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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: Figures 1-13B are largely photographs which are not permitted per 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1), “Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications.”
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:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The title refers to “METHODS” but there are no method claims present.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. In this case the abstract refers to the purported merits of the disclosure (“increasing overall efficiency”). See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “a bracket attached at a forward end of to the lid body”. This is grammatically improper.
Claim 11 recites “the lid body configured to be hold hopper lid”
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 10 and 17 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.
Claim 10 recites “a backet fitted onto a row unit”, however the preamble of the claim is directed to a “seed hopper”. It is unclear whether the seed hopper additionally includes a row unit and if so, it would appear to be incompatible with the preamble.
The term “high-capacity” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-capacity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Please note claim 18 resolves the ambiguity of the problematic parent.
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, 3-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (US 6092476 A), in view of Dickson (US 20210340794 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wilson teaches a seed hopper comprising:
(a) a hopper body (Fig 1, bin 25) comprising:
(i) a track formed in each of two longitudinal sides of the hopper body (Fig 5-6, track 44; Column 2, lines 45-46, “track 44 extending on the side walls 32 and 34”); and
(b) a hopper lid (Fig 1, lid 50) comprising:
(i) a lid body (Fig 7, lid 50, seen);
(ii) a bracket attached to the lid body (Fig 7, unlabelled bracket extending from each inwardly extending from pegs 54 to the exterior of the lid then the U-shaped member on the interior of lid);
(iii) a peg on each end of the bracket configured to be fitted within the track in the hopper body (Fig 7, pegs 54); and
While Wilson teaches a latching assembly with a cooperating latching structure (Abstract), Wilson is silent on the body comprising a magnet disposed on an upper edge of a proximal side of the hopper body and the lid comprising a plate on a lower side of the lid body configured to be attracted to the magnet when the hopper lid is in a closed position.
Dickson teaches the body comprising a magnet disposed on an upper edge of a proximal side of the hopper body (Fig 2, body 30 contains magnet 262, see Para 0024) and the lid comprising a plate on a lower side of the lid body configured to be attracted to the magnet when the hopper lid is in a closed position (Fig 2, lid, incorrectly labelled as 70, contains plate as seen made of metal with magnetic attraction, see Para 0024).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Wilson by having the magnetic latch system as disclosed by Dickson because it would be a simple substitution of one known element (the latch of Wilson) for another (the latch of Dickson) to obtain predictable results (to latch a container and lid together). Additionally, the latch of Dickson has the benefit of not being as susceptible to vibrations like a mechanical latch would be could weaken a mechanical latch (Para 0009).
Regarding claim 3, Wilson as modified teaches wherein the plate is a ferrous metal plate (Para 0024 of Dickson, “the lid magnetic material 252 could be steel, a steel alloy, iron”).
Regarding claim 4, Wilson as modified teaches wherein the magnet produces a downward force on the plate and the lid body (Fig 2, Para 0024 of Dickson, the magnet works to retain the lid closed/in a downward position).
Regarding claim 5, Wilson teaches a handle on an upper side of the lid body (Fig 2, lipped portion circled and shown in Fig 3).
Regarding claim 6, Wilson teaches wherein the track comprises a substantially parallel portion (Fig 6, parallel portion intersecting 48) and a ramped portion (Fig 6, sloped portion between the upper and lower parallel portion), wherein the ramped portion is configured to assist in positioning the hopper lid into the closed position from an open position (Fig 6, ramp assists in moving to the lower parallel portion, which is closed, see Fig 1).
Regarding claim 7, Wilson teaches an open notch for removal of the hopper lid from the hopper body by removing the peg from the track (Fig 6, notch 48).
Regarding claim 8, Wilson teaches a vertical notch in the track wherein the pegs are configured to be positioned with the vertical notch when the seed hopper is in a propped position (Fig 6, notch 48; the lid can be positioned in here in a propped open position).
Regarding claim 9, Wilson teaches wherein the track includes a ramped portion (Fig 6, sloped portion between the upper and lower parallel portion), a substantially parallel portion (Fig 6, a portion of parallel portion of 44), a removal notch (Fig 6, notch 48), and a propped positioning notch (Fig 5-6, another portion of parallel portion of 44 closest towards 30).
Regarding claim 10, Wilson teaches a bracket fitted onto a row unit body for accepting the hopper lid when the seed hopper is in a propped position (Fig 2, propped position seen, the lid 50 is at least propped against the bin. This propped position is “accepted”/permitted by the bracket around 22 of the row unit).
Regarding claim 11, Wilson teaches a seed hopper for an agricultural row unit comprising:
(a) a hopper (Fig 1, bin 25) comprising:
(i) a track formed in each of two longitudinal sides of the hopper (Fig 5-6, track 44; Column 2, lines 45-46, “track 44 extending on the side walls 32 and 34”), the track comprising a parallel portion (Fig 6, parallel portion intersecting 48) and a ramped portion at a first end of the track (Fig 6, sloped portion between the upper and lower parallel portion); and
(b) a hopper lid (Fig 1, lid 50) comprising:
(i) a lid body (Fig 7, lid 50, seen);
(ii) a bracket at a first end of to the lid body (Fig 7, unlabelled bracket extending from each inwardly extending from pegs 54 to the exterior of the lid then the U-shaped member on the interior of lid);
(iii) a peg on each end of the bracket wherein the pegs slide within the track as the hopper lid is moved between opened and closed positions (Fig 7, pegs 54).
While Wilson teaches a latching assembly with a cooperating latching structure (Abstract), Wilson is silent on (ii) a magnet disposed at a second end of the hopper; and (iv) a plate on a lower side of a second end of the lid body configured to be hold hopper lid in the closed position.
Dickson teaches (ii) a magnet disposed at a second end of the hopper (Fig 2, body 30 contains magnet 262, see Para 0024); and (iv) a plate on a lower side of a second end of the lid body configured to be hold hopper lid in the closed position (Fig 2, lid, incorrectly labelled as 70, contains plate as seen made of metal with magnetic attraction, see Para 0024).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Wilson by having the magnetic latch system as disclosed by Dickson because it would be a simple substitution of one known element (the latch of Wilson) for another (the latch of Dickson) to obtain predictable results (to latch a container and lid together). Additionally, the latch of Dickson has the benefit of not being as susceptible to vibrations like a mechanical latch would be could weaken a mechanical latch (Para 0009).
Regarding claim 12, Wilson teaches wherein the plate is a ferrous metal plate (Para 0024 of Dickson, “the lid magnetic material 252 could be steel, a steel alloy, iron”).
Regarding claim 13, Wilson teaches a vertical notch in the track wherein the pegs are configured to be positioned with the vertical notch when the seed hopper is in a propped position (Fig 6, notch 48; the lid can be positioned in here in a propped open position).
Regarding claim 14, Wilson teaches an open notch for removal of the hopper lid from the hopper by removing the peg from the track (Fig 6, notch 48).
Regarding claim 15, Wilson teaches wherein the magnet produces a downward force on the plate and the lid body (Fig 2, Para 0024 of Dickson, the magnet works to retain the lid closed/in a downward position).
Regarding claim 16, Wilson teaches a handle on the lid body (Fig 2, lipped portion circled and shown in Fig 3).
Regarding claim 17, Wilson teaches wherein the seed hopper is a high-capacity seed hopper (As best understood, Fig 1, the hopper is “high capacity”).
Regarding claim 19, Wilson teaches an agricultural row unit comprising:
(a) a hopper (Fig 1, bin 25) comprising:
(i) a track formed in each of two longitudinal sides of the hopper (Fig 5-6, track 44; Column 2, lines 45-46, “track 44 extending on the side walls 32 and 34”), the track comprising:
(A) a parallel portion along the longitudinal side of the hopper (Fig 6, parallel portion intersecting 48);
(B) a ramped portion at a forward end of the track (Fig 6, sloped portion between the upper and lower parallel portion); and
(b) a hopper lid (Fig 1, lid 50) comprising:
(i) a lid body (Fig 7, lid 50, seen);
(ii) a bracket attached at a forward end of to the lid body (Fig 7, unlabelled bracket extending from each inwardly extending from pegs 54 to the exterior of the lid then the U-shaped member on the interior of lid);
(iii) a peg on each end of the bracket configured to be fitted within the track in the hopper, wherein the pegs slide within the track as the hopper lid is moved between opened and closed positions (Fig 7, pegs 54).
While Wilson teaches a latching assembly with a cooperating latching structure (Abstract), Wilson is silent on (ii) a magnet disposed at the rear end of the hopper; and (iv) a plate on a lower side of the rear end of the lid body configured to be attracted to the magnet when the hopper lid is in the closed position.
Dickson teaches (ii) a magnet disposed at the rear end of the hopper (Fig 2, body 30 contains magnet 262, see Para 0024); and (iv) a plate on a lower side of the rear end of the lid body configured to be attracted to the magnet when the hopper lid is in the closed position (Fig 2, lid, incorrectly labelled as 70, contains plate as seen made of metal with magnetic attraction, see Para 0024).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Wilson by having the magnetic latch system as disclosed by Dickson because it would be a simple substitution of one known element (the latch of Wilson) for another (the latch of Dickson) to obtain predictable results (to latch a container and lid together). Additionally, the latch of Dickson has the benefit of not being as susceptible to vibrations like a mechanical latch would be could weaken a mechanical latch (Para 0009).
Wilson teaches a removal notch (Fig 6, notch 48), Wilson is silent on the location at the rear end of the track, as construed.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Wilson by having removal notch located at the rear end of the track since it would be a merely rearrangement of parts. The location of the removal notch would not have modified the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 20, Wilson teaches a groove in a rear portion of a row unit frame configured for accepting a rear end of the hopper lid when the hopper is in a propped position (Fig 2, propped position seen, the lid 50 is at least propped against the bin. This propped position is “accepted”/permitted by the groove/space between mounting members immediately above 22 of the row unit).
Claim(s) 2 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (US 6092476 A), in view of Dickson (US 20210340794 A1), in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art.
Regarding claim 2, Wilson is not explicit on wherein the seed hopper has an about three bushel capacity.
Applicant Admitted Prior Art teaches wherein the seed hopper has an about three bushel capacity (Para 005 of the instant spec, regarding Figures 1-2 “hoppers 2 is usually 1.5 to 3 bushels of seed”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Wilson by having wherein the seed hopper have an about three bushel capacity as disclosed by Applicant Admitted Prior Art because it is a “usual” amount of volume which a device in the same field of endeavor has.
Regarding claim 18, Wilson is not explicit on wherein the seed hopper has an about three bushel capacity.
Applicant Admitted Prior Art teaches wherein the seed hopper has an about three bushel capacity (Para 005 of the instant spec, regarding Figures 1-2 “hoppers 2 is usually 1.5 to 3 bushels of seed”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Wilson by having wherein the seed hopper have an about three bushel capacity as disclosed by Applicant Admitted Prior Art because it is a “usual” amount of volume which a device in the same field of endeavor has.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rosen (US 20220192082 A1) teaches a lid 16 covers the hopper extension 100 with a handle on the top.
Rogers (US 5638988 A) teaches a dispensing system of the present invention includes a chute assembly and a rectangular container for dispensing of particulate material in the container. The chute assembly includes door and latch mechanisms.
Davidson (US 3007570 A) teaches a dispenser, or spreader, which acts as a container for transporting one or more bags of seeds and thereafter when the seeds have been poured from the bags.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE N YAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8745. The examiner can normally be reached typically 8am-4pm ET.
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, TARA SCHIMPF can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/THEODORE N YAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676