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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments dated 3/19/26 have been entered.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the first motor's speed is not independently adjusted based on travel speed of that seed meter”, “controlling the first motor's driveshaft speed as a reference point for coordinating driveshaft angular offset between the two motors”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
It is noted that the adjustment rotational speed of the driveshaft of the first motor based on a travel speed of the first seed meter is taught, as discussed in the rejection below. But, the examiner noted that applicant’s intention to differentiate from the intended operation of Steffen. However the claim permits any adjustment to rotational speed of the driveshaft of the first motor “based on” a travel speed of the first seed meter. As discussed in Para 0041, there is a change in the row units 410 or 420 (“momentarily speeding up one of the seed dispensers”). This is accomplished by adjustment of the drive shaft, as discussed in its following paragraphs 0042-0043 and the subsequent examples. The initial speed before any change necessarily results in the adjustment being “based on” that initial speed. The claim requires no additional determinations or calculations.
It is additionally noted that the arguments concerning use of the first motor's driveshaft speed as a reference point for coordinating driveshaft angular offset between the two motors” is not present in the claim. The adjustment(s) made in step (a) are never again referenced in the claim or required to be used, let alone used “as a reference point for coordinating driveshaft angular offset between the two motors”. Such a recitation would likely be highly productive to advance prosecution.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffen (US 20150134210 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Steffen teaches a method of operating a twin-row metering system (title) comprising a first seed meter and a second seed meter, wherein the first seed meter includes a first motor with a driveshaft and a seed disc operably coupled with the first motor via the driveshaft, and wherein the second seed meter includes a second motor with a driveshaft and a seed disc operably coupled with the second motor via the driveshaft (Para 0034, “an electric motor drives the disc drive shaft and the speed of the seed disc”; see also Para 0033, “two twin row seed dispensing units 310 and 330”), said method comprising the steps of:
(a) adjusting a rotational speed of the driveshaft of the first motor (Para 0036-0038, Fig 6-7, both rows 410/420 are adjustable) based on a travel speed of the first seed meter (Para 0041. Additionally note that any adjustment to speed is “based on” the initial travel speed and see discussion in the response to arguments, not again repeated);
(b) measuring a position of the driveshaft of the first motor (Para 0034, Fig 5B-5C, see also Paras 0009);
(c) measuring a position of the driveshaft of the second motor (Para 0034, Fig 5B-5C, see also Paras 0009);
(d) determining an angular offset between the position of the driveshaft of the first motor and a position of the driveshaft of the second motor (Para 0034, Fig 5B-5C).
(e) adjusting a rotational speed of the driveshaft of the second motor based on the angular offset determined in step (d) (Para 0034, “various motor shaft position corrections to achieve or maintain the desired seed spacing”, Para 0038, “synchronizing the angular positions of the two seed dispensing discs in the selected two rows there would provide the proper phase difference between the seed discs of adjacent rows for proper staggered spacing”).
Regarding claim 2, Steffen teaches wherein said measuring of step (b) includes recording a time at which the position of the driveshaft of the first motor is measured, and wherein said measuring of step (c) includes recording a time at which the position of the driveshaft of the second motor is measured (Fig 5C, see at least X axis).
Regarding claim 3, Steffen teaches the step of transmitting the position of the driveshaft of the first motor, as measured in step (b), to the second motor (Para 0034, Fig 5C).
Regarding claim 4, Steffen teaches wherein the twin-row metering system includes a row control unit communicably coupled with each of the first seed meter and the second seed meter via a CAN bus, and wherein the position of the driveshaft of the first motor is transmitted from the first motor, to the control unit, and to the second motor (Para 0028, “the row unit seed sensors, motors, and other accessories by way of a CAN BUS”).
Regarding claim 5, Steffen teaches wherein the first motor and the second motor each comprises an electric motor (Para 0034, “an electric motor”).
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.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffen (US 20150134210 A1), in view of Stauber (US 20180184578 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Steffen is silent on wherein the first motor and the second motor each comprises a processing element and a memory element.
Stauber teaches each motor comprises a processing element and a memory element (Fig 3, 6A, Para 0043-0044, associated with drive motor 578; see also Fig 10A-10B; associated module 200/300).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Steffen by having the drive motor module 200/300 associated with each motor as disclosed by Stauber because it provides “for effective control and monitoring” of agricultural systems such as that discussed by Steffen (Para 0001).
Regarding claim 7, Steffen as modified teaches wherein the memory element of the second motor is configured to store computer-readable instructions to perform said determining of step (d) and said adjusting of step (e) (Fig 3, Para 0043, memory 306; Fig 2, memory 214).
Regarding claim 8, Steffen as modified teaches wherein the memory element of the second motor stores information indicative of a row spacing and a seed population of the twin-row metering system (Para 0087, “a GPS associated with the seed event, seed count, or seeding rate to memory for mapping, display and data storage.” Para 0102, data communication may exist with the variety of modules and consequently associated memory. Note the breadth of “indicative”).
Regarding claim 9, Steffen is silent on wherein the first motor and the second motor each comprises an encoder configured to determine a current position of the respective driveshaft.
Stauber teaches wherein the first motor and the second motor each comprises an encoder configured to determine a current position of the respective driveshaft (Fig 3, Para 0072, encoder 576).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Steffen by having the drive motor module 200/300 associated with each motor, and as a consequence, also including the encoder and its accompanying information as disclosed by Stauber because it provides “for effective control and monitoring” of agricultural systems such as that discussed by Steffen (Para 0001).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE N YAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8745. The examiner can normally be reached typically 8am-4pm ET.
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, TARA SCHIMPF can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/THEODORE N YAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights