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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyle (8,777,707) in view of Schmidt et al. (12,144,281)
Regarding claim 1, Hoyle teaches a method for controlling an agricultural spreading machine during discharging of spreading material on an agricultural land (fig 1), comprising: feeding, using a conveyor belt (3,4) of the spreading machine, the spreading material to be discharged along an idling section (the section of the conveyor after the hopper 2 and before the material leaves the conveyor) relating to a longitudinal section of the conveyor belt, the idling section being located between a rate setting plane (the exit door of the hopper), in which the feed rate of spreading material entering the idling section is set a feed-rate-setting device (the variable doors of the hopper, col 3, lines 64) of the spreading machine, and an ejection plane (the plane where the material leaves the conveyor), in which the feed rate of spreading material leaving the idling section is ejected from the conveyor belt in the direction of a first and a second spreading disc (5, 6), wherein a control device (7) controls both the feed rate setting device and the conveyer (col 4, liens 11-2)
But fails to disclose temporarily interrupting the discharging of spreading material at a shut-off location on an agricultural area causes the feed-rate-setting device to prevent feeding of the spreading material into the idling section early before the shut-off location is reached, so that the idling section of the conveyor belt has run empty when the shut-off location is reached.
However, Schmidt et al. teaches an agricultural product application system that calculates a delay time between activation of the metering module and the product sensor detecting product arriving (abstract). This delay time is then used to control the product dispensing. In one embodiment, the controller is configured to control activation of the metering modules based upon the dispense activation delay. For example, the ‘on delay’ for each metering module can be provided as an input to control logic or a control algorithm which controls activation of the metering modules. Similarly, the ‘off delay’ for each metering module can be provided as an input to control logic or a control algorithm which controls deactivation of the metering modules.
In other words, Schmidt et al. teaches that when the discharging of material is to be turned off at a shut-off location on an agricultural area, the controller causes the metering device to prevent feeding of the material to the dispenser section before the shut-off location is reached, using the “off-delay” time that has been calculated, so that no material is dispensed after the shut-off location is reached.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to, with the teaching of Schmidt et al. calculate an off-delay time for the device of Hoyle, which corresponds to the time it takes for the material to go form the feed rate setting device to the ejection plane, and have the controller close the feed rate setting device before the actual shut off location by the calculated off-delay time, so that no material is wasted.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the control device for continuing discharging at a switch-on location on the agricultural area causes the feed-rate-setting device to trigger the feeding of the spreading material into the idling section well in advance of reaching the switch-on location, so that the conveyor belt is loaded with the spreading material over at least a partial width along the entire idling section when the switch-on location is reached (Schmidt also teaches calculating the on-delay and control the feed rate actuators based on the on-delay. This means that the feed rate actuators would open up a before the switch on location by the on-delay time)
Regarding claim 3, wherein the spreading material leaving the idling section and located on a first partial width of the idling section (the left side, belt 3) is ejected from the conveyor belt in the ejection plane in a direction of a first spreading disc (5) of the spreading machine; and/or - the spreading material leaving the idling section and located on a second partial width (the right side belt 4) of the idling section is ejected from the conveyor belt in the ejection plane in a direction of a second spreading disc (6) of the spreading machine.
Regarding claim 4, wherein:- the feed-rate-setting device in the rate setting plane sets the feed rate of the spreading material entering a first partial width of the idling section by a first feed rate limiter (the door for belt 3); and/or - the feed-rate-setting device in the rate setting plane sets the feed rate of the spreading material entering a second partial width of the idling section by means of a second feed rate limiter (the door fir belt 4).
Regarding claim 5, wherein at a spreading boundary of the agricultural area extending at right angles to a direction of travel of the spreading machine, the control device (7), upon temporary interruption of the discharging of the spreading material at the shut-off location on the agricultural area, simultaneously causes the first feed rate limiter and the second feed rate limiter of the feed-rate-setting device to close at a common closing time so as to prevent the discharging of the spreading material into the first partial width of the idling section and the second partial width of the idling section at an early stage before the shut-off location (by a time of the calculated off-delay as taught by Schmidt) is reached, so that the first partial width of the idling section and the second partial width of the idling section synchronously run empty before the shut-off location is reached (the material stops dispending at the shut -off location).
Regarding claim 6, wherein, at a spreading boundary of the agricultural area extending obliquely to the direction of travel of the spreading machine, the control device (7), upon temporary interruption of the discharging of the spreading material at the shut-off location on the agricultural area, causes the first feed rate limiter of the feed-rate-setting device to close at a first closing time and the second feed rate limiter of the feed-rate-setting device to close at a second closing time with a time delay from one another, early before reaching the shut-off location to prevent feed of the spreading material into the first partial width of the idling section and the second partial width of the idling section, so that the first partial width ) of the idling section and the second partial width of the idling section run empty asynchronously before reaching the shut-off location (this situation occurs in fig 4 of Hoyle and the shut-off location is alongside 9) .
Regarding claim 7, wherein that the control device calculates the common closing time, the first closing time and/or the second closing time as a function of an intended travel speed until the shut-off location is reached (this is how the device of Schmidt calculates its on-delay and off-delay times).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the first feed rate limiter and the second feed rate limiter (the Doors of Hoyle) of the feed-rate-setting device respectively perform a closing operation which extends in time over a closing period, so as to prevent feed of the spreading material into the first partial width of the idling section and the second partial width of the idling section (it will inherently take time for the doors to close), -wherein - the feed rate of the spreading material entering the first partial width of the idling section decreases due to the closing operation of the first feed rate limiter during the closing period of the first feed rate limiter; and/or the feed rate of the spreading material entering the second partial width of the idling section drops due to the closing operation of the second feed rate limiter during the closing period of the second feed rate limiter (this is inherent to the doors closing).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the control device (7) adapts the belt speed of the conveyor belt during the closing operation of the first and/or the second feed rate limiters to falling feed rate of the spreading material on the first partial width of the idling section and/or the second partial width of the idling section (Hoyle teaches adapting the conveyer belt speed in combination with the door position to get the desired material flow rate col 4, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the feed-rate-setting device adjusts the feed rate of the spreading material entering the idling section by partially or completely blocking the free feed cross-section above the conveyor belt (that is how the doors of Hoyle function)
Regarding the apparatus claims 11 and 12, the combination of Hoyle as modified by Schmidt et al. disclose all structure and function of claims 11 and 12 as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant agues that since Schmidt does not use a conveyer belt the above combination does not teach preventing feeding of spreading material into an idling section of a conveyer belt before shutoff location is reached.
The examiner notes that Hoyle teaches the agricultural spreader that includes the conveyer belt. The above combination uses the teaching of Schmidt of an off delay to stop feeding of spreading material into an idling section of a conveyer belt before shutoff location is reached. The off delay concept, as disclosed by Schmid, basically stops the flow of material before the agricultural machine is to stop dispensing material on the field to take into account the material that is already in the machine that will be dispensed after the dispensing mechanism is shut down. The conveyer system of Schmidt has this same delay, if the material is already on the conveyer, then it will be dispensed even if no more new materialism put on the conveyer. Adding the off delay will prevent unwanted material from being dispensed, thereby wasting less material.
The examiner realizes that a conveyer belt and a pneumatic delivery system are two different systems and operate very differently, but the concept of an off delay is relevant to both systems and can save the dispensing of excess material in both systems Schmidt teaches the concept of turning off the dispensing system before it is wanted to stop dispensing by a calculated off delay. With tis known concept, Hoyle is modified to stop feeding of spreading material into an idling section of a conveyer belt before shutoff location is reached, by a time that is the off delay.
The above rejections are being maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON J BOECKMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-2708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/JASON J BOECKMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 7/28/2026
Prosecution Insights