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 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.
Claim 12 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 12 is indefinite since it depends from a non-existent claim, specifically non-existent claim 11.
For purposes of examination, the examiner has treated claim 12 as though it is renumbered as claim 2 and as though it depends from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson US 2015/0208573 A1 in view of Suleiman US 2014/0178131 A1.
With respect to claim 1, Stevenson US 2015/0208573 A1 discloses a meter system (Figures 1-8) for particulate farming products (abstract, lines 1 and 2), comprising:
a meter (Figures 1-8) for particulate farming products (abstract, lines 1 and 2), comprising:
a housing (best shown in Figures 2 and 5-7) defined by a base (unnumbered), a side wall portion (unnumbered), and an upper inlet portion (unnumbered), the housing (best shown in Figures 2 and 5-7) defining a loading chamber (unnumbered); and
a rotatable metering-disk element 38 comprising metering compartments 31 for receiving particulate farming products (abstract, lines 1 and 2) from the loading chamber (unnumbered).
A metering sensor (see the disclosure in paragraphs [0037] and [0038]) necessarily comprises a circuit (see the disclosure of “wired” in paragraph [0037], line 6) comprises processing (see the disclosure in paragraph [0037], lines 6-16), which are considered to constitute a “processing and metering control center” as broadly recited in claim 2.
The claims distinguish over Stevenson US 2015/0208573 A1 in requiring a density gauge and at least one load cell.
Suleiman US 2014/0178131 A1 discloses a density gauge and at least one load cell (see the disclosure in paragraph [0068]) in a housing (chamber) of a system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized the density gauge and at least one load cell of Suleiman US 2014/0178131 A1 in the system of Stevenson US 2015/0208573 A1 for greater accuracy and greater versatility in use of the system of Stevenson US 2015/0208573 A1.
Examiner Request
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support must be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EP 1 382 236 B2 discloses a granular spreader and product container.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J NOVOSAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6993. The examiner can normally be reached on a variable schedule.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rocca M Joseph can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/Christopher J. Novosad/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
September 15, 2025