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 Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 7, it appears “harvester-elements” should be changed to –harvested elements—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 14, “harvesting obtaining” should be changed to –harvesting, obtaining—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 16-17, “the individual seeded seeds seeded” is awkward and unclear. The following is suggested as a replacement: --the individual seeds obtained during the seeding— Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “said information growth medium information” is awkward and unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 2-3, “the plant” should be changed to –a plant—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1, “the stored” should be changed to –stored—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: “stored by said seeding”, line 3, is awkward and unclear. It appears this should read –stored during said seeding—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4, “the agricultural inputs” should be changed to –agricultural inputs—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 1-2, “the properties of crop elements” should be changed to –properties of crop elements—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3, “the plant phenotype” should be changed to –plant phenotype—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4, “said properties” should be changed to –properties—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 40 recites wherein property information concerning individual seeds is collected during seeding. However, this is redundant to the limitation already set forth in claim 21, lines 3-4, which sets forth obtaining property information concerning individual seeds being seeded.
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 22, 25-26, 28-29, 34, 38-39 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 22 recites the limitation "said information growth medium information" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25, line 2, sets forth “desirable seed quality parameter”. However, it is unclear if or how these parameters relate to the seeded seed property information and/or the harvested seed property information.
Claim 25, line 3, sets forth “the crop sensors”. However, there is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Furthermore, it is unclear if or how these crop sensors relate to the sensing system already set forth in claim 1, line 13.
Claim 25, line 4, sets forth “an auxiliary-harvesting unit”. However, it is unclear how this unit is related to the harvester already set forth in claim 21, line 6, from which claim 25 depends.
Claim 25 recites “desirable seed quality parameters” (line 2), “at least one measured seed quality parameter” (lines 6-7), and “at least one measured quality parameter”. If these all refer to the same parameter, the claim should be amended to name them consistently.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the measured quality of the plant" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear if or how this measured quality relates to the plant phenotypes and desirable seed quality parameters set forth in claim 25, lines 1-2.
Claim 28 recites “information about the properties of the seed”. However, it is unclear if or how this information relates to the “property information” of the seeded seed as set forth in claim 21, lines 3-4.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the substrate" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear if or how this substrate relates to the “growth medium” already set forth in claim 21.
Claim 29 recites “the properties of seed” in lines 2-3. However, it is unclear if or how this information relates to the “property information” of the seeded seed as set forth in claim 21, lines 3-4.
Claim 34 sets forth wherein the sensing system obtains information about a quality parameter of the singulated seed. However, it is unclear how this relates back to the limitation of claim 21 requiring wherein the same sensing system obtains property information concerning individual seeds (cl. 21, lns. 14-16). It is unclear if these limitations are redundant or if they are two different types of seed information obtained from the sensing system.
Claim 38 recites “parameters of the singulated seeds” in line 2. However, it is unclear if or how these parameters relate to the harvested seed property information already set forth in claim 21. Specifically, it is unclear if these are one and the same or two different types of seed information.
Claim 39 recites the limitation "the property measured" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear if or how this measured property relates to the harvested seed property information already set forth in claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 23-24, 27, 30-33, 35-37, 40 are allowed.
Claims 22, 25-26, 28-29, 34, 38-39 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTOL-892. Specifically, see Panigrahi et al. 6,845,326 which discloses the sensing of property information of seed at harvesting, however, the seed is not singulated as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alicia M. Torres whose telephone number is 571-272-6997. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-6997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph M. Rocca, can be reached at (571) 272-8971.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the group receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-3600. The fax number for this Group is 571-273-8300.
/Alicia Torres/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 April 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights