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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 now recites “a first seal and a second seal, disposed at opposite axial ends of the sowing disc assembly, in direct contact with a sowing disk body and a mounting shaft, jointly forming a sealing unit that radially surrounds rolling elements and is configured to retain a lubricant of the sowing disc assembly”. Neither the specification nor the drawings as originally filed disclose the features claimed. For example, no seals are shown to be in direction contact with the sowing disk/disc as claimed. Furthermore, there are no seals disclosed that show them ‘radially’ surrounding the rolling elements. There are no seals whatsoever that are found radially outward and axially overlapping the rolling elements, which is what would be required for ‘radially surrounding’. Applicant has not described these features in the specification nor are they shown in the drawings.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites “a sowing disk body”. It is unclear if this is the same element as the “sowing disc assembly” of claim 1 or if it is a new and separate element.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fleischer EP 2664810.
Re clm 1, Fleischer discloses a sowing disc assembly (Fig. 2; [0006]) of a seeding machine ([0006]), comprising: an inner face of the sowing disc assembly on which a first external raceway (raceway formed on one of outer rings) and a second external raceway (raceway formed on the other outer ring) are machined, configured for direct mounting of at least a first tapered roller (one of 6s; [0016]) and a second tapered roller (other of 6s; [0016]), respectively; further including a first internal cone (one of inner rings of bearings) and a second internal cone (other of inner rings of bearings) that define a first inner bearing ring and a second inner bearing ring of the first tapered roller and the second tapered roller respectively.
The limitation “machined” is a product-by-process limitation. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP § 2113.
Re clm 2, Fleischer further discloses said first internal cone fits within a first cage and the second internal cone fits within a second cage (as shown in Fig. 2; inner rings are radially within cages).
Re clm 4, Fleischer further discloses said first internal cone and said second internal cone are arranged facing each other in a mirrored manner (as shown in Fig. 2; inner raceways are identical and mirrored).
Re clm 5, Fleischer further discloses the first internal cone (left inner ring) comprises a first internal projection (for example, inner radial rib on axial inner side of left inner ring) and a first outer projection (outer radial rib on axial outer side of left inner ring), while the second internal cone (right inner ring) comprises a second internal projection (inner radial rib on axial inner side of right inner ring) and a second outer projection (outer radial rib on axial outer side of right inner ring).
Re clm 6, Fleischer further discloses the first internal projection and the second internal projection and the first outer projection and the second outer projection define a first end of the first conical roller and a second end of the second conical roller (as shown in Fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
102 Rejection
Regarding Applicant’s bullet number 1 in the remarks, Applicant argues that Fleischer fails to teach a sowing disc assembly, however this is incorrect since the sowing disc assembly can be considered to be at least the combination of the hub 4 and the two outer rings of the bearings. Applicant further argues that Fleischer fails to disclose an “inner face”, however, this is also inaccurate since the inner face would be considered the surfaces that face radially inward on the hub element and/or the two outer rings. Applicant then states that Fleischer does not describe an inner face of a disc assembly on which raceways are machined. This is also incorrect. The outer raceways of the bearings are clearly formed on the inner face of the ‘sowing disc assembly’, which has been interpreted to be the hub 4 together with the two outer raceways.
Regarding Applicant’s bullet number 2, Applicant argues that Fleischer does not disclose external raceways that are machined and located on the structure of the sowing disc assembly. As noted above, Fleischer does indeed disclose external (outer) raceways that are formed and located on the structure of the sowing disc assembly (hub 4 and two outer rings). Applicant seems to be arguing that the claim limitation “an inner face of the sowing disc assembly on which a first external raceway and a second external raceway are machined” means a “one-piece” or “monolithic” element. This, however, is not that case. The term “machined” does not impart such structure to the device. Still further, as noted in the rejection above, the limitation “machined” is considered a product-by-process limitation. . "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP § 2113. Forming the raceway surfaces of the outer rings by “machining” provides the same structure as the prior art.
Regarding Applicant’s bullet number 3, Applicant asserts that Fleischer does not disclose the raceways are machined. As noted above, “are machined” is a product-by-process limitation. Even if Applicant could reasonably argue that “machining” somehow provides a distinction, Fleischer actually does disclose machining. Applicant’s bolded section of paragraph [0016] conveniently left out the first word of the sentence, “preferably”. This means that the prior art has considered and discloses both manufacturing with and without chip removal, however, without chip removal is preferred. Put another way, Fleischer does not state that machining without chip removal must be used as Applicant argues, but rather that it is the ‘preferred’ alternative.
Applicant further argues that “this confirms that the raceways are part of separate, prefabricated rings, are not integrated into the structure of the sowing disc”. Applicant has not claimed the sowing disc assembly as a one-piece or monolithic element. The limitation that the raceways are machined on the assembly does not impart a one=piece or monolithic element. Furthermore, an “assembly” is defined by Merriam-Webster’s dictionary as “the fitting together of manufactured parts into a complete machine, structure, or unit of a machine”. If the “sowing disc assembly” is a single, one-piece element, how can it also be an "assembly”? Thus, the examiner’s interpretation of the sowing disc assembly as more than one part/element (such as the hub 4 and the outer rings of the bearings) is in line with the common use of the term assembly.
Regarding Applicant’s bullet number 4, it is clear that Applicant is arguing that the claim limitations require an integral, one piece construction. Applicant is arguing limitations not found in the claims. As noted above, a.) an integral structure is not required to meet the claim limitations, b.) the limitation “are machined” does not impart a required for an integral structure, c.) the limitation “are machined” is a product-by-process limitation and machining imparts no distinct structure onto the raceway, and d.) Fleischer does in fact disclose machining even though it isn’t the “preferred” alternative.
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 ALAN B WAITS whose telephone number is (571)270-3664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6-4 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, John R Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/ALAN B WAITS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617