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 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, 3-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter US 2014/0076215 A1 in view of Hagny US 2016/0262304 A1.
Independent Claim 1: Peter discloses a seed firmer (600, Fig. 6) comprising:
a resilient portion (640, 650, 680, 684) for attaching to an agricultural implement, wherein the resilient portion has a first portion (640, 650, 680) for attaching to the agricultural implement and a second portion (684, Fig. 9); and
a firming portion (610) for contacting seeds,
wherein the second portion of the resilient portion is inside the firming portion that is disposed over a full length of the second portion of the resilient portion (as seen between Figs. 6 and 9, firming portion 610 is disposed over the full length of second portion 684),
wherein the firming portion is mechanically fastened to the second portion of the resilient portion (at 614, 612 and 688), and
wherein the second portion of the resilient portion has a width that is 30% to 70% of a width of the first portion of the resilient portion (as seen in annotated Fig. 9, 684, and as seen by the width of 614, is in the 30-70% width range of the widths of the resilient portion seen in Fig. 7), as per claim 1.
However, Peter fails to disclose wherein the resilient portion and the firming portion are each made from different materials with the firming portion being made of polyethylene, as per claim 1.
Hagny discloses a similar seed firmer wherein the resilient portion (29) and the firming portion (30) are each made from different materials (para. [0030], lns. 1-3) with the firming portion being made of polyethylene (para. [0030], lns. 11-12), 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 make Peter’s resilient and firming portions of different materials and, specifically, to make the firming portion of polyethylene as taught by Hagny in order to provide the firming portion with high abrasion resistance for longer wear life and greater slickness for shedding mud and unwanted soil buildup.
Dependent Claims 3-11: Hagny further discloses wherein the firming portion (30) is made from ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (para. [0030], lns. 11-12), as per claim 3.
Peter further discloses wherein the seed firmer (600, Fig. 6) further comprises a channel (614, Fig. 9), as per claim 8;
wherein the resilient portion (640, 650, 680, 684) further comprises at least one post (684), as per claim 9;
wherein the resilient portion (640, 650, 680, 684) further comprises a bracket (684), as per claim 10;
wherein the firming portion (610) encloses any exterior surfaces of the second portion (684) of the resilient portion (640, 650, 680, 684) when mechanically fastened (via 614, 612 and 688) to the second portion of the resilient portion (as seen between Figs. 6 and 9), as per claim 11.
However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the firming portion is disposed at 30 to 70% of the length of the seed firmer, as per claim 4;
wherein the firming portion is disposed at 40 to 60% of the length of the seed firmer, as per claim 5;
wherein the firming portion is disposed at 45 to 55% of the length of the seed firmer, as per claim 6;
wherein the firming portion is disposed at 50% of the length of the seed firmer, as per claim 7.
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% the length of the seed firmer 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 would take the sowing conditions into consideration when determining the firming portion to seed firmer length ratio.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter in view of Hagny US 2016/0262304 A1, hereafter Hagny ‘304, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hagny 7,856,934, hereafter Hagny ‘934.
Dependent Claim 2: The seed firmer is disclosed as applied above. However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the resilient portion is made from PA6 nylon, as per claim 2.
Hagny ‘934 discloses a similar seed firmer wherein the resilient portion (72) is made from PA6 nylon (col. 10, ln. 14), as per claim 2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the resilient portion of Peter and Hagny ‘304 of nylon, as taught by Hagny ‘934, in order to provide a flexible material with resilience of shape such that it can clear obstacles and then return to its previous position.
Response to Arguments
Please see the updated rejection above in response to applicant’s claim amendments.
In the updated rejection above, the second portion is interpreted to be the part (684) of the seed firmer (600). In this case, the firming portion (610) is disposed over a full length of the second portion (684), and enclosing all exterior surfaces thereof, as claimed.
As stated in the Response to Arguments of the Final Rejection 01/07/2026, Claim 1 fails to structurally define the second portion in any way that would preclude Peter’s tongue (684).
The rejection is therefore maintained.
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, Joseph M. Rocca, can be reached at (571) 272-8971.
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 April 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights