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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 07 June 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but all of the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Foreign patent citation no. 9 (WO 2010/106956 A1) has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because each of the lines, numbers and letters shown in Figures 1-8b is not clean and of sufficient quality to permit adequate reproduction. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(l).
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: possible drafting error.
On page 4, lines 9-11, change “so that it engages with the ground when it is not necessary” to --so that it does not engage with the ground when it is not necessary--, because wear of the outlet is not likely to be reduced through engagement with the ground.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 38-57 are objected to because of the following informalities: minor claim drafting errors.
In claim 38, line 1, change “Output unit” to --An output unit--.
In claim 39, line 1, change “Output unit” to --The output unit--.
Repeat the correction for each of claims 40-52.
In claim 53, line 1, change “Agricultural implement” to --An agricultural implement--.
In claim 54, line 1, change “Agricultural implement” to --The agricultural implement.
Repeat the correction for claim 55.
In claim 56, line 1, change “Method” to --A method--.
In claim 56, line 10, change “of a limitation” to --or limiting--.
In claim 57, line 1, change “Method” to --The method--.
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 41-43, 45-50 and 55-57 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.
In claim 41, the scope of the claimed invention is indefinite because the “unit frame” is neither structurally related to or integrated with the rest of the claimed invention.
Claims 42 and 43 are rejected because they depend from claim 41.
In claim 45, line 3, “the setting axis” lacks proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of prosecution on the merits, the examiner has considered the claimed invention exclusive of the limitation.
In claim 46, the scope of the claimed invention is indefinite because it is unclear how the “pressure device” functions to receive and/or press the material to the ground. Specifically, no structural limitations are recited in association with the pressure device
In claim 47, line 3, the scope of the claimed invention is rendered indefinite by the recitation “preferably” because it is unclear if the limitations that follow are required.
Claims 48 and 49 are rejected because they depend from claim 47.
In claim 50, line 2, the scope of the claimed invention is indefinite because it is not clear how an outlet, namely an opening, can further include a ventilation opening.
In claim 55, at line 6, “the same actuator” lacks proper antecedent basis because an “actuator” has not been previously recited.
In claim 56, line 11, the scope of the claimed invention is rendered indefinite by the limitation “a mechanism which is common for the output unit” because it is not clear what structure and/or step(s) are included.
Claim 57 is rejected because it depends from claim 56.
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) 38-42, 45, 47, 49, 52, 53, 56 and 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al. (US 2007/0272134 A1) in view of Stark (WO 2010/138068 A1).
CLAIM 38 Baker et al. ‘134 (“Baker”) discloses an output unit (1) for an agricultural implement, for feeding granular material to the ground on which the agricultural implement is travelling, comprising:
a seed furrow-opener (2);
a depth regulator (5) for controlling a working depth for the seed furrow-opener (2);
a material outlet (¶¶0048-49) defining a delivery point at which the granular material leaves the material outlet; and
further comprising a setting device (4 and 8, ¶0108), for controlling or limiting a height position for the delivery point relative to the seed furrow-opener (2),
wherein the depth regulator (5) is moveable relative to the seed furrow-opener (2), so that the working depth is adjustable, and wherein the setting device (4, 8) is configured to simultaneously set a height position for the depth regulator (5) relative to the seed furrow-opener (2) and to control or limit said height position for the delivery point (¶¶0108-09).
Baker fails to teach a moveable material outlet. Stark ‘068 (“Stark”) shows agricultural implement comprising a seed furrow-opener (8) and a material outlet (outlet of 11), wherein the material outlet is moveable (via 15 and 16) relative to the seed furrow-opener (8). 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 material outlet (Baker, ¶¶0048-49) such that it would have been moveable relative to the furrow opener (Baker, 2), as suggested by Stark. The motivation for making the modification would have been to enhance control of the seed delivery, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 39 In the combination of Baker and Stark, the setting device (Baker, 4, 8) comprises a setting part (Baker, 8) which is pivotal about a first pivot axis (Baker, left pivot 9).
CLAIM 40 In the combination of Baker and Stark, the output unit (Baker, 1) further comprises a setting link (Baker, 11), which is connected to a portion of the setting part (Baker, 8) located at a distance from the first pivot axis (Baker, 9), so that a torque about the first pivot axis is applicable using a force along the setting link (Baker, 11);
CLAIM 41 In the combination of Baker and Stark, the material outlet (Baker, ¶0048-49; and Stark, 11) is moveably attached relative to a unit frame (Baker, 6; and Stark, 10), and wherein the material outlet is freely moveable relative to the unit frame within a limited movement range;
CLAIM 42 In the combination of Baker and Stark, the setting part (Baker, 8) is configured to limit said movement range in at least one direction.
CLAIM 45 In the combination of Baker and Stark, the depth regulator (Baker, 5) comprises a gauge wheel which is rotatably supported on a gauge arm (Baker, Fig. 1), which is pivotable using.
CLAIM 47 In the combination of Baker and Stark, the material outlet (Baker, ¶¶0048-49; Stark, 11) comprises a pipe with a wear-resistant cutting blade (Baker, 3) extending under the pipe.
CLAIM 49 In the combination of Baker and Stark, the pipe (Stark, 11) has an orifice defining the delivery point and a control part extending past the orifice (Stark, Fig. 3).
CLAIM 52 In the combination of Baker and Stark, the setting device (Baker, 4, 8) is configured to set the material outlet so that the delivery point is positioned closer to a seed furrow bottom at a smaller working depth than at a greater working depth.
CLAIM 53 The combination of Baker and Stark teaches an agricultural implement, comprising an implement frame (Stark, 10) and a plurality of output units (Stark, Fig. 1), which is moveably arranged along at least one transverse frame portion (Stark, 21) of the implement frame.
CLAIM 56 The method steps recited therein are inherent to use of the output unit taught by the combination of Baker and Stark, as applied above to claim 38.
CLAIM 57 The method steps recited therein are inherent to use of the output unit taught by the combination of Baker and Stark, as applied above to claim 52.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 43, 46, 48, 50 and 55 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 44, 51 and 54 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, along with corrections for any minor informalities.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bridger, Jr. (US 3797,418 A) shows a seeding implement comprising a furrow opener (61) and seed tube (121).
Carter (US 5,234,060 A) discloses a depth control assembly having utility in seeding operations.
Gervais et al. (US 2016/0165789 A1) show a seeding implement comprising an adjustment system (Fig. 2).
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/
27 December 2025