Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/419,339

Potato Planter

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 22, 2024
Examiner
BUCK, MATTHEW R
Art Unit
3679
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Allan Equipment Manufacturing Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
1498 granted / 1803 resolved
+31.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
1849
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
40.6%
+0.6% vs TC avg
§102
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
§112
28.9%
-11.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1803 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Claim Objections Claims 3, 5, 6, 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: (claim 3, line 7) “an upper outer circular wall” should be changed to “the upper outer circular wall”, since this limitation was already recited in line 5. (claim 5, line 2) “the bottom seed holder” should be changed to “the seed holder”. (claim 5, line 3) the claim needs to end with a period. (claim 6, line 1) “seed singulating ledge” should be changed to “the seed singulating ledge”. (claim 11, line 2) “an upper outer circular wall” should be changed to “the upper outer circular wall”, since this limitation was already recited in claim 3. (claim 12, line 7) “an upper outer circular wall” should be changed to “the upper outer circular wall”, since this limitation was already recited in line 5. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1-8, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson et al. (US 4,526,269) alone. As concerns claim 1, Henderson shows a unit (Fig. 1-8) for singulating a plurality of seeds (col 1, ln 52-58: objects involved may be virtually anything fairly firm that occurs within a reasonable range of sizes and shapes), said unit comprising: a seed holder (21, 23); a seed discharge (59); at least one drive unit (12); a seed singulator (31, 32, 33); wherein the seed singulator further comprises a seed singulating ledge (32); wherein the seed singulator further comprises a plurality of flights (33) positioned above the seed singulating ledge (Fig. 1-3); and wherein the flights are driven along a first direction by the at least one drive unit (Fig. 1). Henderson discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the unit is a planting unit. It has been held that when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, language solely recited in the preamble is not limiting when the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. Furthermore, it has been held that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As concerns claim 2, Henderson shows a unit (Fig. 1-8) for singulating a plurality of seeds (col 1, ln 52-58: objects involved may be virtually anything fairly firm that occurs within a reasonable range of sizes and shapes), said unit comprising: a seed holder (21, 23); a seed discharge (59); at least one drive unit (12); a seed singulator (31, 32, 33); wherein the seed singulator further comprises a seed singulating ledge (32); wherein the seed singulating ledge has a ledge axis (Fig. 1; circular axis of annular, flat rim 32); and wherein during operation of the unit the ledge axis is maintained substantially along the horizontal plane (Fig. 3). Henderson discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the unit is a planting unit. It has been held that when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, language solely recited in the preamble is not limiting when the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. Furthermore, it has been held that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As concerns claim 3, Henderson shows wherein the seed singulator further comprises: an open top (Fig. 3); a stepped bowl configuration having a lower inner circular wall (31) and an upper outer circular wall (36); and wherein the seed singulating ledge (32) is positioned between said lower inner circular wall and the upper outer circular wall (Fig. 1-3). As concerns claim 4, Henderson shows wherein the seed holder is a substantially circular member positioned within the lower inner circular wall (Fig. 1 & 3); and wherein the lower inner circular wall, the upper outer circular wall, the seed singulating ledge and the seed holder cooperate to form a seed bowl (Fig. 1 & 3). As concerns claim 5, Henderson shows wherein the lower inner circular wall, the upper outer circular wall and the seed holder may move relative to each other (Fig. 1-3). As concerns claim 6, Henderson shows wherein seed singulating ledge (32) further comprises a seed receiving area and a seed singulation area (Fig. 1). As concerns claim 7, Henderson shows wherein the seed singulator further comprises a plurality of flights (33) positioned above the seed singulating ledge (32); and wherein the inner circular wall and the flights are driven along the first direction by the at least one drive unit (Fig. 1 & 3). As concerns claim 8, Henderson shows wherein the plurality of flights (33) are mounted to, and moveable with, the inner circular wall (Fig. 1-3). As concerns claim 12, Henderson shows wherein the seed singulator further comprises: an open top (Fig. 3); and a stepped bowl configuration having a lower inner circular wall (31) and an upper outer circular wall (36); wherein the seed singulating ledge (32) is positioned between said lower inner circular wall and the upper outer circular wall (Fig. 1-3); and wherein the inner circular wall is driven along the first direction by the at least one drive unit (Fig. 1 & 3). As concerns claim 13, Henderson shows wherein the plurality of flights (33) are mounted to, and moveable with, the inner circular wall (Fig. 1-3). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 9-11, 14 and 15 are 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not appear to anticipate and/or render obvious: a) a planting unit for singulating a plurality of seeds, said planting unit comprising: a seed holder; a seed discharge; at least one drive unit; a seed singulator; wherein the seed singulator further comprises a seed singulating ledge; wherein the seed singulator further comprises a plurality of flights positioned above the seed singulating ledge; wherein the flights are driven along a first direction by the at least one drive unit; wherein the seed singulator further comprises: an open top; and a stepped bowl configuration having a lower inner circular wall and an upper outer circular wall; wherein the seed singulating ledge is positioned between said lower inner circular wall and the upper outer circular wall; and wherein the inner circular wall is driven along the first direction by the at least one drive unit; wherein the plurality of flights are mounted to, and moveable with, the inner circular wall; wherein the planting unit further comprises: an excess seed ejector to eject any excess seeds from the seed singulating ledge onto the seed holder; a seed receiving area; and a seed singulation area; wherein, during operation, the plurality of flights advances one or more of the plurality of seeds from the seed receiving area to the seed singulation area; and wherein the seeds are singulated at said seed singulation area by the excess seed ejector. b) a planting unit for singulating a plurality of seeds, said planting unit comprising: a seed holder; a seed discharge; at least one drive unit; a seed singulator; wherein the seed singulator further comprises a seed singulating ledge; wherein the seed singulating ledge has a ledge axis; and wherein during operation of the planting unit the ledge axis is maintained substantially along the horizontal plane; wherein the seed singulator further comprises: an open top; a stepped bowl configuration having a lower inner circular wall and an upper outer circular wall; and wherein the seed singulating ledge is positioned between said lower inner circular wall and the upper outer circular wall; wherein the seed holder is a substantially circular member positioned within the lower inner circular wall; and wherein the lower inner circular wall, the upper outer circular wall, the seed singulating ledge and the seed holder cooperate to form a seed bowl; wherein the lower inner circular wall, the upper outer circular wall and the seed holder may move relative to each other; wherein the seed singulating ledge further comprises a seed receiving area and a seed singulation area; wherein the seed singulator further comprises a plurality of flights positioned above the seed singulating ledge; and wherein the inner circular wall and the flights are driven along the first direction by the at least one drive unit; wherein the plurality of flights are mounted to, and moveable with, the inner circular wall; wherein, during operation, the plurality of flights advances one or more of the plurality of seeds from the seed receiving area to the seed singulation area; wherein the seed singulator further comprises an excess seed ejector to eject any excess seeds from the seed singulating ledge onto the seed holder; and wherein the seeds are singulated at said seed singulation area by the excess seed ejector. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prystupa et al. (US 2018/0029086) shows a planting unit for singulating a plurality of seeds. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5. 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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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. /MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 22, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601141
SUCTION GENERATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601128
STREET CURB CLEANING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599068
A Sod Harvester and Method for Automatically Rolling up a Slab of Sod
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595720
Composite Punched Screen for High Pressure Applications
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582023
AGRICULTURAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+14.6%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1803 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month