DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09 September 2026 has been entered.
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 .
Previously Allowed Claims
The indicated allowability of CLAIMS 10-14 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Funck (WO 2013/186175 A1) and Haselhoff (US 2017/0156255 A1). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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 10-14 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.
CLAIM 10 recites the limitation "the seed disk housing" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to use terminology for claimed elements in a consistent manner. For the purpose of prosecution on the merits, the examiner has considered “the seed disk housing” to refer to “the singulating meter housing” that is previously recited on line 3 of the claim.
CLAIM 11 is rejected and treated the same as CLAIM 10.
CLAIMS 12-14 are rejected because they depend from CLAIM 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
CLAIMS 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haselhoff (US 2017/0156255 A1).
CLAIM 1 Haselhoff ‘255 (“Haselhoff”) discloses a seed disk (18) mountable within a housing (10) of a meter (12), the seed disk comprising:
a first side (Fig. 6);
a second side opposite the first side (Fig. 12), a thickness of a disk portion of the seed disk being defined between the first side and the second side;
a central mounting point defining a center of rotation for the seed disk; and
a volumetric metering element (32) extending from the first side of the seed disk, away from the second side, the volumetric metering element configured to entrain a plurality of seeds;
CLAIM 2 wherein the volumetric metering element (32) defines a bucket extending outward from the first side of the seed disk (Fig. 6) at a location between the center of rotation and a perimeter of the seed disk (18), and wherein the bucket is configured to entrain the plurality of seeds;
CLAIM 3 wherein the bucket is a first bucket of a plurality of buckets, wherein each bucket of the plurality of buckets is equally spaced about the central mounting point of the seed disk (18)(Fig. 6);
CLAIM 4 wherein the volumetric metering element (32) defines a paddle, and wherein the paddle is configured to entrain the plurality of seeds ([0042]); and
CLAIM 5 wherein the paddle is a first paddle of a plurality of paddles (Fig. 6) extending outward from the first side of the seed disk (18) at a location between the center of rotation and a perimeter of the seed disk, wherein each paddle of the plurality of paddles is equally spaced about the central mounting point of the seed disk.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
CLAIMS 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haselhoff (US 2017/0156255 A1) in view of Funck (WO 2013/186175 A1).
CLAIM 8 The seed meter (12) of Hasselhoff further comprises a housing (10) positioned about the seed disk (18).
Haselhoff fails to teach expressly a rotational mount; however, the prior art reference teaches directly use of the seed disk (18) in combination with the housing (14) of Funck (Haselhoff, [0011]), which includes a rotational mount rotatably coupled to the housing, wherein the rotational mount extends into the central mounting point such that a seed disk will rotate relative to the housing.1 It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have provided the seed meter with a rotational mount rotatably coupled to the housing, as suggested by Funck. The motivation for making the modification would have been to provide known means for driving the seed disk with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 9 In the prior art combination, Funck teaches placement of the seed disk such that it separates the housing into a seed side and a non-seed side (Funck, Figs. 3c, 9e, 9f), wherein the first side of the seed disk faces the seed side of the housing such that the volumetric metering element is configured to entrain a predetermined quantity of seeds from the seed side of the housing.
CLAIMS 10-16 AND 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funck (WO 2013/186175 A1) in view of Haselhoff (US 2017/0156255 A1).
CLAIM 10 Funck ‘175 (“Funck”) shows a seed metering device (10) that comprises a housing (14) and discloses a method of using the same, comprising the steps of:
accessing a first disk (26; Figs. 13c, 13d) from a singulating meter housing (14), the first disk being a singulating disk; and
removing the first disk (26; Figs. 13c, 13d) from within the seed disk housing (14).
Funck discloses an embodiment of a seed disk (Funck, 22, 26), which includes buckets formed between upstanding walls/paddles (Funck, Fig. 16), but the prior art fails to teach expressly the use of a volumetric metering disk. Haselhoff ‘255 (“Haselhoff”) discloses a volumetric meter disk (Haselhoff, 18; Figs. 5, 6, 10; [0009], [0011]) and further teaches its use in combination with the housing (Funck, 14) disclosed by Funck (Haselhoff, [0011]). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the prior art method (Funck, generally) with the addition of the step of inserting a volumetric metering disk (Haselhoff, 18) after the step of removing, as suggested by Haselhoff. The motivation for making the modification would have been to allow for the handling of a high grain volume (Haselhoff, [0009]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 11 In the prior art combination, Funck discloses a rotational mount.2
CLAIM 12 In the prior art combination, the seed metering device (Funck, 10) is operated in a volumetric metering mode, wherein a plurality of buckets (Haselhoff, Figs. 5, 6 and 10, between the upstanding walls/paddles 32) of the volumetric metering disk (Haselhoff, 18) entrain the plurality of seeds to carry the plurality of seeds to an outlet conduit.
CLAIM 13 In the prior art combination, the seed metering device (Funck, 10) is operated in a volumetric metering mode, wherein a plurality of paddles (Haselhoff, 32) of the volumetric metering disk (Haselhoff, 18) entrain the plurality of seeds to move the plurality of seeds to an outlet conduit (“entrainment shoulder” [0041]).
CLAIM 14 In the prior art combination, the seed metering device (Funck, 10) 1is operated in a singulating mode, wherein a plurality of openings (Funck, 29) in the singulating disk (Funck, 26) each entrain a seed of the plurality of seeds to move the plurality of seeds to an outlet conduit (Funck, Fig. 13d).
CLAIMS 15-16 All of the elements of the claimed interchangeable metering assembly are taught by the combination of Funck and Haselhoff.
CLAIM 20 In the prior art combination, Funck teaches a motor configured to actuate the singulating meter element in the first mode of operation and configured to actuate the volumetric meter element in the second mode of operation.3
Allowable Subject Matter
CLAIMS 6, 7 AND 17-19 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.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 09 September 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of CLAIMS 1-5, 8, 9, 15 AND 16 under §102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Funck (WO 2013/186175 A1) and Haselhoff (US 2017/0156255 A1).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 09 September 2026 with respect to CLAIMS 6, 17 AND 19, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
CLAIM 20 depends from CLAIM 15 and is addressed the combination of Funck and Haselhoff.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Christine M. Mills can be reached at (571)272-8322. 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
26 September 2026
1 See p. 7/98 in the attached machine translation, wherein Funck describes a “central shaft” for rotation of a seed disk.
2 See p. 7/98 in the attached machine translation, wherein Funck describes a “central shaft” for rotation of a seed disk.
3 Funck teaches use of a motor for driving seed disks. For example, on p. 5/98 in the attached machine translation, Funck discloses “The drive of the conveying element or the conveyor can be done both electric motor, hydraulic, pneumatic or by the flow itself. The return of the excess grains can also be done pneumatically or mechanically.”
