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 § 102
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.
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) 1-4, 6-9, 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Score et al (US 2012/0234934).
As to claims 1 and 9, Score et al disclose a spreader comprising:
A container (40)
A flow regulator (45 and 45A)
A conveyor (50) rotated by a motor (35)
An applicator (60)
Controller (33), wherein the controller has sensors (as shown in figure 6, GPS 75 and Motor with encoder 35) and capable to control the speed of the conveyor and spreader (paragraph 0064 and 0065).
As to claim 2, the container is a hopper.
As to claim 3, the flow regulator is a gate.
As to claim 4, the conveyor comprises an apron driven by a motor (figure 2).
As to claim 6, the applicator is a spinner.
As to claim 7, further comprising a distribution manifold (52).
As to claim 8, the motor is electric.
As to claims 14-16, the speed motor is a stepper motor or a servo motor.
As to claim 17, the controller is a processor.
As to claim 18, the controller can be adapted to store and access parameters.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 5, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Score et al (US 2012/0234934).
As to claim 5, Score et al fail to teach using a pump driven by the motor. However, since Score et al disclose an apron driven by the motor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute with another means of transportation depending on the design expediency.
As to claims 10 and 11, Score et al fail to teach a first sensor is a Hall Effect sensor and cooperate with a tone wheel. However, Score et al disclose a GPS, which monitors the speed and location of the vehicle and surroundings. Therefore, replacing a GPS with another sensor would merely be a design choice that produces the same result.
As to claims 12 and 13, Score et al disclose the manifold to have at least one valve (gate), but fail to teach the motor is a hydraulic motor. However, since Score disclose an electric motor, it would have been obvious to replace with any types of motor, since it is dependent on the design choice given that both will yield the same result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8 that SCORE et al fail to teach “(b) employing a set of stored parameters when the controller is not receiving signals from the second sensor.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Since the claim is pertained to an apparatus claim, the function is not patentable if the examiner can show that the controller of SCORE et al is capable of performing the function. In this case, SCORE et al disclose a controller with sensors. The controller can be programmed with stored parameters and set it to perform as claimed. Thus, claims 1 and 9 are not patentable over SCORE et al. It is suggested that applicant should amend the claim to provide more structure rather than the function of the controller.
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Len Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-1184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am - 4pm.
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.
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.
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights