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 Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the penultimate line, “it appears “passed” should be changed to –past—. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 14-15, 20, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gaalswyk 6,193,053.
Independent Claim 14: Gaalswyk discloses an agricultural implement, comprising:
an auger conveyor (30) which is designed to feed granular material,
an agitator (50), and
a drive device (12, 20) for driving the agitator and the auger conveyor,
wherein the auger conveyor and the agitator of the agricultural implement are rotatable about a common geometric axis (defined through 22),
the drive device is adjustable between:
an upwardly concave bottom (the bottom of conduit 7, concave as seen in Figs. 1, 3) along which the granular material is transportable with the aid of the auger conveyor (30), and an outlet (9) in said bottom, wherein the agitator (50) is located at the outlet (50 delivers directly to outlet 9);
a first operating state (col. 2, ln. 65-col. 3, ln. 3), in which the agitator is driven, but not the auger conveyor, and
a second operating state (col. 2, lns. 59-62), in which both the agitator and the auger conveyor are driven,
wherein the drive device comprises an actuator (12), which is configured to drive the agitator, and a coupling device (20), which is configured to cause the auger conveyor to be driven together with the agitator, and
wherein the coupling device is configured, in a first direction of rotation of the actuator (reversible motor 12, see col. 2, ln. 65-col. 3, ln. 3), only to drive the agitator, such that the first operating state is obtained, and, in a second, opposite direction of rotation of the actuator (the reversed direction of motor 12, see col. 2, lns. 59-62), to drive both the agitator and the auger conveyor, such that the second operating state is obtained, as per claim 14.
Dependent Claims 15, 20, 28: Gaalswyk further discloses wherein the agitator (50) is connected to a first drivable shaft (22), and wherein the auger conveyor (30) comprises a screw blade (34) which is arranged around a sleeve (32) surrounding the shaft, as per claim 15;
a trough (7), which forms said bottom (bottom of conduit 7), as per claim 20;
wherein the agricultural implement includes a main frame (3), a container (5) supported on the main frame, and a conveyor device (10) disposed in the lower portion of the container device wherein the conveyor device comprises the auger conveyor (30) and agitator (50), as per claim 28.
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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaalswyk.
Dependent Claim 16: The device is disclosed as applied above. However, Gaalswyk fails to specifically disclose wherein the coupling device comprises a freehub, as per claim 16.
The examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide freehubs for the coupling devices of Gaalswyk since such freehubs operate just like Gaalswyk’s coupling devices/clutches (i.e., rotation in one direction drives one device; rotation in an opposite direction drives two devices) and such a predictable result would be achieved.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauch in view of Gaalswyk.
Independent Claim 21: Rauch discloses an agricultural implement (Fig. 1) for feeding granular material to ground over which the agricultural implement travels (via a tractor, not shown), which agricultural implement has a container (5) for the granular material, and a device (27, 28) which is located at a lower portion of the container (as seen in Fig. 1), as per claim 21.
However, Rauch does not disclose the device according to Claim 14. See the rejection above of claim 14 under Gaalswyk.
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 device of Gaalswyk for that of Rauch in order to deliver ingredients to the outlet efficiently by conveying large amounts of ingredients and also smaller, more accurate amounts of ingredients.
Dependent Claim 22: The combination fails to specifically disclose a material sensor and a control unit connected to the material sensor, wherein the control unit is designed to control the drive device based on a signal from the material sensor, as per claim 22.
However, Gaalswyk does disclose the determination when a total desired amount of discharged ingredients is approached and controlling the drive device to convey smaller, finer amounts of ingredients, as per claim 22.
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 sensor and control unit of claim 22 to the implement of Rauch and Gaalswyk since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04 III.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Gaalswyk’s agitator 50 is not in fact an agitator but is a conventional auger. However, www.merriam-webster.com defines “agitator” as: a device or apparatus for stirring. Given the rotatory conveying motion of Gaalswyk’s device 50, there is a natural stirring effect that occurs during conveyance and the device is therefore sufficient to qualify as an agitator. Furthermore, applicant claims no structural limitations of the agitator that would preclude Gaalswyk’s agitator 50. The rejection is therefore maintained.
Applicant also argues that Gaalswyk’s auger conveyor and agitator 50 are not “at” the outlet 9. However, “at” is a broad phrase. Again, www.merriam-webster.com defines “at” as a function word to indicate presence or occurrence in, on, or near. This is much broader than saying the outlet is directly beneath the agitator, for example, as recited in applicant’s claim 29. Therefore, given that Gaalswyk’s auger conveyor and agitator lead immediately up to and discharge material directly into the outlet, it is sufficient to say that these parts are “at” the outlet, as claimed. The rejection is therefore maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18, 27, 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 23-25 are allowed.
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 February 27, 2026