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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 18-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Invention I (original claims 1-14): drawn to a soil sample collection system comprising: a sample collection vehicle comprising a pair of front wheels and a pair of rear wheels; a support frame mounted to the sample collection vehicle; and a sample collection apparatus supported by the support frame and comprising soil engaging elements disposed between the front and rear wheels, the soil engaging elements configured to engage the soil and collect the soil sample as the sample collection vehicle travels along a surface of the soil, classified in A01B 49/02.
Invention II (claim 18) drawn to a soil sample collection system comprising: a sample collection vehicle; and a sample collection apparatus mounted to the sample collection vehicle, the sample collection apparatus comprising a soil engaging element comprising a soil sample collection device alterable between: (1) a first state in which the soil sample collection device is open and collects a soil sample while the sample collection vehicle travels along a surface of the soil and the soil sample collection device engages the soil; and (2) a second state in which the soil sample collection device is closed and shielded from soil entering the soil sample collection device while the sample collection vehicle travels along the surface of the soil and the soil sample collection device engages the soil, classified in A01B 63/002.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design and mode of operation (i.e. Invention I claims “a sample collection vehicle comprising a pair of front wheels and a pair of rear wheels; a support frame mounted to the sample collection vehicle” and “soil engaging elements disposed between the front and rear wheels” – limitations that do not appear in claim 18; and Invention II claims “(1) a first state in which the soil sample collection device is open and collects a soil sample while the sample collection vehicle travels along a surface of the soil and the soil sample collection device engages the soil; and (2) a second state in which the soil sample collection device is closed and shielded from soil entering the soil sample collection device while the sample collection vehicle travels along the surface of the soil” – limitations that do not appear in claim 1.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their separate classification, divergent subject matter, and different field of search.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 18-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because it does not end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mabry (U.S. Patent 3,625,296).
Regarding claim 1, Mabry discloses (Figs. 1-2) a soil sample collection system (col. 1, lines 7-8) comprising:
a sample collection vehicle (as shown in Figs. 1-2) comprising a front wheel and a pair of rear wheels (as shown in Figs. 1-2);
a support frame 10 mounted to the sample collection vehicle (as shown in Figs. 1-2); and
a sample collection apparatus 36 (digger foot: col. 2, line 9) supported by the support frame 10 (as shown in Figs. 1-2) and comprising soil engaging elements 36 disposed between the front and rear wheels (as shown in Figs. 1-2), the soil engaging elements 36 configured to create a furrow in the soil (implicit, as the apparatus is pulled over the ground and the foot digs into the soil: col. 2, lines 3-11) and to engage the soil and collect the a soil sample from the furrow (col. 2, lines 3-11) as the sample collection vehicle travels along a surface of the soil (col. 2, lines 3-11).
Mabry does not disclose a pair of front wheels, however, such a modification would be merely a duplication of parts, which is obvious.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Mabry’s device to include a pair of front wheels.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monson (U.S. Patent 5,355,815) in view of Scheiderer et al. (U.S. Pub. 2014/0251032).
Regarding claim 1, Monson discloses (Fig. 1-2) a soil sample analysis system (col. 4, lines 26-46) comprising:
a sample collection vehicle 12 (col. 4, line 9) comprising a pair of front wheels and a pair of rear wheels (as shown in Fig. 1);
a support frame 24 (col. 4, lines 27-28) mounted to the sample collection vehicle 12 (as shown in Fig. 1); and
a soil analysis apparatus supported by the support frame 24 and comprising soil engaging elements 26 (col. 4, line 32) disposed between the front and rear wheels (as shown in Figs. 1), the soil engaging elements 26 configured to create a furrow in the soil (col. 4, lines 33-37) and to engage the soil as the sample collection vehicle travels along a surface of the soil (col. 4, lines 33-46).
Monson does not disclose a soil sample collection system/apparatus that collects a soil sample from the furrow.
Scheiderer discloses a soil sample collection system/apparatus that collects a soil sample from the furrow [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Monson’s apparatus to include a soil sample collection system/apparatus that collects a soil sample from the furrow, as taught by Scheiderer.
Such a modification would allow further in-depth analysis of the soil.
Regarding claim 2, Monson discloses (Fig. 1-2) the soil engaging elements 26 are disposed between a transverse front wheel axis (implicit) extending through the front wheels (as shown in Fig. 1) and a transverse rear wheel axis (implicit) extending through the rear wheels (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 6-9, Monson does not disclose the soil engaging elements are disposed equidistant between opposing lateral sides of the sample collection vehicle; and the sample collection vehicle is a trailer comprising a hitch configured for coupling to an engine-powered vehicle operable to pull the trailer along the surface of the soil; and the sample collection apparatus is disposed in a central equipment opening defined by a frame of the trailer; and the central equipment opening has a length which extends for a majority of a length of the frame of the trailer and a width which extends for a majority of a width of the frame of the trailer.
Scheiderer discloses (Figs. 1-14) the soil engaging elements 12/18 [0030] are disposed equidistant between opposing lateral sides of the sample collection vehicle (as shown in Fig. 5); and the sample collection vehicle is a trailer (as shown in Figs. 1-7) comprising a hitch [0029] configured for coupling to an engine-powered vehicle 10 [0029] operable to pull the trailer along the surface of the soil (see pars. [0029] and [0032]); and the sample collection apparatus 12/18 is disposed in a central equipment opening defined by a frame of the trailer (as shown in Figs. 1-7); and the central equipment opening has a length which extends for a majority of a length of the frame of the trailer (as shown in Figs. 1-7) and a width which extends for a majority of a width of the frame of the trailer (as shown in Figs. 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Monson’s apparatus so that the soil engaging elements are disposed equidistant between opposing lateral sides of the sample collection vehicle; and the sample collection vehicle is a trailer comprising a hitch configured for coupling to an engine-powered vehicle operable to pull the trailer along the surface of the soil; and the sample collection apparatus is disposed in a central equipment opening defined by a frame of the trailer; and the central equipment opening has a length which extends for a majority of a length of the frame of the trailer and a width which extends for a majority of a width of the frame of the trailer, as taught by Scheiderer.
Such a modification would be a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results – MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claims 14-17, Monson does not disclose the sample collection apparatus is angularly adjustable relative to the surface of the soil; and the soil engaging elements comprise a furrow creating device, a knife assembly located rearward of the furrow creating device, and a soil sample collection device disposed in the knife assembly; and the soil engaging elements include a furrow creating device and a soil sample collection device located rearward of the furrow creating device, the soil sample collection device configured to travel through the furrow created by the furrow creating device.
Scheiderer discloses (Figs. 1-14) the sample collection apparatus is angularly adjustable relative to the surface of the soil (i.e. pivots around 21c to lower the collection apparatus into the sampling position: [0033]; Figs. 3-4); and the soil engaging elements comprise a furrow creating device 14 [0032], a knife assembly 19 [0032] located rearward of the furrow creating device 14 (as shown in Figs. 1-4), and a soil sample collection device 19/84 [0036] disposed in the knife assembly (as shown in Figs. 11-14); and the soil engaging elements include a furrow creating device 14 and a soil sample collection device 19/84 located rearward of the furrow creating device 14 (as shown in Figs. 1-4), the soil sample collection device 19/84 configured to travel through the furrow created by the furrow creating device 14 [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Monson’s apparatus so that the sample collection apparatus is angularly adjustable relative to the surface of the soil; and the soil engaging elements comprise a furrow creating device, a knife assembly located rearward of the furrow creating device, and a soil sample collection device disposed in the knife assembly; and the soil engaging elements include a furrow creating device and a soil sample collection device located rearward of the furrow creating device, the soil sample collection device configured to travel through the furrow created by the furrow creating device, as taught by Scheiderer.
Such a modification would be a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results – MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monson (U.S. Patent 5,355,815) in view of Scheiderer et al. (U.S. Pub. 2014/0251032), and further in view of Riggle (U.S. Pub. 6,820,887).
Regarding claims 10-11, Monson’s modified apparatus is applied as above, but does not disclose each of the front and rear wheels are rotatably mounted to the trailer by individual torsion axles which do not extend laterally through the central equipment opening; and wherein each torsion axle is supported by an associated spring suspension member coupled to the frame of the trailer.
Riggle discloses (Fig. 7) wheels rotatably mounted to the trailer by individual torsion axles (col. 2, lines 30-44) which do not extend laterally through the central equipment opening (when combined with Eugelink); and wherein each torsion axle is supported by an associated spring suspension member coupled to the frame of the trailer (col. 2, lines 30-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Monson’s device so that each of the front and rear wheels are rotatably mounted to the trailer by individual torsion axles which do not extend laterally through the central equipment opening; and wherein each torsion axle is supported by an associated spring suspension member coupled to the frame of the trailer, as taught by Riggle.
Such a modification would be the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 12-13 are allowed.
Claim 17 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 6-11, and 14-17 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is (571) 270-7930. The examiner can normally be reached M-F | 8:30-5:00.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/BENJAMIN R SCHMITT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights