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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an alignment feature configured to engage” in claims 1 and 11, “a corresponding alignment feature” in claims 1, 11 and 16, and “an alignment feature” in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, 15-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al. (US 2017/0006769).
As concerns claim 1, Anderson shows an adapter assembly (112) for a hopper (74) of an agricultural row unit (16), comprising: an adapter (116, 118) configured to be disposed at least partially about (arranged in the vicinity or arranged near) an outlet (110, 114) of the hopper (Fig. 4), wherein the adapter is movable (prior to being coupled to flange 114 via fasteners 132) along the outlet of the hopper to a vertical position (Fig. 4) to establish vertical alignment between an outlet of an agricultural product meter (78) and an inlet of an agricultural product conveying system (seed tube [not shown]; paragraph 0024), the adapter is configured to be coupled (via fasteners 132) to the hopper at the vertical position along the outlet of the hopper (Fig. 4; paragraph 0034), the adapter comprises an alignment feature (136) configured to engage a corresponding alignment feature (inlet opening) of a mounting component (78) to position the mounting component relative to the outlet of the hopper with respect to a longitudinal axis and a lateral axis (Fig. 4-7; paragraph 0033); wherein the mounting component comprises the agricultural product meter (78).
As concerns claim 2, Anderson shows wherein the adapter (116, 118) has three legs (3 of 4 sides) configured to be positioned outwardly (larger dimensions) from three respective outer surfaces (lower portion of product passage 110) of the outlet of the hopper (Fig. 4, 6 & 7).
As concerns claims 3 and 20, Anderson shows wherein a top surface (146) of the adapter is angled downwardly to direct water away from the agricultural product meter (paragraph 0034).
As concerns claims 4 and 12, Anderson shows a seal (material-to-material seal) configured to be disposed between the adapter (116) and the outlet (114) of the hopper to block water flow through an interface between the adapter and the hopper (Fig. 4; paragraph 0035).
As concerns claims 6 and 13, Anderson shows a plurality of fasteners (132) configured to extend through a plurality of openings (openings in outlet portion 118 for fasteners 132) within the adapter to couple the adapter to the hopper (Fig. 4).
As concerns claims 8 and 19, Anderson shows wherein the adapter is configured to couple (via connection points 80 [groove 98 & latch 104]) to the mounting component (Fig. 2 & 3).
As concerns claim 9, Anderson shows wherein the adapter comprises an opening (openings in outlet portion 118 for fasteners 132) configured to receive a fastener (132).
As concerns claims 10 and 15, Anderson shows wherein the adapter comprises a shield (146) configured to block an opening in the agricultural product meter (paragraph 0034).
As concerns claim 11, Anderson shows an agricultural row unit (16), comprising: an agricultural product meter (78) having an outlet (paragraph 0024); a hopper (74) having an outlet (110, 114); and an adapter assembly (112), comprising: an adapter (116, 118) disposed at least partially about (arranged in the vicinity or arranged near) the outlet of the hopper (Fig. 4), wherein the adapter is movable (prior to being coupled to flange 114 via fasteners 132) along the outlet of the hopper to a vertical position (Fig. 4) to establish vertical alignment between the outlet of the agricultural product meter (78) and an inlet of an agricultural product conveying system (seed tube [not shown]; paragraph 0024), the adapter is configured to be coupled (via fasteners 132) to the hopper at the vertical position along the outlet of the hopper (Fig. 4; paragraph 0034), the adapter comprises an alignment feature (136) configured to engage a corresponding alignment feature (inlet opening) of a mounting component (78) to position the mounting component relative to the outlet of the hopper with respect to a longitudinal axis and a lateral axis (Fig. 4-7; paragraph 0033); wherein the mounting component comprises the agricultural product meter (78).
As concerns claim 16, Anderson shows a method of manufacturing an agricultural row unit (16), comprising: selecting a vertical position (Fig. 4) of an adapter (116, 118) along an outlet (110, 114) of a hopper (74) to establish vertical alignment between an outlet of an agricultural product meter (78) and an inlet of an agricultural product conveying system (seed tube [not shown]; paragraph 0024); disposing the adapter (116, 118) at least partially about (arranged in the vicinity or arranged near) the outlet (110, 114) of the hopper (Fig. 4); coupling (via fasteners 132) the adapter to the hopper at the vertical position along the outlet of the hopper (Fig. 4; paragraph 0034); and engaging an alignment feature (136) of the adapter with a corresponding alignment feature (inlet opening) of a mounting component (78) to position the mounting component relative to the outlet of the hopper with respect to a longitudinal axis and a lateral axis (Fig. 4-7; paragraph 0033), wherein the mounting component comprises the agricultural product meter (78).
As concerns claim 17, Anderson shows wherein selecting the vertical position of the adapter comprises forming a plurality of openings (openings in flange 114 for fasteners 132) in the outlet of the hopper, and coupling the adapter to the hopper comprises disposing a plurality of fasteners (132) through the openings (Fig. 4).
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 5, 7, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. alone.
As concerns claim 5, Anderson discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the seal is angled downwardly to direct water away from the agricultural product meter. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have formed the adapter and the outlet of the hopper such that the seal disposed between the adapter and the outlet is angled downwardly to direct water away from the agricultural product meter, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose other than being an alternative to forming the adapter and the outlet of the hopper such that the seal disposed between the adapter and the outlet is not angled downwardly. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the invention to perform equally well with a seal disposed between the adapter and the outlet that is not angled downwardly because the water would still have been capable of being directed away from the agricultural product meter. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that forming the adapter and the outlet of the hopper such that the seal disposed between the adapter and the outlet is angled downwardly to direct water away from the agricultural product meter would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Anderson to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claims 7, 14 and 18, Anderson shows wherein the alignment feature of the adapter comprises a protrusion (136) configured to be received in a recess (inlet opening) of the corresponding alignment feature of the mounting component. Anderson discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the alignment feature of the adapter comprises a recess configured to receive a protrusion of the corresponding alignment feature of the mounting component. It has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the alignment feature of the adapter as a recess configured to receive a protrusion of the corresponding alignment feature of the mounting component for the expected benefit of positioning the mounting component relative to the outlet of the hopper. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that forming the alignment feature of the adapter as a recess configured to receive a protrusion of the corresponding alignment feature of the mounting component would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Anderson to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rollenhagen (US 2014/0224843) shows an adapter assembly for a hopper (80) of an agricultural row unit (10), comprising: an adapter (21) configured to be disposed at least partially about (arranged in the vicinity or arranged near) an outlet (83) of the hopper, wherein the adapter is movable along the outlet of the hopper to a vertical position to establish vertical alignment between an outlet of an agricultural product meter (20) and an inlet of an agricultural product conveying system (seed tube), the adapter is configured to be coupled (via fasteners) to the hopper at the vertical position along the outlet of the hopper, the adapter comprises an alignment feature (31) configured to engage a corresponding alignment feature (paragraph 0030) of a mounting component (20) to position the mounting component relative to the outlet of the hopper with respect to a longitudinal axis and a lateral axis; wherein the mounting component comprises the agricultural product meter (20).
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 3672