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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 14 March 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
CLAIMS 2-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: minor spelling errors. Appropriate correction is required.
In CLAIM 2 on line 1, change “seed” to --seeder--.
In CLAIMS 3-9, repeat the correction made to CLAIM 2.
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 1-9 are 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.
In CLAIM 1, the scope of the claimed invention is indefinite because the preamble recites “A seeder assembly for placing a commodity in underlying soil”, but the body of the claim is essentially drawn to a soil opener assembly because it fails to recite any means capable of dispensing seeds. For example, the claimed opener assembly could be used simply for aeration, or for the subsurface placement of agrochemicals, drip irrigation, or subsurface tubing.
CLAIMS 2-9 are rejected because they depend from CLAIM 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
CLAIM(S) 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sivinski (CA 3093964 A1).
Sivinski ‘964 (“Sivinski”) shows a row cleaner assembly, comprising:
CLAIM 10 a first arm (32) having an engagement portion configured to couple to at least one of an opener assembly or a seed assembly (via 18);
a second arm (38) having at least one cleaner blade (98) rotationally coupled thereto; and
a pivot (40) formed between the first arm (32) and the second arm (38), wherein a rotational axis of the pivot is canted relative to an axis of the row cleaner assembly (e.g., the central longitudinal axis through gauge wheel 24);
CLAIM 11 wherein the pivot (40) is configured to move the at least one cleaner blade (98) between an engaged position and a retracted position;
CLAIM 12 wherein the pivot (40) leads the at least one cleaner blade (98) in a traveling direction (i.e., upward);
CLAIM 13 wherein the second arm (38) includes a first support and a second support (Fig. 6B), wherein the first arm couples (32) between the first support and the second support to form the pivot;
CLAIM 14 further comprising two cleaner blades (98) rotationally coupled to the second arm (38), wherein one blade is coupled to the first support and another blade is coupled to the second support (Fig. 6B);
CLAIM 15 wherein the two cleaner blades (98) are angled towards each at a leading position.
CLAIM 16 wherein the first support and the second support are substantially parallel (Fig. 6b);
CLAIM 17 further comprising an actuator (56,58) coupled to the second arm (38) and configured to pivotably move the second arm between an engaged position and a retracted position;
CLAIM 18 wherein the second arm (38) rotates towards the first arm (32) when brought into the retracted position and rotates away from the first arm when brother into the engaged position; and
CLAIM 19 wherein the axis of the row cleaner assembly is at least one of a vertical axis or a longitudinal axis relative to the engagement portion of the first arm (32).
CLAIM(S) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Radtke (WO 2024/150051 A1).
Radtke ‘051 (“Radtke”) shows a row cleaner assembly (Fig. 55), comprising:
a first arm (4200) having an engagement portion at a first end and an angled portion at a second end, the engagement portion is configured to couple the row cleaner assembly to at least one of an opener assembly or a seed assembly (via 4102), and the angled portion is angled with respect to at least two axes of the row cleaner assembly;
a second arm (4100) having a first end coupled to the angled portion at the second end of the first arm to form a pivot, the second arm extending from the pivot in a direction substantially counter to a traveling direction;
a pair of row cleaner blades (4060) rotationally coupled to a second end of the second arm (4200), a first row cleaner blade being mounted on a first side of the second end of the second arm and a second row cleaner blade being mounted on a second side, opposed from the first side; and
an actuator (4300) configured to pivotably transition the pair of row cleaner blades between a working position and a retracted position, the actuator further providing springing force to enable partial deflection of the pair of row cleaner blades from full engagement in the working position.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
CLAIM(S) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassett (US 2013/0192186 A1) in view of Mariman et al. (US 2011/0113996 A1).
CLAIM 1 Bassett ‘186 (“Bassett”) discloses a seeder assembly for placing a commodity in underlying soil, comprising:
a frame (13);
at least one opener assembly pivotally coupled to the frame, the at least one opener having at least one disk opener (15) configured to cut into the underlying soil to provide an opening for the commodity;
at least one row cleaner assembly coupled to the frame, the at least one row cleaner having at least one cleaner blade (22, 23) pivotably movable between at least an engaged position and a lifted position, wherein the at least one cleaner blade is positioned above a plane defined by a bottom portion of the at least one opener assembly when the at least one cleaner blade is in the lifted position ([0030], Figs. 4-6).
Bassett fails to disclose a ground engaging mechanism. Mariman et al. ‘996 (“Mariman”) shows a seeder assembly (10, Fig. 10) including a frame (14) having at least one ground engaging mechanism (70, Fig. 2) configured to contact an underlying surface. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the prior art frame (Bassett, 13) with the addition of at least one ground engaging mechanism (Mariman, 70, Fig. 2), as suggested by Mariman. The motivation for making the modification would have been to have included means for supporting the weight of the frame, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 2 In the combination of Bassett and Mariman, the at least one row cleaner assembly includes two cleaner blades (Bassett, 22, 23) positioned in a substantially parallel arrangement.
CLAIM 3 In the combination of Bassett and Mariman, the at least one disk opener (Bassett, 15) trails the two cleaner blades (Bassett, 22, 23) relative to a traveling direction (Bassett, Fig. 1).
CLAIM 4 In the combination of Bassett and Mariman, the at least one disk opener (Bassett, 15) is partially positioned between the two cleaner blades (Bassett, 22, 23; Fig. 2).
CLAIM 5 In the combination of Bassett and Mariman, the two cleaner blades (Bassett, 22, 23) clear the at least one disk opener (Bassett, 15) in the lifted position (Fig. 2).
CLAIM 6 In the combination of Bassett and Mariman, the at least one cleaner blade (Bassett, 22, 23) is biased in the engaged positioned with a springing force (via 70).
CLAIM 7 In the combination of Bassett and Mariman, the at least one cleaner blade (Bassett, 22, 23) is partially deflectable from the engaged position responsive to an external force (Bassett, Fig. 5), and wherein the springing force returns the at least one cleaner blade to the engaged position when the external force is removed (Bassett, Fig. 6).
CLAIM 8 In the combination of Bassett and Mariman, the at least one cleaner blade (Bassett, 22, 23) trails a pivot (Bassett, 32) to which the at least one cleaner blade is coupled, and wherein the at least one cleaner blade (Bassett, 22, 23) moves towards the at least one disk opener (Bassett, 15) when transitioning from the engaged position to the lifted position.
CLAIM 9 In the combination of Bassett and Mariman, the at least one opener assembly (Bassett, 15) is pivotally movable between a working position and a transport position (Bassett, via 14), and wherein the at least one row cleaner assembly pivots with the at least one opener assembly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/tm/
18 April 2026
Prosecution Insights