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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 24-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/28/2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed internationally through the European patent office on 12/23/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the international application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the conveying device as shown in fig. 7-8 and referenced as 21; a stationary rail-like component in the specification has an illegible marker. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: 70 as marked in fig. 7. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-23 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 1 recites the phrase "tube-like" renders the claim indefinite because the claim include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by the phrase "-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. In other words, the use of the term ‘like’ leads to ambiguity as what is encompassed by ‘like’. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 2-23 fail to remedy such deficiency.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the… indentation" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the… indentation" in lines 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the conveying direction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the working cycle of the perforation device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the working cycle of the deposition device" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the conveying speed" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, & 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mielke, U.S. Patent No. 4,780,988 A; herein Mie in view of Gray et al., U.S. Patent No. 3,236,199 A; herein Gray.
Re claim 1, Mie discloses a device (fig. 4) for introducing seeds (4; the seeds, fig. 1 & 3-4) into a tube substrate cord (1; the plant carrying device, fig. 1) that is enclosed by a sheath (2/2a; the web/envelope, fig. 1 & 4) that is filled with a plant substrate (3/3’; the fibers/fillers, fig. 1), the device comprising:
a conveying device (56; the conveyor, fig. 2-4) to convey the substrate cord in a direction of its longitudinal axis continuously (fig. 4 and col 17; 47-53, the belt conveyor moves the stream through the channel), without interruption or in a clocked manner (col 18; 33-36, the conveyor transfers the stream incrementally to another conveyor for webbing the stream); and
a deposition device (16; the seed supplying means, fig. 3-4) with a deposition tool (66; the rotor, fig. 3-4), the deposition tool introducing one or more seeds into the plant substrate (col 19-20; 63-9, the rotor imparts each seed to the stream such that it is imbedded within the filled of the respective carrying device).
Mie fails to disclose a perforation device with a perforation tool, the perforation tool being transaxially lowerable onto the substrate cord for creating openings in the sheath; and the deposition tool introducing one or more seeds or seedlings through an opening within the plant substrate created by the perforation device. However, Gray discloses a perforation device (79; the seed planting mechanisms, fig. 1-2 & 7) with a perforation tool (108; the needle bar, fig. 2 & 7), the perforation tool being transaxially lowerable onto a plant substrate for creating openings in an enclosing sheath (fig. 1-2 & 7 and col 4-5; 61-40, the needle bar is lowered to pierce an opening into the plastic mulch cover along the arrow G to enter the soil) and a deposition device (122; the seed dispenser, fig. 1 & 9) with a deposition tool (95; the hollow tubular needle, fig. 2 & 7), the deposition tool introducing one or more seeds or seedlings into the plant substrate through an opening created by the perforation device (fig. 2 & 7 and col 7; 29-49, the hollow tubular needle deposits the seed into an opening cavity punched by the needle bar within the soil).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose a perforation device with a perforation tool, the perforation tool being transaxially lowerable onto the substrate cord for creating openings in the sheath; and the deposition tool introducing one or more seeds or seedlings through an opening within the plant substrate created by the perforation device however, Gray discloses such a perforation device for creating such an opening within a plant substrate and sheath. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the perforating and depositing technique as taught by Gray to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing a path for the seed to emerge through the cover (Gray, col 7; 29-49). See MPEP 2143 I. (C) & (G).
Re claim 2, the combination of Mie and Gray discloses the invention of claim 1, Gray as applied to Mie further discloses wherein the perforation tool is designed to create an indentation in the plant substrate in the area of the opening (col 7; 29-42, the needle bar forms a cavity in the cover and soil).
Re claim 3, the combination of Mie and Gray discloses the invention of claim 1, Gray as applied to Mie further discloses wherein the perforation tool has at least one cutting edge (110; the sharpened beveled end, fig. 2 & 7), for creating openings in the sheath (col 7; 29-49, the sharp end creates an opening within the cover).
Re claim 4, the combination of Mie and Gray discloses the invention of claim 1, Gray as applied to Mie further discloses wherein the perforation tool for creating openings in the sheath has a punching knife (fig. 2 & 7).
Re claim 6, the combination of Mie and Gray discloses the invention of claim 1, Gray as applied to Mie further discloses wherein the perforation tool for creating openings in the sheath has a ripping tool (110; the sharpened beveled end, fig. 2 & 7) that is engabeable with the sheath (col 7; 29-49, the sharp end creates an opening within the cover).
Re claim 7, the combination of Mie and Gray discloses the invention of claim 1, Gray as applied to Mie further discloses wherein the perforation tool for creating openings in the sheath has a borer (79; the seed planting mechanisms, fig. 1-2 & 7) that is lowerable onto the substrate cord (again see fig. 1-2 & 7 and col 4-5; 61-40).
Re claim 8, the combination of Mie and Gray discloses the invention of claim 1, Gray as applied to Mie further discloses wherein the deposition device has a separation and metering unit (150; the seed dispenser disc, fig. 1-2 & 7) from which the seeds are individually suppliable to the deposition tool (col 6; 11-41, a seed of a single size being carried within the respective pockets to meter and separate the seeds between each funnel/planting needle).
Re claim 9, the combination of Mie and Gray discloses the invention of claim 1, Gray as applied to Mie further discloses wherein the deposition tool is adapted to be transaxially lowerable onto the substrate cord (see the rejection of claim 1).
Re claim 10, the combination of Mie and Gray discloses the invention of claim 1, Gray as applied to Mie further discloses wherein the deposition tool has a deposition tube (96; the hollow tubular member, fig. 2) that is situated above the opening (fig. 2 & 7 and col 4; 61-70 & col 7; 29-49, the hollow section extends from the upper open end; 98 through an opening within the needle bar).
Re claim 11, as best understood, the combination of Mie and Gray discloses the invention of claim 1, the combination as currently modified fails to disclose wherein the device has a cover for closing the opening in the substrate cord. However, Gray further discloses wherein the device has a cover for closing the opening in the substrate cord (col 7; 29-49, via the seed covering material).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the device has a cover for closing the opening in the substrate cord however, Gray further discloses such a covering process. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the seed materials cover dispenser as taught by Gray to the assembly of the prior art to yield the predictable result of preventing the seed from escaping the substrate. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Re claim 13, the combination of Mie and Gray discloses the invention of claim 1, Mie further discloses wherein the conveying device includes a guide channel (14; the elongated channel, fig. 2-2a & 4) and advancer for conveying the substrate cord (col 14; 15-40, the endless conveyor moves the stream through the channel).
Re claim 14, as best understood, the combination of Mie and Gray discloses the invention of claim 13, Mie further discloses wherein the guide channel is formed by elements that are moved in a conveying direction by a conveyour belt (col 14; 15-40, via the endless belt conveyor).
Re claim 15, the combination of Mie and Gray discloses the invention of claim 13, Mie further discloses wherein the guide channel is formed by a stationary conveying groove (col 14; 15-40, via the elongated channel which is in a stationary location).
Re claim 16, the combination of Mie and Gray discloses the invention of claim 13, Mie further discloses wherein the advancer is formed by driven rollers (fig. 4, multiple rollers are shown to drive the endless belt conveyor).
Re claim 17, as best understood, the combination of Mie and Gray discloses the invention of claim 1, Mie as modified by Grey further discloses wherein the device includes a synchronizer via which a working cycle of the perforation device and a working cycle of the deposition device (as taught by Grey; fig. 1-2 & 7, the working cycle of both the perforation and deposition devices are regulated by the rotation of the disk; 72) and the conveying speed are coordinatable with one another (col 15; 5-14, the conveyor is synchronized with the seed supply mechanism).
Re claim 18, the combination of Mie and Gray discloses the invention of claim 1, Mie further discloses wherein the device has a supplier (44; the atomizing nozzle, fig. 2) to supply liquid or moisture to the substrate cord (col 12-13; 63-2, a liquid stabilizing agent is applied to the fibers forming the cord substrate).
Re claim 20, the combination of Mie and Gray discloses the invention of claim 1, Mie further discloses wherein the device has a unit for cutting the substrate cord length (col 15; 39-47, via the knife/knives of the cutoff) and separating the to-length substrate cord sections (col 15; 39-47, the severed sections of the rod forming the discrete carrying devices), the unit including receiving elements for the substrate cord (col 20; 10-20, the trays or containers for collecting the carrying devices from the rotary conveyor) and a laying head (fig. 4a and col 16-17; 66-16, the portion of the cutoff that that is projecting the length of the rod) with a laying head end (fig. 4a and col 16-17; 66-16, the leading edge of the continuously advancing rod), the substrate cord being suppliable to the laying head and depositable in the receiving elements via the laying head end (col 16-17; 66-41, the rod is moved through the cutoff and manipulating unit such that they are transferred into the tray for distribution).
Re claim 21, the combination of Mie and Gray discloses the invention of claim 20, Mie further discloses wherein the laying head is stationarily situated with respect to the device (fig. 4a and col 16-17; 66-16, the rod is advanced through a stationary element for cutting), and the receiving elements are designed to be longitudinally and/or transversely displaceable with respect to the substrate cord longitudinal axis (col 20; 10-19, any known container would be able to be longitudinally or transversely displaceable for storage or transport).
Re claim 22, the combination of Mie and Gray discloses the invention of claim 20, Mie further discloses wherein the laying head is designed to be longitudinally displaceable with respect to the substrate cord longitudinal axis (col 16-17; 66- 16, the leading end will be moving continuously), and the receiving elements are stationary (col 20; 10-13, the container/tray is not in motion or mobile while collecting the carrying devices).
Re claim 23, the combination of Mie and Gray discloses the invention of claim 20, Mie further discloses wherein the laying head and the laying head end are connected via a flexible substrate cord guide (col 10; 18-49, via the flexible wrap prior to severing), and the laying head end is movable longitudinally displaceable with respect to the substrate cord longitudinal axis by use of a laying car or a robotic arm (col 17; 27-41, via the receiving flutes and the drum-shaped conveyor or the accelerating cam lobes).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mie in view of Gray as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Penley, U.S. Patent No. 4,289,080 A; herein Pen.
Re claim 5, the combination of Mie and Gray discloses the invention of claim 1, the combination fails to disclose wherein the perforation tool for creating openings in the sheath has a saw with at least one rotating circular knife. However, Pen discloses a perforation tool (58; the gang saw/blade, fig. 1 & 10), having a saw with at least one rotating circular knife (fig. 10 and col 6; 39-40, the circular blade saws).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the perforation tool being a saw with a rotating knife blade however, Pen discloses a circular rotating saw for cutting planting devices. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the perforation tool by utilizing a simple substitution of the known sharpened point as taught by the prior art for the saw from Pen in order to obtain the predictable result of an opening for depositing and placing a seed therein. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mie in view of Gray as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Simatovic, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0327917 A1; herein Sim.
Re claim 12, as best understood, the combination of Mie and Gray discloses the invention of claim 1, the combination fails to disclose wherein the device has a pressing element that is lowerable onto the opening in the substrate cord which is loaded with a seed. However, Sim discloses a pressing element (270a & 270b; the tamping portions, fig. 9A-10B) that is lowerable onto an opening of a substrate which is loaded with a seed (para 66, the hole in the soil formed by the retractable blade is compressed at an angle to stabilize a seedling).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the device has a pressing element that is lowerable onto the opening in the substrate cord which is loaded with a seed however, Sim discloses such a pressing element for securing a planted article therein. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the tamping components taught by Sim to the system of the prior art to yield the predictable result of enclosing the planted seed within the carrying device/rod. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mie in view of Gray as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Dedolph, U.S. Patent No. 4,213,273 A; herein De.
Re claim 19, the combination of Mie and Gray discloses the invention of claim 1, the combination fails to disclose wherein the device has a dryer to dry the substrate cord. However, De discloses a dryer (212; the release agent drying station, fig. 2) to dry a substrate cord (col 9; 31-41, the drying station allows for the soil plugs to be dried so that they are easily removable form a mold).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the device has a dryer to dry the substrate cord however, De discloses such a dryer. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of a dryer taught by De to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by drying the bonding agent and any moisture present in each carrying device. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent No. 3,394,667 A which discloses a seed planter utilizing a drill and irrigating apparatus. U.S. Patent No. 3,362,106 A which discloses a seed packaging and farming method. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0270310 A1 which discloses sawing as an alternative to drilling. U.S. Patent No. 3,883,989 A which discloses a drying process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm 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, Joshua J Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642