F) which performs a second planting operation in rows by passing over already planted soil planted by the first planter.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have configured the planting device of Newman to have a forward and rear planting apparatus with multiple planting wheels in order to achieve close row spacings, rendering the implement safer for road transport, and allowing the farmer to better observe the operation of planters in the front (col. 2 ll. 37-68).
With respect to claims 5, Newman further discloses wherein the first planting operation and the second planting operation are performed using a row crop planter (combination of all mechanical elements shown in fig. 1 constitute a row crop planter).
With respect to claims 8, Newman further discloses providing a row crop planter (combination of all mechanical elements shown in fig. 1 ) having at least two seeding assemblies (5 shown in fig. 1) and a seed metering system (combination of at least 30, 20, 34, and elements shown in fig. 2) capable of providing seed to the at least two seeding assemblies at a desired rate; performing a planting operation using the row crop planter to produce seeded rows no more than ten inches apart from one another (discussed supra); wherein the seed metering system is set to provide seed to the at least two seeding assemblies at a rate of at least 240,000 seeds per acre (col. 2 ll. 40-50).
With respect to claim 12, Newman further discloses wherein the seed metering system is set to provide seed to the at least two seeding assemblies at a rate of between 240,000 and 280,000 seeds per acre (col. 1 ll. 33-35 and col. 2 ll. 30-50 discloses a range of a square pattern between 4-7 inches for seeds, and a range between 207,000 seeds and 310,000 seeds per acre in conjunction with a finely tunable row spacing which makes obvious the provision of 240-280k seeds/acre since this range falls within the wider range provided by Newman in a finely tunable device).
With respect to claims 13, Newman discloses wherein the seed provided by the metering system to the at least two seeding assemblies is soybean seed (col. 1 ll. 34-39, col. 2 ll. 30-35).
Claims 14 and 18 recite limitations substantially similar to those of claims 1 and 12, discussed supra.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman, Man, and Kin, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alt (US 4226615 A).
With respect to claims 6 and 7, while Newman discloses using a range of seeds per acre in col. 2 ll. 40-50 that will almost certainly result in the number of plants per acre claimed, he fails to specifically disclose the number of plants per acre.
Nevertheless, Alt discloses producing 255,000 plants per acre of soybeans in col. 8 l. 67 – col. 9 l. 2 with a spacing of 11 inch row spacing, so with a 3 inch spacing as taught by Newman in light of Man, between 280,000 and 600,000 would be easily achieved.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a spacing in Newman to produce 280,000 plants/acre as taught by Newman and New in light of Alt (col. 8 l. 67 – col. 9 l. 2, Alt, obviously increased above 280,000 with 3 inch row spacing) since this is the application of a known technique in a similar device to improve it in the same way with predictable and obvious results and a reasonable expectation for success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20140007502 A1 teaches performing multiple passes to achieve tight row spacings in pgph. 24.
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 KIPP CHARLES WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:00 PM - 8:00 PM.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571) 272-4137. 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.
/KIPP C WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 01/30/2026