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 Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on February 2, 2026. Claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 10 have been amended. Claims 3-4 and 8-9 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: mechanical fastening elements” in claim 5, and “means of each corresponding mechanical fastening element” in claims 6, 7, and 10 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder “element/s” that is coupled with functional language “fastening” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In light of the specification, the limitations above have been interpreted as “studs, screws, bolts, or the like” as described on page 7 in the disclosure.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 5-7 and 10 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 limitations “fastening elements” in claim 5, and “means of each corresponding mechanical fastening element” in claims 6, 7, and 10 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description defines “fastening/fixing element” as the same as “or the like” which would render the claim indefinite. The Examiner has been given an extremely broad definition in the specification. The Examiner, as a result, cannot properly construe the claim. The limitation “fastening element” should have been rejected under 112(b) for clarification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mamasu (AR 102883 A4) in view of Cotham (US 8,066,206) and Walker (US 3,819,120).
With regard to claim 1, Mamasu discloses a wide angle distributor of solid and/or liquid materials for pneumatic fertilizers and/or seeders (1), comprising a spreading plate (P) that receives solid and/or liquid material to be unloaded from and in operative communication with an unloading opening or outlet of a coupling tube (6) which, in turn, is provided above it with an inlet or coupling opening to an unloading tube/duct (B) through which a pressurized air stream flows and entrains the solid and/or liquid material to be unloaded (abstract), wherein the spreading plate (P) comprises a conical geometry (7) which convex surface faces the unloading opening or outlet of said coupling tube (see Figs. 1-3 and abstract “dispersing plate 7 that is arranged, slightly inclined towards the ground”).
However, Mamasu does not disclose that the height adjusting mechanism is a height adjusting plate provided with at least two respective through sliding paths that are parallel to each other configured to modify the height of the spreading plate with respect to the unloading opening or outlet.
Cotham teaches a distributor (Fig. 3) comprising a spreading plate (114), wherein the spreading plate (114) is height adjustable with respect to the unloading opening or outlet (42, Figs. 3 and 4).
Walker teaches a distributor comprising a height adjusting plate (16) provided with at least two respective through sliding paths (32) that are parallel to each other (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distributor of Mamasu, by incorporating the teaching of height adjustable relationship between the spreading plate and the opening of the uploading tube as taught by Cotham with the fastening mechanism of the height adjustable plate with at least two respective through sliding paths (32) as taught by Walker, doing it would provide adjustable discharging rates (Col. 10 lines 34-37 in Cotham).
With regard to claim 5, the device of Mamasu as modified by Cotham and Walker discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Mamasu further discloses that the wide angle distributor is also provided with a support comprising a "C"-shaped structure which horizontal wings have corresponding fixation cuts of said coupling tube therein (see annotated figure below), and which vertical wing (1) is provided with respective fixation holes through which mechanical fastening elements pass (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
538
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 6 and 10, the device of Mamasu as modified by Cotham and Walker discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claims 1 and 5 above. Walker further discloses that a support (16), wherein the fixation holes (42) of the support (16) coincide with the through sliding paths of the height adjusting plate (32), and the support and the height adjusting plate remain fixed in a respective part of a wing or boom of the machine by means of each corresponding mechanical fastening element (44).
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mamasu in view of Cotham and Walker as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Ritter (US 2,906,539 ).
With regard to claim 2, the device of Mamasu as modified by Cotham and Walker discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Mamasu further discloses the spreading plate comprises a pyramidal structure, except a plurality of faces or sections that define a faceted surface.
Ritter teaches a granular material applicator comprising a spreading plate (37), wherein the spreading plate (37) comprises a pyramidal structure provided with a plurality of faces or sections that define a faceted surface (38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spreading plate of Mamasu, by forming a plurality of faces or sections (38) as taught by Ritter, doing it would provide radial distributions toward the target surface (Col. 3 lines 5-10).
With regard to claim 7, the device of Mamasu as modified by Cotham, Walker, and Ritter discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2 above. Walker further discloses that a support (16), wherein the fixation holes (42) of the support (16) coincide with the through sliding paths of the height adjusting plate (32), and the support and the height adjusting plate remain fixed in a respective part of a wing or boom of the machine by means of each corresponding mechanical fastening element (44).
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 JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
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, ARTHUR HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights