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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because legal phraseology “means”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 23, 25 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 limitation “air displacing means”, “air humidity adjusting means”, “air temperature adjusting means”, “moisture amount information obtaining means”, “control means”, “weight determining means”, “container moving means”, “drying drum drive means”, “data entry means” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because structure for performing the acts is provided e.g. weight sensors, air humidifier, air inlet. Also, the “data entry means” renders the claim indefinite because it fails to correspond to a specific algorithm in the specification. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; 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.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the data entry means" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that this claim may have been intended to depend from claim 7 not claim 6.
Claim 2 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim
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, 2, 4, 12, 13, 26, 27, 29, 32, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PCT WO 2013/048250 to Van Asbrouck.
Regarding Claims 1 and 26, Van Asbrouck teaches a device and method for treating seeds, comprising: a closable container (Van Asbrouck Fig. 1 #3) with an internal space for containing a plurality of seeds (Van Asbrouck Fig. 1 #2) therein, comprising an air inlet (Van Asbrouck Fig. 2 #13) and an air outlet (Van Asbrouck Fig. 2 #14) which are each in fluid connection with the internal space; air displacing means (Van Asbrouck page 10 line 11 “valves”; pump #9) configured to supply air via the air inlet to the internal space at a flow rate and to discharge the air present in the internal space via the air outlet; air humidity adjusting means (Van Asbrouck Fig. 2 #12) configured to adjust a relative humidity of the air to be supplied to the internal space; air temperature adjusting means (Van Asbrouck Fig. 2 #11) configured to adjust a temperature of the air to be supplied to the internal space; moisture amount information obtaining means (Van Asbrouck sensor #10; page 12 line 6) configured to obtain moisture amount information about a total amount of moisture in the plurality of seeds; and control means (Van Asbrouck page 12 lines 1-20; page 15 lines 1-15) configured to control the air humidity adjusting means on the basis of the moisture amount information obtained by the moisture amount information obtaining means during a treatment period of a treatment process for treating the plurality of seeds, such that the relative humidity of the air present in the internal space is such that the total amount of moisture in the plurality of seeds follows a predetermined moisture amount development line (Van Asbrouck page 14 lines 6-30), along which the total amount of moisture in the plurality of seeds must run during the treatment period of the treatment process.
Regarding Claims 2 and 27, Van Asbrouck teaches the treatment process is a drying process (Van Asbrouck #44) and wherein the moisture amount development line is a descending line; and wherein the descending line is an at least substantially straight line, such that the total amount of moisture in the plurality of seeds decreases at least linearly (Van Asbrouck page 14 line 25 “continuously decreasing”).
Regarding Claims 4, 29 and 32, Van Asbrouck teaches the control means (Van Asbrouck Fig. 3 #16 and #10) are further configured to control the air temperature adjusting means such that the temperature of the air present in the internal space is at least substantially constant; and/or wherein the control means are further configured to control the air displacing means such that the flow rate is at least substantially constant (Van Asbrouck page 3 lines 1-6, Van Asbrouck teaches controlling air temperature and/or flow rate and is capable of being configured in the claimed manner; applicant doesn’t claims a specific amount of time that the temperature and/or flow rate are held constant, Van Asbrouck achieves this even for a few seconds which satisfies the broad nature of the claim).
Regarding Claim 12, Van Asbrouck teaches an air channel (Van Asbrouck Fig. 3 #8a, #13, #14) which extends outside the container between the air outlet and the air inlet, such that the air outlet is in fluid connection with the air inlet via the air channel, wherein the air displacing means (Van Asbrouck page 10 line 11 “valves”) are configured to return air to the air inlet from the internal space via successively the air outlet and the air channel, wherein the air humidity adjusting means and the air temperature adjusting means (Van Asbrouck Figs. 2 and 3 #12 and #11) are arranged successively between the air outlet and the air inlet, wherein the air humidity adjusting means and the air temperature adjusting means interact with the air in the air channel, and wherein the air humidity adjusting means comprise an air dehumidifier (Van Asbrouck #60) configured to reduce the relative humidity of the air in the air channel and the air temperature adjusting means comprise an air heater (Van Asbrouck #11) configured to increase the temperature of the air in the air channel.
Regarding Claim 13, Van Asbrouck teaches the air dehumidifier comprises a cooling system (Van Asbrouck #11 page 9 line 29) configured to cool the air in the air channel to a point below the dew point of the air, but is silent on explicitly teaching wherein the cooling system comprises a plate heat exchanger for recovering heat released to the cooling system by the air in the air channel; and/or wherein the air humidity adjusting means comprise an air humidifier (Van Asbrouck Fig. 3 #12) configured to increase the relative humidity of the air in the air channel (Applicant claimed “or” and does not require the presence of the plate heat exchanger).
Regarding Claim 33, Van Asbrouck teaches the supplying of air to the internal space and the discharging of air present in the internal space from the internal space comprises of recirculating the air (Van Asbrouck Fig. 3 #14 and #13), and/or wherein the recirculating of the air comprises of filtering the air discharged from the internal space; and/or wherein the supplying of air to the internal space comprises of distributing the supplied air uniformly over the internal space; and/or wherein the method further comprises moving the container such that the seeds of the plurality of seeds arranged in the container are set into motion such that each of the seeds is exposed to the air present in the internal space over its whole outer surface. (Applicant claims the limitations in an alternative form of “or” and thus does not require those limitations to be present).
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.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9, 10, 17, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PCT WO 2013/048250 to Van Asbrouck in view of PCT WO 2018/006176 to Moore.
Regarding Claims 6 and 31, Van Asbrouck teaches gathering moisture amount information by determining the weight of the dehumidifier (Van Asbrouck #60, page 15 lines 21-19) that indirectly a measure of the moisture in the container and controlling, wherein the moisture amount development line is a weight development line along which the weight of the plurality of seeds must run during the treatment period of the treatment process, and wherein the control means are configured to control the air humidity adjusting means during the treatment period of the treatment process on the basis of the weight obtained by the weight determining means, such that the relative humidity of the air present in the internal space is such that the total amount of moisture in the plurality of seeds follows the weight development line (Van Asbrouck page 15 lines 21-28; page 14 lines 6-30).
Van Asbrouck teaches the use of additional sensors (Van Asbrouck page 9 lines 11-14), but is silent on explicitly teaching the moisture amount information is the weight of the plurality of seeds and the moisture amount information obtaining means are weight determining means configured to determine the weight of the plurality of seeds. However, Moore teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to use weight parameters of seeds in a seed drying process to control the drying operations based on the seed weight (Moore page 9 lines 14-22; page 10 line 14-16; page 13 lines 11 and 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Van Asbrouck with the teachings of Moore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to keep drying relatively uniform as taught by Moore. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one know sensor for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 7, Van Asbrouck as modified teaches comprising data entry means configured for entry of information about the moisture amount development line; wherein the data entry means are further configured for entry of goal weight information about a goal weight of the plurality of seeds, wherein the control means are further configured to determine the total amount of moisture in the plurality of seeds on the basis of the weight determined by the weight determining means and the goal weight (Moore page 2 lines 1-3; page 9 lines 14-22; Van Asbrouck page 3 lines 7-12 and page 12 lines 1-6).
Regarding Claim 9, Van Asbrouck as modified teaches wherein the data entry means are further configured for entry of a total duration of the treatment period of the treatment process during which the plurality of seeds must be treated by the device, wherein the control means are further configured to control the air humidity adjusting means such that the weight of the plurality of seeds present in the internal space does not equal the goal weight until the treatment period has elapsed (Van Asbrouck page 12 line 10, page 14 lines 8-30; Moore “dwell time” page 9 lines 17-21).
Regarding Claim 10, Van Asbrouck as modified teaches the data entry means are further configured for entry of a treatment temperature at which the seeds must be treated, wherein the control means are further configured to control the air temperature adjusting means such that the temperature of the air to be supplied to the internal space is equal to the treatment temperature; and/or wherein the data entry means are further configured for entry of a treatment flow rate at which the seeds must be treated, wherein the control means are further configured to control the air displacing means such that the flow rate is equal to the treatment flow rate (Van Asbrouck page 13 lines 16-26; italics indicates functional language the structure of Van Asbrouck is “capable of” performing, this is an apparatus claim and the structural features of the data collection and processor taught by Van Asbrouck satisfy).
Regarding Claim 17, Van Asbrouck as modified teaches wherein the weight determining means comprise weighing sensors (Van Asbrouck page 15 lines 21-22) which are arranged to measure weight of the seeds (Moore page 9 lines 14-22; page 10 line 14-16; page 13 lines 11 and 17), but is silent on explicitly teaching which are arranged and are configured to measure a total weight of the container and the plurality of seeds present in the internal space and placed under the container. However, the examiner takes official notice that it is old and notoriously well-known to place a weight sensor under what is targeted to be weighed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Van Asbrouck as modified by Moore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for ergonomic function. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or merely shifting the location of a known element performing the same intended function of weight measure modified for efficient data collection [In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 1023, 86 USPQ 70, 73 (CCPA 1950)]. “Obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PCT WO 2013/048250 to Van Asbrouck in view of French Patent FR 2770084 to Boisadan.
Regarding Claim 16, Van Asbrouck is silent on a filter which is arranged upstream of the air humidity adjusting means as seen in the direction of displacement of the air in the air channel, and is configured to filter dust residues from the air coming from the internal space. However, Boisadan teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide a filter in a seed treatment apparatus, the filter which is arranged upstream of the air humidity adjusting means as seen in the direction of displacement of the air in the air channel, and is configured to filter dust residues from the air coming from the internal space (Boisadan Fig. 5 #36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Van Asbrouck with the teachings of Boisadan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent undesired material from entering the treatment container and contacting the seeds as taught by Boisadan. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. “Obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 18, Van Asbrouck as modified teaches the container moving means for moving the container such that the seeds of the plurality of seeds contained by the container are set into motion such that each of the seeds is exposed to the air present in the internal space over its whole outer surface (Boisadan page 13 lines 21-35), and/or an air distributing device configured to distribute the air to be supplied to the internal space over the internal space; and/or wherein the air distributing device comprises an elongate air distributing channel which extends in the internal space and is in fluid connection with the air inlet, and wherein a plurality of feed ports are provided on a longitudinal side of the air distributing channel, toward which the plurality of seeds in the internal space face, for the purpose of feeding the air to be supplied to the internal space to the internal space; and/or wherein the feed ports are distributed uniformly over the internal space; and/or wherein the container comprises a drying drum which is rotatable about its longitudinal axis (Boisadan page 13 lines 21-35; Fig. 6 #1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Van Asbrouck with the teachings of Boisadan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to untangle seeds as taught by Boisadan. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (Applicant claims the limitations in an alternative form of “or” and thus does not require those limitations to be present).
Claim(s) 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PCT WO 2013/048250 to Van Asbrouck in view of French Patent FR 2770084 to Boisadan as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of PCT WO 2011/017252 to Reineccius.
Regarding Claims 23 and 25, Van Asbrouck as modified teaches comprising drying drum drive means for rotary driving of the drying drum (Boisadan page 13 lines 21-35), but is silent on wherein the control means are configured to control the drying drum drive means to control a rotation speed of the drying drum; and wherein the data entry means are further configured for entry of a drying rotation speed at which the drying drum must be rotated, wherein the control means are further configured to control the drying drum such that the rotation speed is equal to the drying rotation speed; wherein the control means are configured to periodically stop the drying drum in order to be able to determine the weight of the plurality of seeds in the internal space. However, Van Asbrouck teaches a control means (Van Asbrouck processor #16; page 3 lines 20-26; these are apparatus claims and the control means of Van Asbrouck is capable of performing the claimed functions and/or operations). Reimeccius teaches the general knowledge of rotate a seed treatment container (Reineccius #126, claim 9). Making manual operations automatic is merely an obvious engineering design choice for reduced labor and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record [In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 192, 194 (CCPA 1958)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Van Asbrouck with the teachings of Reineccius before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for uniform coverage as taught by Reineccius. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results known by a skilled person in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art of record is a teaching of the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art with regard to seed treatment apparatus and methods: United Kingdom Patent GB 2519740; United Kingdom Patent GB 2276525; U.S. Patent No. 5,232,465; U.S. Patent No. 4,905,411; U.S. Patent No. 1,846,510.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA M VALENTI whose telephone number is (571)272-6895. The examiner can normally be reached Available Monday and Tuesday only, eastern time.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/ANDREA M VALENTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
15 September 2025