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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the sheets are not numbered as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.84(t).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 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.
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 6 and 7 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 6
On line 5, “the separation mode” lacks proper antecedent basis.
On line 5, “the through-flow mode” lacks proper antecedent basis.
CLAIM 7
On line 6, “the separation mode” lacks proper antecedent basis.
On line 6, “the through-flow mode” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johannaber (WO 2017/032691 A1).
Johannaber ‘691 (“Johannaber”) shows an application unit (Figs. 1 and 6) for an agricultural application machine for applying granular material to an agriculturally used area, the application unit comprising:
CLAIM 1 a granular material portioning device (1) into which a granular material flow conveying bulk granular material can be introduced and by means of which portions (via 11) of granular material can be created from the granular material flow; and
an air separator (3 and 7, collectively) that allows air to be separated from the granular material flow;
CLAIM 2 wherein the air separator (3, 7) is arranged upstream of the granular material portioning device (1) in the flow direction of the granular material flow;
CLAIM 3 wherein the air separator (3, 7) is a component of the granular material portioning device (Fig. 2, via connection to its wall);
CLAIM 4 wherein the separation behavior of the air separator (3, 7) is adjustable (via configuration of 13 and/or height of 24);
CLAIM 5 wherein the air separator (3, 7) can be operated in a separation mode in which air is separated from the granular material flow (24 is partially closed), and a through-flow mode in which no air or at least a smaller amount of air than in the separation mode is separated from the granular material flow (24 is completely open);
CLAIM 6 wherein the separation behavior of the air separator (3, 7) is manually adjustable (via 25) and the air separator (3, 7) is manually switchable between the separation mode and the through-flow mode (via 25);
CLAIM 7 wherein the air separator (3, 7) has a controllable actuator (13 and/or 24) usable to adjust the separation behavior of the air separator (3, 7) and switch the air separator between the separation mode and the through-flow mode;
CLAIM 8 wherein the application unit is operable in (i.e., capable of being operated in):
(a) a portion application mode, in which the granular material is applied to the agriculturally used area discontinuously in the form of portions of granular material created by the granular material portioning device (1);
(b) a band application mode, in which the granular material is applied continuously in the form of a granular material band onto the agriculturally used area1;
CLAIM 14 The method steps recited therein are inherent to use of the application unit taught by Johannaber, as applied above to claim 1; and
CLAIM 15 wherein one or more of: the separation behavior of the air separator is manually adjustable; and the air separator is manually switchable between the separation mode and the through-flow mode.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johannaber (WO 2017/032691 A1) in view of Brown et al. (US 6,044,779 A) and Harrer et al. (US 4,047,638 A).
CLAIM 11 Johannaber fails to disclose the type of rotor (11). Brown et al. ‘779 (“Brown”) shows a portioning rotor (Fig. 4) for insertion into a portioning region of a granular material portioning device (50). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the rotor (Johannaber, 11) of the prior art application unit in the manner suggested by Brown. The motivation for making the modification would have been to facilitate the placement of uniform seed clusters, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Harrer et al. ‘638 (“Harrer”) shows a band application rotor (Fig. 15) for insertion into a portioning region of a granular material portioning device. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the rotor (Johannaber, 11) of the prior art application unit in the manner suggested by Harrer. The motivation for making the modification would have been to facilitate the placement of a seed band of uniform width, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, 12, 13 and 16-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/tm/
07 March 2026
1 A clustering seed disk, such as that disclosed by Brown et al. (US 6044779 A), is capable of initiating a portion application mode when positioned in the granular material portioning device (Johannaber, 1). This is consistent with Applicant’s disclosure for a portioning rotor (16, [0058]).