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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the limit of 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “is provided” (line 1) is an implied phrase. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “is also provided” (the final line) is an implied phrase. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 2-6, 12-14 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 2 recites the limitation "the granular applicator" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the venturi inductors" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the wet boom" in the final line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-6 and 13-14 are rejected for their dependence on rejected base claims.
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) 1-9, 11, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. 5,605,105 in view of Pitchon et al. 4,165,834.
Independent Claim 1: Clark discloses a convertible sprayer and seeder, comprising:
a. a liquids tank (70, tank not shown, see col. 4, lns. 22-24);
b. one or more liquid discharge lines (182, 180, 160) leading from the liquids tank to one or more nozzles (104), said nozzles being arranged along booms (102) extending from the sprayer;
c. a seed metering applicator (222);
d. one or more seed lines (164), each connected from the seed metering applicator to each of said one or more liquid discharge lines (at 68, as seen in Fig. 12);
e. a venturi (68) located at each connection between each seed line and each liquid discharge line, as per claim 1.
However, Clark fails to disclose:
f. a spraying bypass mechanism associated with each of said one or more liquid discharge lines; and
g. a seeding valve associated with each connection between the one or more seed lines and the one or more liquid discharge lines,
wherein when the seeding valve is closed the bypass mechanism allows spraying and when the seeding valve is opened, the bypass mechanism allows seeding, as per claim 1.
Pitchon discloses a similar device comprising:
f. a spraying bypass mechanism (20) associated with each of said one or more liquid discharge lines (22); and
g. a seeding valve (62) associated with each connection between the one or more seed lines (30, col. 9, lns. 63-64) and the one or more liquid discharge lines,
wherein when the seeding valve is closed the bypass mechanism allows spraying and when the seeding valve is opened, the bypass mechanism allows seeding (col. 6, lns. 32-38), 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 spraying bypass mechanism of Pitchon on the device of Clark in order to flush the device with water to clean the device of seed.
Dependents 2-6: Clark further discloses wherein the granular applicator (222) serves to proportion seeds into the seed lines (164) and wherein the venturi inductors (68) serve to draw in the seeds and deposit the seeds into the liquid discharge lines (182, 180, 160, in Fig. 12) to immerse seed in liquid, as per claim 2;
wherein the immersed seeds enter the liquid discharge lines (182, 180, 160) and are deposited into the ground along with the liquid, through the spray nozzles (104), as per claim 3;
wherein the liquid is selected from the group consisting of water (col. 4, lns. 22-24) and fertilizer solutions, as per claim 4;
a pump (198) for pumping liquid from the liquids tank (70, tank not shown, see col. 4, lns. 22-24) to each venturi (68), as per claim 5;
wherein a volume of liquid pumped by the pump (198) set in proportion to a seed application rate to prevent plugging of the nozzles (104, col. 9, lns. 11-18 and col. 11, lns. 24-38), as per claim 6.
Dependent Claim 7: Clark further discloses wherein seed metering applicator (222) comprises a control panel (36) for infield calibration of seed metering and seed application rate (col. 9, lns. 11-18), as per claim 7.
Dependent Claims 8-9: Clark further discloses wherein the one or more liquid discharge lines (182, 180, 160) comprise two liquid discharge lines (each venturi has lines 160 and 180) and the one or more seed lines (164) comprise two seed lines (see Fig. 5) and wherein a venturi inductor (68) is located on each of two the liquid discharge lines at the connection to each of the two seed lines (as seen in Fig. 12), as per claim 8.
However, Clark fails to disclose wherein the seeding valves are located on each of the two seed lines and are individually openable to allow flow of seeds into the respective liquid discharge line in a seeding operation mode, and individually closeable in a spraying-only operation mode, as per claim 9.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide each of Clark’s seed lines with seeding valves, as set forth by Pitchon, in order to individually switch each line between the seeding operation mode and the spraying-only mode, as per claim 9.
Dependent Claim 11: The device is disclosed as applied above. Pitchon further discloses wherein the one or more liquid discharge lines (22) comprise a single liquid discharge line (seen in Fig. 1) having a single venturi inductor (40, Fig. 2) located thereon, and the one or more seed lines comprise a single seed line (30, Fig. 2) feeding into the venturi inductor, as per claim 11.
Dependent Claim 15: Clark and Pitchon disclose a device used by a method of seeding a cover crop or relay crop, said method comprising the steps of:
a. providing the convertible sprayer and seeder of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Pitchon further discloses b. opening each of the seeding valves (62) and closing each of the bypass mechanisms (20);
c. adjusting each nozzle opening (nozzle of 104) to allow passage of seeds therethrough (col. 4, lns. 31-36); and
d. as the convertible sprayer and seeder is driven across a field, metering seeds from the applicator through the seed lines (30) and through the venturi (20) into the liquid discharge lines (36) and out through the nozzles (50), as per claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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.
Claims 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTOL-892. Reinsch et al. 6,425,529 discloses a similar particulate entrainment device via venturi, but does not specify that the particulate is seed.
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 19, 2025