DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 9,807,922 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the patent and the instant application lend themselves to a machine employing substantially the structure, features and steps.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,813,663 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the patent and the instant application lend themselves to a machine employing substantially the structure, features and steps.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 9,480,199 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the patent and the instant application lend themselves to a machine employing substantially the structure, features and steps.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,861,031 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the patent and the instant application lend themselves to a machine employing substantially the structure, features and steps.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,807,924 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the patent and the instant application lend themselves to a machine employing substantially the structure, features and steps.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,004,173 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the patent and the instant application lend themselves to a machine employing substantially the structure, features and steps.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,820,429 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the patent and the instant application lend themselves to a machine employing substantially the structure, features and steps.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,699,955 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the patent and the instant application lend themselves to a machine employing substantially the structure, features and steps.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,806,070 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the patent and the instant application lend themselves to a machine employing substantially the structure, features and steps.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 26-44 of U.S. Patent No. 11,770,994 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the patent and the instant application lend themselves to a machine employing substantially the structure, features and steps.
Reasoning for Situations in which no Double Patenting is Present
No double patenting rejection is being made between the instant application 18/492,744 and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,789,482 B2; 8,468,960 B2; 8,850,995; 8,074,586; 9,686,905; 11,839,665; 11,793,104; 11,770,955 and 9,686,906 since the claims of the instant application 18/492,744 and the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,789,482 B2; 8,468,960 B2; 8,850,995; 8,074,586; 9,686,905; 11,839,665; 11,793,104; 11,770,955 and 9,686,906 are considered to be patentably distinct from each other.
No double patenting rejection is being made between the instant application 18/492,744 and application Nos. 17/033,324; 17/095,431 and 16/983,338 since application Nos. 17/033,324; 17/095,431 and 16/983,338 are abandoned.
No double patenting rejection is being made between the instant application 18/492,744 and application No. 15/693,163 since application No. 15/693,163 has been withdrawn from issue.
Comments on Allowability
Claims 1-10 of the instant application 18/492,744 are considered to define over close prior art Sauder et al. US 2003/0159631 A1 for the same reasoning as set forth in page 8 of the response dated May 8, 2019 in parent application 15/799,279.
Koning 4,193,523 is a reference of record in PTAB Proceeding #IPR2019-01053 and is considered to be close prior art to the claims in the instant application 18/492,744. However, Koning 4,193,523 differs from the claims of the instant application 18/492,744 in that the conveying members of Figure 4 of Koning 4,193,523 convey potatoes (see the disclosure in column 5, lines 3-14; particularly lines 8-12) and not seed (as required by the claims of the instant application 18/492,744).
Examiner Request
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support must be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Skinner US 2,673,536 discloses an agricultural apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J NOVOSAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6993. The examiner can normally be reached on a variable schedule.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rocca M Joseph 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.
/Christopher J. Novosad/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
October 25, 2025