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 § 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, 3-4, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Younger 4,084,522 in view of Gillespie 3,189,230.
Independent Claim 1: Younger discloses a seed planting apparatus comprising:
a chassis (11);
one or more rear wheels (18) coupled to a rear end of the chassis;
a seat (37) coupled to the rear end of the chassis;
a frame (62, 57, Figs. 4, 7) coupled to the chassis, wherein the frame is configured to be selectively raised and lowered by an operator (via 66) of the seed planting apparatus;
a plurality of hollow members (52) coupled to and approximately evenly spaced along the frame; and
a seed metering apparatus (48, 49) coupled to the plurality of hollow members, as per claim 1.
However, Younger discloses a mechanical metering apparatus and so fails to disclose an air propulsion apparatus and a storage container positioned behind the seat,
wherein the air propulsion apparatus and storage container are detachable from the seed planting apparatus;
wherein the air propulsion apparatus and storage container are located in a fixed position relative to the seat when the air propulsion apparatus and storage container are attached to the seed planting apparatus;
a seed metering apparatus coupled to the plurality of hollow members, and in communication with the air propulsion apparatus, as per claim 1.
Gillespie discloses a similar apparatus comprising an air propulsion apparatus (35) and a storage container (15) positioned behind the seat (unnumbered, seen in Fig. 1),
wherein the air propulsion apparatus and storage container are detachable from the seed planting apparatus (via removal or undoing of any fasteners);
wherein the air propulsion apparatus and storage container are located in a fixed position relative to the seat when the air propulsion apparatus and storage container are attached to the seed planting apparatus (as seen in Figs. 1-2);
a seed metering apparatus (82) coupled to the plurality of hollow members (59), and in communication with the air propulsion apparatus, 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 substitute Gillespie’s pneumatic seeding apparatus for the mechanical apparatus of Younger since both machines disclose means for delivering seed to a field from a storage container and such a predictable result would be achieved.
Dependent Claims 3-4: Younger further discloses wherein:
the one or more rear wheels (18) comprises two or more wheels (18, 18);
the seat (37) is positioned between a pair of the rear wheels coupled to the rear end of the chassis (11, as seen in Figs. 1 and 4); and
the frame (62, 57) is coupled to the rear end of the chassis behind the seat (Fig. 4), as per claim 3;
wherein the frame (62, 57) is configured to be selectively raised and lowered using a hand lever (66) within reach of an operator seated in the seat (37), as per claim 4.
Dependent Claims 7-9: Younger further discloses a seed planting system used by a single operator by the method of claims 8-9, the system comprising:
the seed planting apparatus of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 under Younger and Gillespie above), and;
a powered (via engine 26) wheeled tractor coupled to the seed planting apparatus, the wheeled tractor comprising an independently controllable wheel (12), wherein the independently controllable wheel is controllable by a hand control (16) that is within reach of an operator seated in the seat (37) of the seed planting apparatus, as per claims 7-9.
However, Younger fails to disclose wherein the wheeled tractor is a two-wheeled tractor, as per claims 7-9.
Gillespie discloses a similar seeding apparatus comprising a two-wheeled tractor (see the two front wheels in Fig. 1), as per claims 7-9.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the two-wheeled tractor as taught by Gillespie for the one-wheeled tractor of Younger since both machines are seeding apparatus and the predictable result of seeding will be achieved with two wheels as well as one.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Younger in view of Gillespie as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ward 1,786,100.
Dependent Claim 2: The apparatus is disclosed as applied above. However, the combination fails to disclose a plurality of spades coupled to the frame, wherein each of the plurality of spades is respectively positioned below each of the plurality of hollow members, as per claim 2.
Ward discloses a similar apparatus comprising a plurality of spades (13) coupled to the frame (10), wherein each of the plurality of spades is respectively positioned below each of the plurality of hollow members (12), as per claim 2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Ward’s furrowing spades for the furrowing discs of Younger and Gillespie since both machines disclose means for opening a furrow in the ground with the purpose of depositing seed and such a predictable result would be achieved.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Younger in view of Gillespie as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lindgren 645,817.
Dependent Claims 5-6: The apparatus is disclosed as applied above. However, the combination fails to disclose wherein:
the seat is positioned directly above one or more castor wheels coupled to the rear end of the chassis; and
the frame is coupled to the chassis at a location on the chassis between the seat and the front edge of the chassis, as per claim 5;
wherein the frame is configured to be selectively raised and lowered using a foot pedal within reach of an operator seated in the seat, as per claim 6.
Lindgren discloses a similar apparatus wherein:
the seat (9) is positioned directly above one or more castor wheels (8) coupled to the rear end of the chassis (unnumbered); and
the frame (3) is coupled to the chassis at a location on the chassis between the seat and the front edge of the chassis (seen in Fig. 1), as per claim 5.
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 seed planting apparatus arrangement of Lindgren on the apparatus of Younger and Gillespie since such an arrangement is old and well-known in the art.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a foot pedal to selectively raise and lower the frame for the hand lever of Younger and Gillespie since both types of actuators are old and known equivalents in the art.
Response to Arguments
Please see the updated art rejections above in response to applicant’s claim amendments.
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 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 July 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights