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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because includes the implied phrase “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). Suggested language is: --A planting device for placing planting material in the ground includes…-- in lines 1-2.
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.
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 Williames 5,676,072 in view of Roths 3,719,158.
Independent Claim 1: Williames discloses a planting device (Fig. 22) for placing planting material (107) in the ground, comprising:
a frame (10) movable in a direction of travel,
feeders (56, 57, 85) for delivering the planting material to be planted, and, fitted to the frame,
rotatable planters (86) provided for gripping the supplied planting material and bringing it into the ground,
wherein the feeders comprise first (56, 57) and second (85) feeders that extend, respectively, in a horizontal plane and towards the ground (as seen in Fig. 22), wherein the second feeders are configured to transport the planting material supplied by the first feeders to the rotatable planters (as seen in Fig. 22), as per claim 1.
However, Williames fails to disclose wherein the first and second feeders are movable relative to each other, for adjusting the planting depth of the planting material,
wherein the first feeders deliver the planting material to be planted in a first feed direction, and
wherein the position of the first feeders relative to the second feeders is movable horizontally in a direction transverse to the first feed direction, so that the planting depth of the planting material is adjustable, as per claim 1.
Roths discloses a similar planting device wherein the first (J) and second (H) feeders are movable relative to each other (as described in col. 4, lns. 52-55, first feeder J is vertically movable relative to second feeder H to provide the depth desired to plant the transplants D in the ground), for adjusting the planting depth of the planting material (D),
wherein the first feeders (J) deliver the planting material to be planted in a first feed direction (as seen in Fig. 3, horizontally and to the left), and
wherein the position of the first feeders relative to the second feeders is movable in a direction transverse to the first feed direction (vertical adjustment is transverse to the horizontal feed direction), so that the planting depth of the planting material is adjustable (col. 4, lns. 52-55), as per claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the adjustable first feeder in a transverse direction to the feed direction as taught by Roths on the planting device of Williames in order to provide relative movement between the first and second feeders for the purpose of changing a depth at which the planting material is planted into the ground.
Dependent Claims 2-5: Williames further discloses wherein the first feeders (56, 57, see Fig. 12e) comprise at least one first conveyor belt (col. 6, lns. 59), as per claim 2;
Wherein the second feeders (85) comprise two clamping bands (89) extending towards the ground (see Fig. 22), between which the planting material (107) supplied by the first feeders is transported in the direction of the planters (86), as per claim 3;
One or more drill coulters (108) for making one or more furrows, and wherein the planting device is configured to bring the planting material (107) into the one or more furrows (as seen in Fig. 22), wherein the planting device further comprises one or more pressure rolls or pressure wheels (109) for closing up the one or more furrows again after the planting material has been applied in the one or more furrows (as seen in Fig. 22), as per claim 4;
Wherein the second feeders (85) comprise two clamping bands (as seen in Figs. 17-18a, two clamping bands fromed of belts 89 wrap around pulley sets 87, 88, 90, 91), and wherein the movement of the position of the first feeder (56, 57) relative to the second feeders horizontally in the direction transverse (the direction into and out of the page as seen in Fig. 17’s top view) to the first feed direction (the horizontal left to right direction of 56 as seen in Fig. 17’s top view) changes a position of entry of the planting material between the two clamping bands (when combined with Roths’ teaching for such feeder adjustment of a planting depth), as per claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that secondary reference Roths’ element H is a planting head/transplanter head, not the claimed “second feeder”. However, it is first noted that primary reference Williames discloses the claimed first (56, 57) and second (85) feeders. It is only the relative adjustability between the first and second feeders of Roths for adjustment of a planting depth that is taken from secondary reference Roths. Any other details of Roths are moot to the rejection.
Furthermore, whether or not Roths’ element H inserts planting material into the ground, it is still a feeder in the sense that it carries or feeds the material D from a first feeder toward the ground for planting, just like the second feeder of Williames.
In response to applicant's argument that Roths relative adjustment between the first and second feeders is in a vertical direction and not horizontally, as claimed, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, the takeaway from Roths is that, in order to adjust a planting depth of the planting material, as seen in Fig. 3 Roths’ first (J) and second (H) feeders are movable relative to each other in a direction that is transverse (they move relative to each other in a vertical direction) to the first feed direction (the horizontal feed direction of J), as claimed. One of ordinary skill would know how to apply this teaching to machines like that of Williames to obtain a similar planting depth adjustment. As seen in Williames’ Fig. 22, in order to obtain the same adjustment of planting depth taught by Roths, one of ordinary skill would deduce that Williames’ first (56, 57) and second (85) feeders would need to move horizontally relative to each other in a direction in and out of the page of Fig. 22 (which is transverse to the left-to-right direction in the page of the first feeder (85)). One of ordinary skill that changing a vertical height between Williames’ first and second feeders would not obtain the same depth adjustment taught by secondary reference Roths.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Alicia M. Torres whose telephone number is 571-272-6997. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-6997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph M. Rocca, can be reached at (571) 272-8971.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the group receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-3600. The fax number for this Group is 571-273-8300.
/Alicia Torres/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 April 7, 2026