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
The submission entered April 24, 2026 in response to an Office Action mailed January 27, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 8 is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 19, 20 is/are newly presented.
The rejection(s) of claim(s) 5, 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112 as presented in the Office Action listed above are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant presents Figure 5 of the specification and argues reference character “10” is the “lower part of the hopper” recited in claim 1. However, the specification discloses reference character “10” is the lower compartment, not the lower part of the hopper. The lower part of tank 62 of Pederson is considered the claimed lower part of the hopper,
Applicant argues Pederson fails to teach a main body because the tank does not include a lower compartment. However, section of lines (102) in Pederson is considered a lower compartment.
Applicant argues Pederson fails to teach a lower compartment. However, section of lines (102) in Pederson is considered a lower compartment.
Applicant argues the meter in Neumeyer is not designed to be connected to a hopper with at least two openings or discharge outlets at its bottom that can be selectively closed by guillotines. However, Neumeyer is not used to teach those features.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The new language “the metered materials that fall from one of the at least two inner housings meet, in the lower compartment, the metered material that falls from the other inner housing and the metered materials are entrained by an air stream generated by the turbine from the lower compartment to the unloading spouts or ducts” is considered to be taught by newly applied art to Denis et al.; therefore, arguments toward Pederson or Neumeyer in regards to the new language are considered moot.
Claim Objections
At claim 20, line 17, please replace “near its air inlet of at least one” with –near its air inlet with at least one –.
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 1-18 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.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, the claim recites “at least two unloading openings or outlets” at line 3, “at least one outlet” at line 6, “each corresponding unloading opening or outlet” at line 10, “a plurality of pairs of loading and unloading openings” at line 12 and “said unloading openings” at line 15. The claim language is unclear because it is unclear if the recitations refer to the same element or different elements. Further, the language is inconsistent in the use of “openings” and “outlets”, which makes confusing what elements are being referred.
It is unclear if the “unloading ducts” at line 7 and the “some material unloading tubes or ducts” at line 17 refer to the same elements. Further, it is unclear if the unloading tubes or ducts are related to the unloading openings or outlets.
Claim 1 recites at line 8 “said inlet and outlet are in coincidence with at least a lower compartment”, however, it is unclear from the claim language if the “entrance opening” and “exit opening” are also coincident with the lower compartment.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, the claim recites “at least a lower compartment” at lines 8 and 15. It is unclear if these recitations refer to the same element. Further, it is unclear to which compartment the recitations “the lower compartment” at line 19 and line 21 refer.
Claim 1 lacks antecedent basis for “the unloading spouts” at line 21. It is unclear as to what structure is being referred.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, it is unclear if the “at least one lateral unloading duct” is the same as the unloading tubes or ducts in claim 1.
Claims 2-18 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pederson et al. (USPN 11457555) in view of Neumeyer (USPN 4779765) and Denis et al. (USPN 10709055).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Pederson et al. teaches a mechanical-pneumatic meter of solid materials for agricultural machines and implements, which is coupled to or mounted on the lower part of a hopper (tank 62) that contains one or more materials to be metered (in compartments 64-70) and has in its lower part at least two unloading openings or outlets that are selectively shutterable by means of respective guillotines (gates 121, openings or outlets are implied by the presence of gates), wherein the meter comprises: at least a main body (metering section 80) that has at least two inner housings (120a-e) for the material reception, each of which coincides and communicates with each corresponding unloading opening or outlet of the hopper; at least a hollow cylindrical body (170) arranged within each housing and having a plurality of pairs of loading (178a) and unloading (178b) openings; at least a gear train (meter wheels 128) mounted within each cylindrical body; and at least a lower compartment (portion of line 102 under the metering section) in operative communication with said unloading openings of said cylindrical bodies, in communication with at least one turbine (fans 110) through a manifold (plenum 104), and in communication with some material unloading tubes or ducts (lines 102). Pederson et al. fails to teach at least one pressurized air inlet or entrance opening and at least one outlet or exit opening in operative communication with unloading ducts, wherein said inlet and outlet are in coincidence with at least a lower compartment, wherein the metered materials that fall from one of the at least two inner housings meet, in the lower compartment, the metered material that falls from the other inner housing and the metered materials are entrained by an air stream generated by the turbine from the lower compartment to the unloading spouts or ducts. Neumeyer (USPN 4779765) teaches a meter having a main body (12,14, 28) comprising at least one pressurized air inlet or entrance opening (where hose 92 connects to the chamber 28) and at least one outlet or exit opening in operative communication with said unloading ducts (connector 102 connecting to conduit 36), said inlet and outlet are longitudinally located along respective opposite parallel faces of said main body and in coincidence with said lower compartment (as seen in Figure 2) and an inner partition wall (68). Figure 2 shows the metering roll being perpendicular to the parallel faces of the lower compartment (chamber 28). Denis et al. teaches multiple sets (114) of metering devices (112) and teaches the metered materials that fall from one of the at least two inner housings (one of the metering devices 112) meet, in the lower compartment (portion of line 102 under the metering devices 112), the metered material that falls from the other inner housing and the metered materials are entrained by an air stream generated by the turbine (110) from the lower compartment to the unloading spouts or ducts (portion of lines 102 leading to booms 14, 16) [Col. 2: 25-43, “enhancing entrainment of the granular product”]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Pederson et al. such that at least one pressurized air inlet or entrance opening and at least one outlet or exit opening in operative communication with unloading ducts, wherein said inlet and outlet are in coincidence with at least a lower compartment, wherein the metered materials that fall from one of the at least two inner housings meet, in the lower compartment, the metered material that falls from the other inner housing and the metered materials are entrained by an air stream generated by the turbine from the lower compartment to the unloading spouts or ducts. This would allow different materials to be mixed in the air stream.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Pederson et al. teaches the main body comprises: at least respective circular openings (144a, 144b) arranged in at least one face of said main body. Pederson et al. fails to teach a prismatic rectangular shape, said inlet and outlet are longitudinally located along respective opposite parallel faces of said main body and in coincidence with said lower compartment; the circular openings are perpendicular to the parallel faces where said inlet or entrance opening and outlet or exit opening are located; and at least an inner partition wall that separates said material reception housings. Neumeyer (USPN 4779765) teaches a meter having a main body (12,14, 28) having a prismatic rectangular shape (chamber 28), at least one pressurized air inlet or entrance opening (where hose 92 connects to the chamber 28) and at least one outlet or exit opening in operative communication with said unloading ducts (connector 102 connecting to conduit 36), said inlet and outlet are longitudinally located along respective opposite parallel faces of said main body and in coincidence with said lower compartment (as seen in Figure 2) and an inner partition wall (68). Figure 2 shows the metering roll being perpendicular to the parallel faces of the lower compartment (chamber 28). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a prismatic rectangular shape;, said inlet and outlet are longitudinally located along respective opposite parallel faces of said main body and in coincidence with said lower compartment; the circular openings are perpendicular to the parallel faces where said inlet or entrance opening and outlet or exit opening are located; and at least an inner partition wall that separates said material reception housings. This would be since the elements were known in the art and one of ordinary skill, using known methods, could have combined the elements and achieved predictable results.
Regarding Claim(s) 3 and 4, Pederson et al. teaches each housing is divided or sectioned by a plurality of inner walls (146a, 146b) or plates that define a plurality of individual material reception sections, each individual material reception section of each housing being in linear coincidence with each individual material reception section of the other adjoining housing (as illustrated). Pederson et al. fails to teach each housing is also provided with a lower slanted wall that directs the material to said loading openings of the cylindrical body. Neumeyer teaches a slanted wall (Figure 2 shows slanted walls) to direct material to the metering rolls. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a slanted wall in order to direct the material to the loading openings.
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Pederson et al. teaches (as best understood) each of said loading openings defined in each cylindrical body is arranged in coincidence with each individual material reception section (see Figure 11).
Regarding Claim(s) 6, each gear train comprises a plurality of gears (meter wheels 128), each of which is separated from each other by means of a pair of adjacent flat discs (129) so that each gear is in coincidence with each individual material reception section of the housings and with each pair of corresponding loading and unloading openings of the cylindrical body.
Regarding Claim(s) 7, each set of gears and flat discs is mounted on a hexagonal drive shaft (130), and each hexagonal shaft is actuated through a drive mechanism (a drive mechanism would be necessary for the meter wheels to operate).
Regarding Claim(s) 18, Pederson et al. teaches each of said plurality of inner plates or walls of each housing has a central opening or hole (144a,144b) arranged in longitudinal alignment with each respective circular opening made in one of the faces of the main body, in such a way that all of the central holes of each of said plurality of inner plates or walls and circular opening arranged in alignment to define a geometric space for mounting said cylindrical bodies. Figures 7-11 show the housings and the holes for receiving the cylindrical bodies.
Claim(s) 8, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pederson et al. in view of Neumeyer and Denis et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hui et al. (USPN 10306825) and Crucianelli (USPN 11730080).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Pederson teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach said manifold having a polyhedron structure with an inlet connected to said turbine through a flange and an outlet connected to the air inlet of the main body, wherein said manifold has at least one lateral unloading duct in operative communication with the hopper. Hui et al. teaches a manifold (plenum 36) having a lateral unloading duct (42) in operative communication with a hopper (tank 26) to pressurize the hopper to improve seed dispersal [Col. 6:23-33]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide at least one lateral unloading duct in the manifold in operative communication with the hopper in order to pressurize the tank to improve seed dispersal. Crucianelli (USPN 11730080) teaches a manifold (distributor 11) having a polyhedron structure (walls 20, floor 21 and roof 22) with an inlet connected to said turbine through a flange (shown in Figure 2 at inlet 18) and an outlet connected to an air inlet of a main body (shown in Figure 4 where walls 20 and floor 21 and meet structure before partition 23, with conduits 24 and channel 28 forming the air inlet). Further, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a manifold having a polyhedron structure with an inlet connected to said turbine through a flange and an outlet connected to the air inlet of the main body in order to distribute air to the main body. A polyhedron structure is a structure having flat faces, which would be simple to manufacture.
Regarding Claim(s) 15, Pederson et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach at least one control plate is provided, and said control plate is positioned between an outlet of the manifold and an air inlet of the main body. Crucianelli teaches at least one control plate (plate 37) positioned between an outlet of the manifold and an air inlet (channel 28) of the main body. The plate regulates the flow rate of air in the channel and conduits (24) [Col. 9:9-12]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a control plate in order to regulate the flow rate of air in the main body.
Claim(s) 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pederson et al. in view of Neumeyer and Denis et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Crucianelli (USPN 11730080).
Regarding Claim(s) 9-14, Pederson et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach at least one control plate is provided, and said control plate is positioned between an outlet of the manifold and an air inlet of the main body. Crucianelli teaches at least one control plate (plate 37) positioned between an outlet of the manifold and an air inlet (channel 28) of the main body. The plate regulates the flow rate of air in the channel and conduits (24) [Col. 9:9-12]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a control plate in order to regulate the flow rate of air in the main body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 19 and 20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim(s) 19, the prior art fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the main body comprises a pair of lower material unloading slots, each of which is obturated by respective lower removable gates, combined with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding Claim(s) 20, the prior art fails to anticipate or fairly suggest said turbine is provided at an area near its air inlet of at least one grooved and slanted air baffle, combined with the rest of the claim language.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-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, MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/WILLIAM R HARP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights