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 for the following reasons.
The lines, numbers and letter shown in each of the figures are not uniformly dark and sufficiently dense, so as to permit adequate reproduction. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(l).
The views shown in Figures 1 and 12 include solid black shading. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(m).
The reference numerals shown in Figure 3 are not legible. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(p)(1).
The reference numerals shown in Figures 1, 3-9, 11 and 12 are encircled. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(p)(1).
Multiple views are shown in each of Figures 5-8 and have not been labeled separately. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(u)(1).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 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 Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical error; undefined abbreviations.
The following examples do not represent a complete list of informalities.
In claim 1, change “AUTOMATED SYSTEM FOR PLANTING NURSERY SEEDLINGS” to --An automated system for planting nursery seedlings--. Make similar corrections to each of claims 2-10.
In claim 1 on line 2, “with engine with radiator and gearbox” is objected to because the nouns lack articles.
In claim 1 on line 9, define this first occurrence of “GPS.”
In claim 3, on line 9 of section p, define the abbreviation “KML.”
In claim 7 on lines 2-3, change “you can activate a solenoid valve” to --activating a solenoid valve--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
The following examples do not represent a complete list of all indefinite claim language.
In claim 1, line 12 on page 1, the phrase “can also use a hydrostatic transmission system with independent and intelligent suspension on each wheel” is vague and indefinite, since it is unclear if the phrase “can also” (a) makes optional only the hydrostatic transmission system, or (b) if it makes optional both the “hydrostatic transmission system” and the “independent and intelligent suspension on each wheel.”
In claim 1, line 6 on page 1, “the cabin” lacks proper antecedent basis and is not inherent to a self-propelled machine. Claims 2-10 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
In claim 1, line 1 on page 2, the phrase “still having” is confusing and unclear, since it is unclear how the word “still” modifies the word “having.”
In claim 1, line 7 on page 2, the scope of the claimed invention is rendered indefinite by the use of quotation marks around the word injection, because it is unclear what limitations, if any, are intended to be imparted by the use of quotations.
Claims 2-10 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
In claim 2, line 3, the recitation “(post planting irrigation)” renders the scope of the claimed invention indefinite because it is unclear whether the scope is intended to be inclusive or exclusive of the limitation.
In claim 3, line 1, the phrase “reproduced” is unclear because claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, does not discuss reproducing seedlings, so the context and meaning is indefinite.
In claim 3, section b, “The formicide deposit” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 4-10 are rejected because they depend from claim 3.
In claim 4, line 5, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 5, line 4, it is unclear to what the limitation “the middle” refers, because it has not been previously recited in either of claims 1 or 3.
In claim 8, line 8, the scope of the claimed invention is indefinite because it is unclear to what system the limitation “(selection via embedded system)” refers.
In claim 9, the scope of the claimed invention is indefinite because it is unclear how the metal bar is structurally related to the rest of the claimed invention. For example, is the metal bar part of the nozzle?
In claim 10, the scope of the claimed invention is indefinite because it is unclear which element of the system recited in claim 1 has the functionality to “decide where to plant.”
Comments
Although prior art rejections have not been made against claims 1-10, Applicant should not assume allowability. The examiner intentionally withholds any indication of allowability because it is not possible to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, as pending.
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, as best understood.
Peltonen et al. (WO 2013/135971 A1) disclose a system for planting seedlings.
Wang et al. (CN 113598151 A) disclose an autonomous machine for applying agricultural products to plants.
Lamprecht (US 2022/0121206 A1) discloses a method of mapping a field, which might be useful with an autonomous planting machine (¶0020).
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/
04 December 2025