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 .
Application Status
Claims 1, 5-7, and 9-12 are pending and have been examined in this application.
An information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 10/07/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/06/2025 has been entered.
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 1, 5-7, and 9-12 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 "crops" in line 9. This is a double inclusion of “crops” in line 4 of claim 1. The Examiner suggests changing “crops” to --the crops--.
Claim 1 recites the phrase "the distance" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and the phrase renders the claim vague and indefinite. The Examiner suggests changing “the distance” to --a distance--.
Claim 1 recites the phrase "tail portion" in line 16. This is a double inclusion of “tail portion” in line 10 of claim 1. The Examiner suggests changing “tail portion” to --the tail portion--.
Claim 1 recites the phrase "a distance" in line 18. This is a double inclusion of “distance” in line 14 of claim 1. The Examiner suggests changing “a distance” to --the distance--.
Claim 11 recites the phrase “A module for use as one of the plurality of modules” in line 1. This is a double inclusion of “modules” in claim 1. Additionally, it is unclear how this claim further narrows the subject matter. It seems that the “module” referenced in claim 11 has already been recited in claim 1. Further clarification is required.
Claim 12 recites the phrase “A moving gully system” in line 1. This is a double inclusion of “moving gully system” in claim 1. It seems that the “moving gully system” referenced in claim 12 has already been recited in claim 1. Further clarification is required.
Claims 5-7 and 9-12 are rejected based on their respective dependencies.
Appropriate correction is required. Accordingly, the invention has been examined as best understood.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (filed 10/07/2025), with respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejections, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims 1, 5-7, and 9-12 have been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 5-7 and 9-12 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. Particularly the references were cited because they pertain to the state of the art of agricultural devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30 am to 4:30 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached on (571) 272-6909. 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.
/KEVIN M DENNIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647