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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, "the dual fertilizer opener being implemented before a seed opener," (of claim 20) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
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.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains an implied phrase (i.e., "One or more techniques and/or systems are disclosed..."). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 7 recites "wherein in the first wheel position a distance..." in lines 3-4 and "and in the second wheel position a distance..." in line 5. Similarly, claim 17 recites "wherein in the first wheel position a distance..." in lines 3-4 and "and in the second wheel position a distance..." in line 5. Also similarly, claim 20 recites "wherein in the first wheel position a distance..." in lines 17-18 and "and in the second wheel position a distance..." in line 19. Each of these recitations is objected to because each should include a comma between "position" and "a distance..." in claims 7, 17, and 20.
Claims 10 and 14 each recite "a scraper removably coupled to the second end of the support arm and be so disposed..." in line 2. These recitations are objected to because "be so" (or at least "be") should be deleted.
Claim 11 recites "a second end" in line 4, which is previously recited in line 3. Claim 11 should recite "the second end" instead of "a second end" in line 4.
Claim 11 recites "and a second opener selectably pivotably coupled..." in line 6. This recitation is objected to because it fails to recite "assembly" between "opener" and "selectably" which causes numerous other subsequent errors and issues of indefiniteness in the claim language. Claim 11 is being further examined as though it recites "a second opener assembly" in line 6.
Claim 20 recites "and a second opener selectably pivotably coupled..." in line 6. This recitation is objected to because it fails to recite "assembly" between "opener" and "selectably" which causes numerous other subsequent errors and issues of indefiniteness in the claim language. Claim 20 is being further examined as though it recites "a second opener assembly" in line 6.
Appropriate correction is required. Applicant’s cooperation is requested correcting any further errors of which Applicant may become aware in the disclosure.
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 1-20 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.
The claims are replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in carefully reviewing the claims and correcting any further errors or issues of indefiniteness of which Applicant may become aware.
In claim 1, it is unclear if each of the first and second opener assemblies comprises a spring. The word "and" is not recited between "a wheel bracket" and "a wheel" signifying the end of the list of elements comprising each of the first and second opener assemblies. However, "a spring" is not indented as part of the list. Thus, the spring(s) required cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. In light of the specification (e.g., see paras. 0030 and 0042), claim 1 is being further read with "a spring" further indented such that each of the first and second opener assemblies comprises a spring as claimed. Additionally, claims 2-10 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the blade of the respective first and second opener assemblies" in lines 1-2 and 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear if claim 6 is attempting to refer to each or one of the blades of the first and second opener assemblies.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the wheels of respective opener assemblies" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, particularly since "respective opener assemblies" does not necessarily refer to the opener assemblies previously recited.
Claim 7 recites "its corresponding blade" in lines 2-3 and 3. There is no prior singular object for "its" to refer. Thus, the metes and bounds of "its corresponding blade" in claim 7 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 7 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Claim 7 is being further examined as though "wherein the wheels of respective opener assemblies are configured" reads "wherein each respective wheel of the wheels of the respective opener assemblies is configured" in lines 1-2, wherein "its corresponding blade" in lines 2-3 and 3 refers to the respective wheel's corresponding blade.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the blade" in lines 4 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the wheel" in lines 4-5 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the plurality of apertures of the wheel bracket" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites "respective wheels" in lines 1-2 and 4. It is unclear if these recitations are referring only to the respective wheels of the first and second opener assemblies or if these recitations are possibly referring to or introducing other respective wheels. Thus, the metes and bounds of generally "respective wheels" in claim 9 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 9 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the wheel" in lines 2, 3, and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the blade" in lines 3 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites "its corresponding blade" in lines 4-5. It is unclear if "its" is referring to that of "the second wheel position" or is attempting to refer to that of "respective wheels" in line 4. Thus, the metes and bounds of "its corresponding blade" in claim 9 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 9 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 10 recites "respective opener assemblies" in line 1. It is unclear if this is referring to the first and second opener assemblies (i.e., the respective opener assemblies or the opener assemblies) or if this is referring to or introducing respective opener assemblies in general (as would be taken from the claim language which does not recite "the" or "said"). Thus, the metes and bounds of "respective opener assemblies" in claim 10 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 10 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Claim 10 is being further examined as though it recites "the respective opener assemblies" in line 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the second end" in line 2 and "the support arm" in line 2. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 10 recites "its corresponding blade" in line 3. This is interpreted to be a corresponding blade of "a scraper" set forth in line 2. However, since "a scraper" is generally of "the respective opener assemblies" (i.e., "the respective opener assemblies" in combination comprise "a scraper"), it is unclear how a blade (of the blades of the opener assemblies) is necessarily linked to the scraper to be "its corresponding blade" as claimed. Thus, the metes and bounds of "its corresponding blade" in claim 10 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 10 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Claim 10 is being further examined as though "its corresponding blade" reads "a corresponding blade of the blades of the opener assemblies" in line 3.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the blade" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 is being further examined as though "the blade" reads "the corresponding blade" in line 3.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the respective opener assembly" in line 17. The claim does not contain proper antecedent basis for this limitation. Additionally, claims 12-19 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 11.
The term “substantially” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to what degree (i.e., how much of) the blade and wheel of each opener assembly must be positioned within the respective offset region to be "substantially within the respective offset region."
Claim 14 recites "respective opener assemblies" in line 1. It is unclear if this is referring to the first and second opener assemblies (i.e., the respective opener assemblies or the opener assemblies) or if this is referring to or introducing respective opener assemblies in general (as would be taken from the claim language which does not recite "the" or "said"). Thus, the metes and bounds of "respective opener assemblies" in claim 14 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 14 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Claim 14 is being further examined as though it recites "the respective opener assemblies" in line 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the second end" in line 2 and "the support arm" in line 2. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 14 recites "its corresponding blade" in line 3. This is interpreted to be a corresponding blade of "a scraper" set forth in line 2. However, since "a scraper" is generally of "the respective opener assemblies" (i.e., "the respective opener assemblies" in combination comprise "a scraper"), it is unclear how a blade (of the blades of the opener assemblies) is necessarily linked to the scraper to be "its corresponding blade" as claimed. Thus, the metes and bounds of "its corresponding blade" in claim 14 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 14 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Claim 14 is being further examined as though "its corresponding blade" reads "a corresponding blade of the blades of the opener assemblies" in line 3.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the blade" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 is being further examined as though "the blade" reads "the corresponding blade" in line 3.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the wheels of respective opener assemblies" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, particularly since "respective opener assemblies" does not necessarily refer to the opener assemblies previously recited.
Claim 17 recites "its corresponding blade" in lines 2-3 and 3. There is no prior singular object for "its" to refer. Thus, the metes and bounds of "its corresponding blade" in claim 17 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 17 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Claim 17 is being further examined as though "wherein the wheels of respective opener assemblies are configured" reads "wherein each respective wheel of the wheels of the respective opener assemblies is configured" in lines 1-2, wherein "its corresponding blade" in lines 2-3 and 3 refers to the respective wheel's corresponding blade.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the blade" in lines 4 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the wheel" in lines 4-5 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the plurality of apertures of the wheel bracket" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites "respective wheels" in lines 1-2 and 4. It is unclear if these recitations are referring only to the respective wheels of the first and second opener assemblies or if these recitations are possibly referring to or introducing other respective wheels. Thus, the metes and bounds of generally "respective wheels" in claim 19 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 19 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the wheel" in lines 2, 3, and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the blade" in lines 3 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites "its corresponding blade" in lines 4-5. It is unclear if "its" is referring to that of "the second wheel position" or is attempting to refer to that of "respective wheels" in line 4. Thus, the metes and bounds of "its corresponding blade" in claim 9 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 9 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 20 recites "the dual fertilizer opener is implemented before a seed opener," in lines 3-4. Claim 20 also recites "wherein the planting implement provides a downforce substantially to the dual fertilizer opener and through the blade of each opener assembly," in lines 24-25. It is unclear how, or even if, these recitations limit the structure of the dual fertilizer opener. Neither "a seed opener" nor "a planting implement" are elements of the claimed dual fertilizer opener. These recitations appear to be directed towards a combination of the dual fertilizer opener with or in a planting implement having a seed opener. As such, the metes and bounds of the structure of the claimed dual fertilizer opener with respect to these recitations in claim 20 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 20 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the respective opener assembly" in line 23. The claim does not contain proper antecedent basis for this limitation.
The term “substantially” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to what degree or in what manner the planting implement must provide a downforce to the dual fertilizer opener and through the blade of each opener assembly in order to provide "a downforce substantially to the dual fertilizer opener and through the blade of each opener assembly," as claimed. (Emphasis added.)
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 1-5 and 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberge et al. (US 2017/0318736) in view of Schilling (US 2012/0272879).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Roberge discloses a dual fertilizer opener (see Figs. 3A-3E) movable in a working direction (such as 16) for opening a trench in soil, comprising:
a frame support (including 102, 106, 135, and 136) having a first end (including 102 and/or 106) and a second end, the first end coupled to a frame of a planting implement (see para. 0026), and the second end (including 135 and 136) having a first side (including or of 135) and a second side (including or of 136); and
a first opener assembly (including 112, 114, 116, and 118) selectably pivotably coupled to the first side (112 being pivotably coupled to 135) of the second end of the frame support and a second opener assembly (including 144, 150, 152, and 154) selectably pivotably coupled to the second side (144 being pivotably coupled to 136) of the second end of the frame support, each of the first and second opener assemblies being configured to pivot independently (via relative connections to or of the frame support) from the other and comprising:
a support arm (including 112, and including 144) having a first end selectably, pivotably engaged with the frame support and a second end engaged with an axle (at or along which 114 and 150 are respectively coupled);
a blade (including 114, and including 150) selectably coupled to the axle and configured to rotate about the axle (see paras. 0026-0028);
a wheel bracket (including 118, and including 154) selectably coupled to the axle at a first aperture (coupled about the center axles of 114 and 150 as shown in Figs. 3B and 3C);
a wheel (including 116, and including 152) selectably coupled (via 118, and via 154) to the wheel bracket and configured to rotate about an axis; and
a spring (including 108 and/or including 134) selectably, pivotably coupled to the frame support and configured to provide a downforce to the respective opener assemblies (see paras. 0026-0027), resulting in additional downforce application to the opener assemblies in conjunction with a downforce applied by the planting implement (when used with a planting implement in a lowered position);
wherein the first opener assembly is coupled to the second end of the frame support such that the first opener assembly is offset from the second opener assembly along the frame support in the working direction (see Figs. 3B-3D).
Roberge does not explicitly disclose the wheel bracket and wheel being coupled at a second aperture of the wheel bracket as claimed. However, Schilling teaches an opener assembly for a planting implement, comprising:
a support arm (including or of 30) having a first end selectably pivotably engaged with a frame support (including 28) and a second end (including 56) engaged with an axle (including 54);
a blade (22) selectably coupled to the axle and configured to rotate about the axle;
a wheel bracket (including 46 and 82) comprising a plurality of apertures (including 98 and those within 84 and 90) and selectably coupled to the axle at a first aperture (including 98 and/or that within 84) of the plurality of apertures; and
a wheel (34) selectably coupled to the wheel bracket at a second aperture (34 being mounted to 82 by a bolt 94 therein) of the plurality of apertures and configured to rotate about an axis of the second aperture (see para. 0025).
Schilling is analogous because Schilling discloses an opening assembly for a planting implement, comprising a support arm, a blade, a wheel bracket, and a wheel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the opener of Roberge with wheel bracket and respective coupling means as taught by Schilling in order to set the penetration depth as desired and to facilitate a quick and correct coupling. (See Schilling, paras. 0022 and 0024.)
Regarding claim 2, Roberge discloses the first opener assembly (including 112, 114, 116, and 118) being configured to pivot independently (via relative connections to or of the frame support) from the second opener assembly (including 144, 150, 152, and 154).
Regarding claim 3, Roberge discloses the first opener assembly (including 112, 114, 116, and 118) and second opener assembly (including 144, 150, 152, and 154) are configured to pivot between a first position and a second position, wherein the first position comprises a lower position than the first position (as the assemblies are configured to pivot about horizontal axes as shown, and the assemblies are forced downward by respective springs).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Roberge discloses the first opener assembly and second opener assembly being configured to be convertible between at least a first lateral position from the frame support and a second lateral position from the frame support along an axis (94) orthogonal to the working direction, the second lateral position being further (increasing 76) from the frame support (including 102 shown in Fig. 3E) than the first lateral position (when adjusted as described in para. 0033).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Roberge discloses one or more spacers (142) configured to effectuate the conversion of the first opener assembly and second opener assembly from the first lateral position to the second lateral position (see para. 0033).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Roberge discloses each respective wheel (including 116, and including 152) of the wheels of the respective opener assemblies being configured to be convertible (via 118, and via 154) between a first wheel position in relation to its corresponding blade and a second wheel position in relation to its corresponding blade (see paras. 0026-0028), wherein in the first wheel position, a distance between a bottom edge of the corresponding blade and a bottom edge of the respective wheel comprises a first distance, and in the second wheel position, a distance between the bottom edge of the corresponding blade and the bottom edge of the respective wheel comprises a second distance, the first distance being greater than the second distance (when respective first and second positions set by 118 and 154 are selected such that the first distance is greater than the second distance). Additionally, Schilling teaches the wheel (34) of the opener assembly being configured to be convertible between a first wheel position in relation to its corresponding blade (22) and a second wheel position in relation to its corresponding blade, wherein in the first wheel position, a distance between a bottom edge of the corresponding blade and a bottom edge of the wheel comprises a first distance, and in the second wheel position, a distance between the bottom edge of the corresponding blade and the bottom edge of the wheel comprises a second distance, the first distance being greater than the second distance (see para. 0022).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, in view of the modification made in relation to claims 7 and 17, Schilling teaches the plurality of apertures (including 98 and those within 84 and 90) of the wheel bracket (including 46 and 82) being configured to effectuate the conversion of the wheel between the first wheel position and the second wheel position (as the wheel bracket, and thus its apertures, effectuates the conversion).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, in view of the modification made in relation to claims 8 and 18, Schilling teaches the first wheel position being configured to position the wheel (34) in relation to its corresponding blade (22) such that the bottom edge of the corresponding blade extends at least three inches from the bottom edge of the wheel (notches 50 allowing for such positioning as described in para. 0022, wherein "at least three inches" is included between 3.2 mm and 87 mm), and the second wheel position being configured to position the wheel (34) in relation to its corresponding blade (22) such that such that the bottom edge of the corresponding blade extends 1.5 to 3 inches from the bottom edge of the wheel (notches 50 allowing for such positioning as described in para. 0022, wherein "1.5 to 3 inches" is included between 3.2 mm and 87 mm).
Regarding claims 10 and 14, Roberge discloses the respective opener assemblies further comprising a scraper (including 122 and/or 158) removably coupled to a respective second end of a respective support arm of the support arms of the opener assemblies, and wherein the scraper is disposed to scrape residue from a corresponding blade (including 114, and/or including 150) of the blades of the opener assemblies as the corresponding blade rotates through soil.
Regarding claim 12, Roberge discloses the support arm (including 112) of the first opener assembly comprising a jog bend such that the second end (of 112 at the center of 114) of the support arm is offset from the first end (of 112 at or on 135) of the support arm along an axis perpendicular to the working direction toward the second opener assembly (see Fig. 3D, wherein 112 extends upward), and Roberge discloses the support arm (including 144) of the second opener assembly comprising a jog bend such that the second end (of 144 at the center of 150) of the support arm is offset from the first end (of 144 at or on 136) of the support arm along an axis perpendicular to the working direction toward the first opener assembly (see Figs. 3A and 3D).
Regarding claim 13, Roberge discloses the jog bend of each support arm (including 112, and including 144) defining an offset region proximate the second end of the support arm, wherein the blade (including 114, and including 150) and wheel (including 116, and including 152) of each opener assembly are configured to be positioned substantially within the respective offset region (see Fig. 3D).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberge in view of Schilling as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Yetter (non-patent literature from YETTER FARM EQUIPMENT for "2968 Row-Unit Mount In-Between Dual Wheel Fertilizer Opener").
Regarding claim 6, Roberge and Schilling disclose the fertilizer opener with respect to claim 5, as set forth above. Further, Roberge discloses the fertilizer opener being laterally adjustable (see para. 0033), and Roberge also discloses lateral positions "may be any suitable value less than or equal to 10 inches," in para. 0024. Neither Roberge nor Schilling explicitly discloses the first lateral position disposing a respective blade of the blades of the respective first and second opener assemblies at two inches from a center seed placement, and the second lateral position disposing the respective blade at three inches from a center seed placement. Yetter teaches a dual fertilizer opener with placement locations 2" or 3" off the row. (See "Features" in Yetter.)
Yetter is analogous because Yetter discloses a dual fertilizer opener for a planting implement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with placement means as taught by Yetter for placement to ensure plants have fertilizer wherever and whenever needed. (See "OVERVIEW" in Yetter.)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberge in view of Schilling and further in view of Wendling et al. (US 6,347,594)
Regarding claim 20, Roberge and Schilling disclose the limitations of the dual fertilizer opener in claim 20 as set forth with respect to claims 11 and 17, above. Additionally, the combination of Roberge and Schilling is capable of being used with a planting implement that provides a downforce substantially to the dual fertilizer opener and through the blade of each opener assembly (as weight of the planting implement is transferred through respective elements thereof when the planting implement is in a lowered position). Neither Roberge nor Schilling explicitly discloses the dual fertilizer opener being implemented before a seed opener. However, the above combination is capable of being used with a planting implement at least in a manner wherein the planting implement has rows, and the dual fertilizer implement is implemented in a fore row before a seed opener in an aft row. Wendling teaches a planting implement having such rows (see Fig. 14).
Wendling is analogous because Wendling discloses a planting implement, a frame support, and an opener assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with row means as taught by Wendling for advantageous staggered spacing and to prevent trash from one opener impinging directly on another opener. (See Wendling, col. 7, lines 45-63.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. In particular, Whalen et al. (US 5,887,664) teaches an opener assembly for a fertilizing, comprising a blade (12) selectably coupled to an axle (including 18) and configured to rotate about the axle, a triangular wheel bracket (including 30) comprising a plurality of apertures (including 32A-32E) and selectably coupled to the axle at a first aperture of the plurality of apertures, and a wheel (14) selectably coupled (via 20 and 42) to the wheel bracket at a second aperture of the plurality of apertures and configured to rotate about an axis of the second aperture (as 14 rotates about 42 within the second aperture).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joel F. Mitchell whose telephone number is (571)272-7689. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00.
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, Christopher 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.
/JFM/5/2/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights