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 Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the final two lines, “to an external shape of the firming portion” should be changed to –to an external shape of the firming portion and the resilient portion—in order to align with the limitation set forth in claim 16, line 6 which has the layer disposed over both portions. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention:
Claim 3 requires wherein the layer is made of ultra high molecular weight polyethylene. However, it is unclear if ultra high molecular weight polyethylene is flexible and manipulable to conform to an external shape of the seed firmer as now recited in independent claim 1, from which claim 3 depends.
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) 1-2, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haselhoff DE 102015121602 A1 in view of Zwez EP 2153709 A1.
Independent Claim 1: Haselhoff discloses a seed firmer (10, Fig. 2B) comprising:
a resilient portion (14, 16) for attaching to an agricultural implement;
a firming portion (18) for contacting seeds, and
a layer (12) disposed over at least one of the firming portion (as seen in Fig. 2B) and the resilient portion, as per claim 1.
However, Haselhoff fails to disclose wherein the layer is made from a flexible material, is a thin sheet, and has a thickness such that the layer is manipulated to conform to an external shape of the firming portion, as per claim 1.
Zwez discloses a similar ground-engaging implement wherein the layer (5) is made from a flexible material (see the last 6-7 lines of page 3 of the NPL document 3/27/2026), is a thin sheet (see Figs. 3, 9-18), and has a thickness such that the layer is manipulated to conform (it is “elastically deformable”, page 1, line 2) to an external shape of the implement (as seen in the figures), as per claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Zwez’s protective layer for the layer of Haselhoff’s seed firmer since both references disclose protective layers for reducing damage and wear to ground-working implements which encounter wet and sticky soils and are subjected to high friction and such a predictable result would be achieved.
Dependent Claims 2, 9-12: Zwez, of the resultant combination above, further discloses wherein the layer (5) is adhered to the ground-engaging implement with an adhesive (see the boxed text on page 4 of the attached NPL document 3/27/2026), as per claim 2.
However, the combination fails to specifically disclose wherein the firming portion is disposed at 30 to 70% of the length of the seed firmer, as per claim 9;
wherein the firming portion is disposed at 40 to 60% of the length of the seed firmer, as per claim 10;
wherein the firming portion is disposed at 45 to 55% of the length of the seed firmer, as per claim 11;
wherein the firming portion is disposed at 50% of the length of the seed firmer, as per claim 12.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the firming portion 30-70%, 40-60%, 45-55% or 50% of the length of the seed firmer, as per claims 9-12, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would know to consider the environmental conditions of the seed and the soil to maximize the seed firming effect.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haselhoff in view of Zwez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hagny 7,856,934.
Dependent Claims 3-4: The seed firmer is disclosed as applied above. However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the layer is made from ultra high molecular weight polyethylene, as per claim 3;
wherein the seed firmer is made from PA6 nylon, as per claim 4.
Hagny discloses a similar seed firmer (72) which can be made of nylon, polyethylene, UHMW plastic or similar materials (col. 10, lns. 21-26), as per claims 3-4.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Zwez’s layer of ultra high molecular weight polyethylene, as per claim 3, and Haselhoff’s seed firmer of PA6 nylon, as per claim 4, in light of Hagny’s teaching that both materials are appropriate for seed firmers and parts thereof as they provide flexing capabilities but some resilience of shape such that the firmer can bend to clear obstacles but return to its previous position to firm seeds, thereby substantially reducing wear.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haselhoff in view of Zwez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mayerle et al. 6,666,156.
Dependent Claims 5-6: The seed firmer is disclosed as applied above. However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the layer is disposed over the resilient portion and the firming portion, as per claim 5;
wherein a first layer is disposed over the resilient portion and a second layer is disposed over the firming portion, as per claim 6.
Mayerle discloses a similar seed firmer comprising a layer (52) which extends from the top resilient portion (at pivot 48) to the bottom firming portion (at the bottom rear of 30) of the seed firmer (30) (as seen in Mayerle’s Fig. 5A), as per claim 5.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide this length of layer as taught by Mayerle to Haselhoff’s seed firmer so that the layer will be disposed over Haselhoff’s resilient portion firming portion, as per claim 5, so that the portions of Haselhoff’s seed firmer which encounter friction/abrasion inside of the furrow will be protected from wear.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the layer as two portions over the resilient and firming portions, as per claim 6, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haselhoff in view of Zwez et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koch et al. 10,512,212.
Dependent Claims 13-15: The seed firmer is disclosed as applied above. However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the seed firmer further comprises a channel, as per claim 13;
wherein the resilient portion further comprises at least one post, as per claim 14;
wherein the resilient portion further comprises a bracket, as per claim 15.
Koch discloses a seed firmer (500, Fig. 5) comprising a channel (for housing conduit 506, see col. 11, lns. 52-55), as per claim 13;
wherein the resilient portion (504) further comprises at least one post (514, 515), as per claim 14;
wherein the resilient portion (504) further comprises a bracket (508, 509), as per claim 15.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the channel, posts and brackets of Koch to the seed firmer of Haselhoff and Zwez in order to provide an attachment interface for the seed firmer to a liquid fertilizer conduit and a row unit.
Response to Arguments
Please see the updated art rejections above in light of applicant’s claim amendments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 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. Both Peter 10,149,426 (Fig. 14) and Hagny et al. US 2016/0262304 A1 disclose seed firmers with resilient portions inside of firming portions. However, Peter does not disclose the relative lengths of the first and second portions of the resilient portion as per claim 7 and Hagney does not disclose wherein the second portion is completely inside of the first portion as per claim 7. There would be no motivation to combine these two references together and with Peter and Zwez as claim 1 is currently rejected.
Claims 16-18 are allowed. Claim 16 now requires the wherein the layer is comprised of a thin sheet of UHMWPE which is thin enough to conform to the external shape of both the firming and resilient portions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alicia M. Torres whose telephone number is 571-272-6997. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-6997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina R. Fulton, can be reached at (571) 272-7376.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the group receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-3600. The fax number for this Group is 571-273-8300.
/Alicia Torres/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 August 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights