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 § 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.
Claims 6-8 are 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. Claims 6-8 discloses performing an additional soil amendment after capping the soil bed. The only disclosure in the originally filed specification is regarding a second pass of the ripper to cap the soil bed and provide a final mixing of the soil at depths of 3-4 feet. It is unclear how this is considered a an additional soil amendment after capping since this refers to mixing, not adding additional amendment. It is also unclear from the originally filed specification how the additional amendment is accomplished after the capping of the soil bed and by what mechanism or how the method operates to provide deep amendment followed by a double injector as the specification and figures do not provide adequate description for understanding. As such claims 6-8 are not being examined on the merits.
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, 3, 10-11, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yunghanns (WO 2016/015088).
Regarding claim 1, Yunghanns discloses a method of deep soil amendment of a soil bed, the method comprising:
Traversing a shank (55) through the soil bed using a ripper to loosen the soil bed (pgph 0009)
Following behind the shank, performing deep soil amendment and mixing amendment with the soil bed using an injector (pgph 0009)
Capping the soil bed (pgph 0009)
Regarding claim 3, the amendment comprises organic or synthetic materials (pgph 0027).
Regarding claims 10 and 13, the method as described above further comprises pulling the injector through the soil bed using a tractor (10) to create a void in the soil bed, and wherein the injector comprises a bow shaped leading edge (55,56) and a substantially hollow structure (57) comprising an open chute that extends down below a surface of the soil bed (Figure 6).
Regarding claims 11 and 13-14, the amendment is supplied to the open chute and into the void positioned below the open chute, and wherein a wake produced behind the hollow structure mixes the amendment with the soil bed (pgph 0010 – Yunghanns discloses natural collapse of channel which inherently results in mixing).
Regarding claim 15, Yunghanns discloses ripping the soil bed to loosen the soil prior to the supplying amendment and capping the soil after the supplying amendment to prevent the soil bed from collapsing (pgph 0010).
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 a method of deep soil amendment for treating two substantially parallel rows at the same time using injectors pulled by a tractor (10), the method comprising:
Pulling a first injector (26) and a second injector (26) (Figure 2) through a soil bed using the tractor to create voids in the soil at depth, wherein each injector comprises an open chute (30) extending down into the voids
Supplying amendment to the open chutes (abstract), wherein the amendment falls down in to the voids and is mixed with the soil bed down to the depth by wakes created by the injectors moving through the soil (column 10 lines 1-4 – discloses collapse/mixing happens after chute until chute is not present).
Regarding claim 20, Bauer further discloses:
Supplying amendment to the first injector using a first conveyor (32)
Supplying amendment to the second injector using a second conveyor (32 – see conveyors 32 extending in opposite directions in Figures 2-3), wherein the first and second conveyors transport the amendment in substantially opposite directions
Supplying amendment to the first and second conveyors using a third conveyor (18)that is operable to receive amendment from a trailer (12) coupled to the tractor (10)
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 and 5 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 Collin, Jr. et al. (3,815,683).
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Yunghanns discloses the invention as described above including a running depth of 70 cm (27.5”) fails to specifically disclose a depth of 48” or an injection depth of 36”. 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 pulled through the ground. Unlike Yunghanns, Collin, Jr. et al. discloses that depths up to 7’ can be reached with a ripper 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 to achieve the claimed depths 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) 4 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 Pion (11,700,784).
Regarding claim 4, Yunghanns discloses the method of deep soil amendment as described above, but fails to specifically disclose the use of biochar as the soil amendment. Like Yunghanns, Pion also discloses adding amendments to soil Unlike Yunghanns, Pion discloses the use of biochar as a soil amendment and that soil amendments are interchangeable (column 2 lines 47-52. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize biochar as a soil amendment in Yunghanns as taught by Pion as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claim(s) 9 and 16 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 Stolberg-Rohr (2008/03052285).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Yunghanns discloses the invention as described above including a mechanical means of closing the channel after the soil amendment is added to the trench (pgph 0053), but fails to specifically disclose that the mechanical closing/capping means could be a precision ripper, mounder, bedder, shank or double blade. Yunghanns does disclose, however, that various mechanisms can be used to close the channel (pgph 0054). Like Yunghanns, Stolberg-Rohr also discloses a shank for opening soil and creating a channel for the addition of a soil amendment and a closing mechanism that closes the channel following the addition of the soil amendment. Unlike Yunghanns, Stolberg-Rohr discloses that the closing mechanism could be a mounder (21). 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 mounder as the mechanical closing device in Yunghanns as taught by Stolberg-Rohr as a simple substitution of one known element for another (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)) since Yunghanns discloses that various different closing mechanisms can be used.
Claim(s) 12 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 Official Notice.
Regarding claim 12, Yunghanns discloses the invention as described above including a shank with lateral blades but fails to disclose that the shank and blades are made of steel or that they include chromium carbide wear plates. The examiner takes Official Notice that 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 shank and blades and a chromium carbide wear plate, since wear plates are well known in the art and 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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yunghanns (WO 2016/015088) as applied to claims 13-16 above and further in view of Sauer (4,116,139).
Regarding claim 17, 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)).
Claim(s) 18 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 17 above and further in view of Danford (3,865,056).
Regarding claim 18, 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 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)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Yunghanns fails to disclose mixing the amendment with the soil bed using an injector. The examiner disagrees. Yunghanns discloses that the treatment material can be delivered by a nozzle attachment and utilize pneumatic delivery (pgphs 0023-0024). Yunghanns therefore discloses an “injector”. Yunghanns further discloses collapsing the channel utilizing gravity or utilizing a mechanical system (pgph 0039). Utilizing a pneumatic delivery of the treatment material would inherently create a mixing of the treatment material with the soil. Likewise both the gravity drop or mechanical closing/capping of the soil bed would inherently provide a mixing of the treatment material with the soil. There is insufficient structure in the claims to prevent the pneumatic delivery from reading on the “injector” or to prevent the pneumatic injector or gravity/mechanical closing mechanism of Yunghanns from reading on the “mixing” limitation. Mixing is defined as “combining with another,” or ”to bring into close association.” Adding the treatment material into the channel and covering with soil to close the channel therefore reads on the claims. Applicant’s argument that Yunghanns fails to disclose actively mixing with ducts, fans rotary valves, etc. is not persuasive. Further structure is required to read over Yunghanns.
Applicant further argues that Bauer fails to disclose mixing by wakes created by the injectors moving through the soil. The examiner disagrees. As treatment material flows through the ducts (32) and chute (30) of Bauer, it inherently creates a “wake”. As the material exits the chute into the channel it would not be a laminar flow due to the change in direction as it hits the ground, the unevenness of the soil/trench walls etc. As the material engages the soil it inherently creates turbulent flow that causes disruption/wake and mixes with the soil (again, mixing is defined as “combining with another,” or ”to bring into close association”). Further structure is required to define the elements that provide the mixing function to read over Bauer.
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