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 .
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yunghanns (WO2016015088).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Yunghanns discloses apparatus for conditioning soil by performing deep soil amendment, the apparatus comprising:
a shank (55) having a leading bow shaped edge operable to be dragged forward through the soil by a tractor (10) (pgph 0009);
lateral blades coupled to the shank; and
lateral walls (57) coupled to the lateral blades forming an open shoe/rigid hollow structure that extends a depth down below a surface of the soil,
a frame coupled to a tractor and disposed above and removably coupled to the shank, blades and shoe/hollow structure (Figure 6)
wherein the open shoe is operable to receive amendment and create a wake in the soil by the tractor, and wherein the wake substantially mixes the amendment with soil down to the depth (Figure 6, pgph 0063; pgph 0010 Yunghanns discloses natural collapse of channel which inherently results in mixing)
PNG
media_image1.png
134
129
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lateral blades)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (shank)][AltContent: textbox (Lateral walls)]
Regarding claim 13, Yunghanns discloses that the amendment can be compost. (pgph 0049)
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bauer (5,271,567).
Regarding claim 19, Bauer discloses an apparatus for deep soil amendment for treating two substantially parallel rows at the same time using injectors pulled by a tractor (10), the apparatus comprising:
A frame coupled to a tractor and to first and second injectors (26), wherein the first and second injectors (26) comprise open chutes (30) and are operable to create moving voids in the soil when pulled through the soil by the tractor
An amendment storage (12)
A first conveyor (18) that transports amendment from the amendment storage to a second conveyor (32) and a third conveyor (32), wherein the second conveyor and the third conveyor transport the amendment in substantially opposite directions (see Figures 2-3)
The second conveyor and the third conveyor operable to provide the amendment to the first and second injectors, respectively, wherein falls to the open chutes of the injectors and moving voids, and wherein first and second injectors company a week behind injectors that substantially mixes the amendment with the soil points collapse (column 10 lines 1-4)
Regarding claim 20, the amendment storage (12) comprises a trailer connected to the frame and pulled by the tractor (Figure 1).
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) 2-5 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yunghanns (WO2016015088) in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 15-16, Yunghanns discloses the invention as described above including a frame for connecting the shank to a tractor. Yunghanns fails to specifically disclose that the frame, shank and blades are made of steel or include carbide wear plates on the outer surfaces of the blades. The examiner takes official notice that utilizing steel and utilizing wear plates on earthworking and planting implements is old and well known and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to utilize a steel frame and wear plates in Yunghanns. Further, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a steel frame, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Further, regarding claim 3, Yunghanns discloses the invention as described above including a shank that appears to be about 3 inches wide. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to utilize a 3 inch wide shank, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yunghanns (WO2016015088) in view of Collin Jr. et al. (3,815,683).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 17-18, Yunghanns discloses the invention as described above including a running depth of 70 cm (27.5”) but fails to specifically disclose a running depth of 48 inches or an injection depth of 36 inches. Yunghanns does disclose, however, that the depths can/should be altered based on soil characteristics and depth of the clay subsoil (pgphs 0033-0036). Like Yunghanns, Collin, Jr. et al. also discloses a subsoil implement poultry the ground. Unlike Yunghanns, Collin, Jr. et al. discloses that depths up to 7 feet can be reached with the river as long as equipment of adequate strength and power is utilized (column 1 lines 9-22). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize equipment of adequate strength and power in Yunghanns as taught by Collin to achieve the claimed that’s when soil characteristics require it as the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yunghanns (WO 2016/015088) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Sauer (4,116,139).
Regarding claim 8, Yunghanns discloses the invention as described above, but fails to disclose a conveyor to transport the amendment behind the injector, wherein the first conveyor is disposed substantially below the injector. Like Yunghanns, Sauer also discloses an injector for a subsoiler for adding amendments to soil through a chute. Unlike Yunghanns, Sauer further discloses the use of a conveyor (38) to aid in directing material that exits the chute rearwardly (column 3 lines 21-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a conveyor/deflector plate in Yunghanns as taught by Sauer to direct the material rearwardly and along the trench as it exits the chute as it would be combining prior art devices according to known methods to obtain predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claim 9, the combination discloses that the amendment is supplied from a trailer (42) connected to the tractor (Yunghanns – Figure 3).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yunghanns (WO 2016/015088) in view of Sauer (4,116,139) as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Danford (3,865,056).
Regarding claims 10-11, the combination of Yunghanns and Sauer discloses the invention as described above, but fails to disclose a truck that moves parallel to the tractor to supply amendment from the truck to the tractor via a conveyor. Like the combination of Yunghanns and Sauer, Danford also discloses a tractor row unit for delivering amendment to soil. Unlike the combination, Danford further discloses a tender tanker (26) that travels parallel to the tractor and utilizes a conveyor (32) to allow the tractor to provide amendment to the soil for longer periods without running out (column 2 line 60 through column 3 line 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a tender tanker and second conveyor in the combination of Yunghanns and Sauer as taught by Danford as the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 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 filed 5/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Yunghanns boot (57) is a narrow close sided guard that protects a delivery tube and it is not formed by lateral blades coupled to the shank and it does not create an “open chute”. The examiner disagrees. Yunghanns discloses a shank with lateral blades which are then coupled to lateral walls that form an open chute. The fact that a tube runs through the open cute to deliver amendment to the soil does not prevent the opening between the lateral walls from being considered to form an “open chute.” The tube runs through the open chute formed by the walls of Yunghanns so the open chute is therefore receiving and delivering amendment to the soil. Figure 6 clearly shows an open top between the lateral walls that receives a tube that delivers amendment to the soil. Further, applicant seems to argue that the lateral walls of Yunghanns are not “formed by lateral blades coupled to the shank. This argument is more specific than the current claims. The current claims do not require the walls be formed by the lateral blades coupled to the shank, just that the lateral walls are coupled thereto, which they are (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
134
129
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lateral blades)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (shank)][AltContent: textbox (Lateral walls)]
Applicant’s argument that Yunghanns does not teach mixing of the amendment in the soil is not persuasive. Yunghanns discloses that the device provides for channel collapse after the amendment enters the channel. This would inherently cause some degree of mixing as the shank moves through the soil and the channel collapses. Applicant’s argument that Yunghanns fails to disclose “aggressively mixing” is more specific than the claims. Any degree of mixing currently reads on the claims. There is insufficient detail/structure to prevent this described functionality from reading on the current claims.
Regarding claim 19, applicant argues that Bauer fails to disclose an “open chute” because it includes sidewalls and other elements therein. Bauer discloses an open chute in that it receives material through the tube at an opening at the top wherein it is received by the chute to be directed to the soil. There is insufficient structure claimed to prevent the chute of Bauer from reading on the “open chute”.
Applicant further argues that Bauer fails to disclose creating a wake that substantially mixes the amendment with the soil. Like with Yunghanns above, Bauer discloses that the chute holds back soil while the amendment enters the furrow. Once the amendment enters the furrow and the chute/walls move on, the soil then collapses causing mixing. There is insufficient structure claimed to prevent the Bauer device from reading on the current claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jamie L McGowan whose telephone number is (571)272-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00-5:00 CST.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/JAMIE L MCGOWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights