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 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(lines 4-5) “the at last one scoop receptacle” should be changed to “the at least one scoop receptacle”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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 1, the phrase "in particular" in lines 2 and 9 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a shaft" in line 5. It is unclear, based on the claim language, whether applicant is referring to the first shaft and/or the second shaft, or introducing an additional shaft that guides the transport means. Clarification is needed.
Claims 2, 4-12, 14 and 15 are rejected for 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.
Claims 1-3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al. (US 5,535,689).
As concerns claim 1, Anderson shows a device (10) for metering or individually distributing material particles on agricultural land, the device comprising: at least one storage container (40) which in an interior thereof has at least one chamber for storing a loose material particle in bulk form; at least one singularization apparatus (Fig. 1-3) which protrudes into the chamber of the storage container; and a driven transport means (16) having at least one scoop receptacle (12, 14) for receiving a predefined quantity of material particles from the loose material particle in bulk form in the chamber, wherein the driven transport means is configured to guide the at least one scoop receptacle through the loose material particle in bulk form, and to convey counter to gravity at least one material particle received in the scoop receptacle out of the chamber (Fig. 1), wherein the at least one scoop receptacle is releasably connected (19) to the driven transport means (Fig. 1-3), wherein the scoop receptacle is configured to project from the transport means (Fig. 1-3), and the scoop receptacle includes a receptacle clearance for receiving the at least one material particle (col 4, ln 1-9), and wherein the receptacle clearance comprises a depression having a depressed base area and a peripheral portion that at least partially delimits the depression (col 4, ln 1-9), characterized in that the depressed base area of the receptacle clearance has at least one through bore (14A) for a flow of fluid to pass through the receptacle clearance (Fig. 1-3; col 3, ln 34-56).
As concerns claim 2, Anderson shows wherein the scoop receptacle has a head region (14) with the receptacle clearance, and a web region (12) for connecting to the transport means (Fig. 1-3).
As concerns claim 3, Anderson shows wherein the depressed base area is additionally configured with a fluid routing in such a manner that a fluid flow flowing in through the at least one through bore is guided with the fluid routing entirely or in a plurality of partial flows in the receptacle clearance, wherein the fluid routing is formed by projecting structures on the surface of the depressed base area and in the peripheral portion of the receptacle clearance (Fig. 1-3; col 3, ln 34-56).
As concerns claim 15, Anderson shows wherein the size of the at least one scoop receptacle (12, 14) is able to be adapted to the size of the at least one material particle to be received, or the quantity of the material particles to be received (Fig. 1-3).
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, 2, 4-8 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman et al. (US 4,243,154) alone.
As concerns claim 1, Freeman shows a device (10) for metering or individually distributing material particles on agricultural land, the device comprising: at least one storage container (36) which in an interior thereof has at least one chamber for storing a loose material particle in bulk form; at least one singularization apparatus (28) which protrudes into the chamber of the storage container; and a driven transport means (44) having at least one scoop receptacle (46) for receiving a predefined quantity of material particles from the loose material particle in bulk form in the chamber, wherein the driven transport means is configured to guide the at least one scoop receptacle through the loose material particle in bulk form, and to convey counter to gravity at least one material particle received in the scoop receptacle out of the chamber (Fig. 1), wherein the at least one scoop receptacle is releasably connected (120) to the driven transport means (Fig. 10), wherein the scoop receptacle is configured to project from the transport means (Fig. 1 & 11), and the scoop receptacle includes a receptacle clearance (132) for receiving the at least one material particle (Fig. 1 & 11), and wherein the receptacle clearance comprises a depression having a depressed base area and a peripheral portion that at least partially delimits the depression (Fig. 9 & 10), characterized in that the depressed base area of the receptacle clearance has at least one through bore (134). Freeman discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the through bore is for a flow of fluid to pass through the receptacle clearance. It has been held that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
As concerns claim 2, Freeman shows wherein the scoop receptacle (46) has a head region with the receptacle clearance (Fig. 9 & 10), and a web region (122) for connecting to the transport means (Fig. 9 & 10).
As concerns claim 4, Freeman shows wherein the singularization apparatus has at least two transport means (44). Freeman discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the two transport means in terms of their movement speed are able to be driven in a mutually independent manner. It has been held that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
As concerns claim 5, Freeman shows wherein the at least two transport means (44) are disposed so as to be mutually parallel (Fig. 4 & 12).
As concerns claim 6, Freeman shows wherein each singularization apparatus is assigned to a respective chamber to form a singularization module which can be operated independently of other singularization modules (Fig. 4).
As concerns claim 7, Freeman shows wherein the device has a common drive (24) which is provided to drive the at least two transport means, wherein the two transport means are connected to the drive via a transfer box (27).
As concerns claim 8, Freeman shows wherein the transfer box comprises a switchable gearbox (27).
As concerns claim 12, Freeman shows wherein the singularization apparatus has a multiplicity of scoop receptacles (46) which are releasably connected to the transport means, and wherein the transport means comprises a revolving conveyor belt (44) to which the scoop receptacles are releasably fastened (120).
As concerns claim 13, Freeman shows wherein the at least one transport means (44) of the singularization apparatus is guided by way of at least one first shaft (30) and a second shaft (49), wherein the first shaft comprises a drive shaft, and the second shaft comprises a deflection shaft for the revolving transport means, and wherein a shaft (49) for guiding the transport means marks a reversal point at which the at least one material particle received in the scoop receptacle of the transport means is no longer held in the scoop receptacle by gravity and falls into a free-fall region (Fig. 11).
As concerns claim 14, Freeman shows wherein a delivery apparatus, disposed downstream of the singularization apparatus, comprises at least one distribution duct (84) which proceeding from the free-fall region runs in the direction of the land (Fig. 1). Freeman discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the distribution duct is able to be impinged with compressed air. It has been held that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
As concerns claim 15, Freeman shows wherein the size of the at least one scoop receptacle (46) is able to be adapted to the size of the at least one material particle to be received, or the quantity of the material particles to be received (Fig. 1 & 11).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Syring et al. (DE 3615189).
As concerns claim 9, Anderson discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the singularization apparatus has at least one wiper apparatus by means of which excess material particles can be wiped off into the chamber so as to ensure that the predefined quantity of material particles is received in the scoop receptacle. Syring teaches wherein a singularization apparatus (8, 9, 10) has at least one wiper apparatus (36, 37) by means of which excess material particles can be wiped off into a chamber (12) so as to ensure that a predefined quantity of material particles is received in a scoop receptacle (Fig. 1, 4 & 5). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Anderson, as taught by Syring, to include a wiper apparatus for the expected benefit of wiping off excess material particles into the chamber in order to ensure that the predefined quantity of material particles is received in the scoop receptacle. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a wiper apparatus in the singularization apparatus of the device would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the expected result of this configuration improves versatility/adaptability/efficiency of the device design.
As concerns claim 10, the combination teaches wherein the wiper apparatus comprises at least one mechanical wiper element (Syring: 36, 37).
As concerns claim 11, the combination teaches wherein the mechanical wiper element (Syring: 36, 37) comprises a brush element (Syring: Fig. 1, 4 & 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Beebe (US 3,788,518) and McCallum (US 3,698,332) each show a pneumatic seed dispenser for a planting apparatus that holds a seed using pressure during a predetermined rotation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679