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 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.
Claim 20 is 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.
In claim 20, the scope of the claimed invention is rendered indefinite by the limitation “a motor programmed to actuate the singulating meter element” because a motor is not inherently programmable and no means for programming are recited.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 9 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Landphair et al. (US 2009/0050035 A1).
Landphair et al. ‘035 (“Landphair”) discloses a seed disk mountable within a housing of a singulating meter, the seed disk (14) comprising:
CLAIM 1 a first side (32);
a second side (30) opposite the first side;
a central mounting point (the center) defining a center of rotation for the seed disk; and
a volumetric metering element (26) extending from the first side of the seed disk, the volumetric metering element configured to entrain a plurality of seeds;
CLAIM 2 wherein the volumetric metering element (26) defines a bucket (61), and wherein the bucket is configured to entrain the plurality of seeds;
CLAIM 3 wherein the bucket (61) is a first bucket of a plurality of buckets (Fig. 5), wherein each bucket of the plurality of buckets is equally spaced about the central mounting point of the seed disk;
CLAIM 4 wherein the volumetric metering element (26) defines a paddle (63), and wherein the paddle is configured to entrain the plurality of seeds;
CLAIM 5 wherein the paddle (63) is a first paddle of a plurality of paddles (Fig. 5), wherein each paddle of the plurality of paddles is equally spaced about the central mounting point of the seed disk;
CLAIM 6 wherein the paddle (63) extends perpendicularly from the first side of the seed disk to a ring (91) oriented coaxial with the seed disk;
CLAIM 8 the meter further comprising a housing (12) positioned about the seed disk and a rotational mount (87) rotatably coupled to the housing, wherein the rotational mount extends into the central mounting point such that the seed disk is configured to rotate relative to the housing; and
CLAIM 9 wherein the seed disk (14) separates the housing into a seed side and a non-seed side (via gate 16), 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.
CLAIM 15 Landphair et al. ‘035 (“Landphair”) discloses an interchangeable metering assembly for metering a plurality of seeds, the interchangeable metering assembly comprising:
a support (87, or 34);
a singulating meter element (28, or 32) configured to mount to the support in a first mode of operation for singulating the plurality of seeds; and
a volumetric meter element (26, or 30) configured to mount to the support in a second mode of operation for volumetrically metering the plurality of seeds;
CLAIM 16 a meter housing (12), wherein the support is a rotational post, wherein the singulating meter element (28) is a singulating disk configured to rotate about the rotational post, and wherein the volumetric metering element (26) is a volumetric metering disk configured to rotate about the rotational post;
CLAIM 17 wherein the support is a bracket (36), wherein the singulating meter element is a singulating meter housing (32) configured to house a singulating disk, and wherein the volumetric metering element (30) is a volumetric meter housing;
CLAIM 18 wherein the volumetric meter housing (30) includes a meter roller (26) configured to volumetrically meter the plurality of seeds; and
CLAIM 19 further comprising an outlet conduit (24) configured to direct the plurality of seeds to a ground surface, wherein the singulating meter housing is configured to direct the plurality of seeds to the outlet conduit in the first mode of operation, and wherein the volumetric meter housing is configured to direct the plurality of seeds to the outlet conduit in the second mode of operation (via gate 16).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 10-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landphair et al. (US 2009/0050035 A1).
CLAIM 7 Landphair fails to teach a second paddle, as claimed. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added a second paddle extending parallel to the first paddle (63) between the first ring and a second coaxial ring, since it has been that a duplication of the parts of an invention has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The motivation for making the modification would have been to provide means for metering a different type of seed.
CLAIMS 10-14 All of the limitations of the claimed are inherent to use of the seed disk disclosed by Landphair, with the exception of multiple disks. However, 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 such that it would having included the steps of removing the first disk (14) and inserting a second disk because seed size varies. The motivation for making the modification would have been to facilitate use of the device with a different sized seed, and to have included a disk to accommodate the same.
CLAIM 20 Landphair fails to teach a motor. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the prior art assembly with a motor programmed to actuate both the singulating meter element and the volumetric meter element, since the examiner takes Official Notice of the use of programmable motors for automating the actuation of meter elements. The motivation for making the modification would have been to enhance efficiency of a seeding operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Preheim et al. (US 2010/0282143 A1) shows a seed/fertilizer metering disk (66) comprising singulating pockets (68, Fig. 9) on one side and volumetric pockets (140, Fig. 8) on the opposing side.
Harmon et al. (US 2021/0132588 A1) shows a volumetric metering device (Fig. 8A).
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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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
/tm/
13 December 2025