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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The REPLACEMENT drawings were received on 19 December 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
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, 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Friesen et al. (US 2008/0257237 A1).
Friesen et al. ‘737 (“Friesen”) shows (Fig. 5) a soil opener for driving through soil in a direction of travel (14), the soil opener comprising:
CLAIM 1 (a) a support (22); and
(b) a soil opener unit mounted on the support, wherein the soil opener unit comprises:
first and second soil-cutting members (30, 44); and
a delivery tube (66) with an exit aperture (70) for releasing material to be deposited in the soil;
wherein the first soil-cutting member (30) comprises a rotating disc having a first soil-engaging surface inclined: (i) at a first angle to a perpendicular to the soil surface when viewed along the direction of travel (Fig. 4), the first angle being greater than zero; and (ii) at a second angle to the direction of travel (14) when viewed along a perpendicular to the soil surface (Fig. 7), the second angle being greater than zero, whereby the rotating disc defines a leading upwardly-inclined face defining a leading side of the rotating disc and a trailing downwardly-inclined face defining a trailing side of the rotating disc relative to the direction of travel (14); and
wherein the second soil-cutting member (44) comprises a fixed blade (58) defining a second soil-engaging surface; wherein the second soil-engaging surface comprises a soil lifting surface projecting laterally relative to the first soil-cutting member (Fig. 6), and the exit aperture (70) of the delivery tube is provided adjacent a rear part of the soil lifting surface;
CLAIM 5 wherein the fixed blade (58) is located on the leading side of the rotating disc (30); and
CLAIM 15 wherein the fixed blade (58) defines leading and trailing fixed blade edges and the soil lifting surface comprises a substantially planar blade surface extending between the leading and trailing fixed blade edges.
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) 1-4, 6-10 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLuckie et al. (US 2020/0315080 A1) in view of Cey (US 2009/0071383 A1) and Pfitzner (US 2019/0239420 A1).
CLAIM 1 McLuckie et al. ‘080 (“McLuckie”) shows a soil opener (Fig. 3) for driving through soil in a direction of travel (Fig. 2, arrow 28), the soil opener comprising:
a support (12); and
a soil opener unit mounted on the support, wherein the soil opener unit comprises:
a first soil-cutting member (36); and
a delivery tube with an exit aperture for releasing material to be deposited in the soil ([0015], “seed tube”);
wherein the first soil-cutting member (36) comprises a rotating disc having a first soil-engaging surface inclined at a first angle to a perpendicular to the soil surface when viewed along the direction of travel (28), the first angle being greater than zero.
McLuckie fails to teach a second angle of the first soil-cutting member (36). Cey ‘383 (“Cey”) shows a soil opener unit including a first soil-cutting member (66) that comprises a rotating disc having a soil-engaging surface inclined at an angle to the direction of travel (127) when viewed along a perpendicular to the soil surface (Figs. 3, 4), the angle being greater than zero, whereby the rotating disc defines a leading upwardly-inclined face defining a leading side of the rotating disc and a trailing downwardly-inclined face defining a trailing side of the rotating disc relative to the direction of travel (127). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the angle of the first soil-cutting member (McLuckie, 36) in the manner suggested by Cey. The motivation for making the modification would have been to have increased the width of the formed furrow, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Neither McLuckie nor Cey teaches a second soil-cutting member as claimed. Pfitzner ‘420 (“Pfitzner”) shows a soil-cutting member (410) comprising a fixed blade (454) defining a soil-engaging surface, wherein the soil-engaging surface comprises a soil lifting surface projecting laterally relative to a first soil-cutting member (590), and the exit aperture (455) of a delivery tube is provided adjacent a rear part of the soil lifting surface ([0111]). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the prior art soil opener (McLuckie, Fig. 3) with the addition of a second soil-cutting member (Pfitzner, 410), as suggested by Pfitzner. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for forming a seed pocket in an opened furrow (Pfitzner, [0117]), and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 2 In the prior art combination, the first soil-cutting member (McLuckie, 36) is a leading soil-cutting member, and the second soil-cutting member (Pfitzner, 410) is a trailing soil-cutting member (Pfitzner, Fig. 22).
CLAIM 3 In the prior art combination, the fixed blade (Pfitzner, 454) is positioned rearwardly of an axis of rotation of the rotating disc (McLuckie, 36) relative to the direction of travel (McLuckie, 28).
CLAIM 4 In the prior art combination, the exit aperture (Pfitzner, 455) is angled to direct delivered material beneath the fixed blade (Pfitzner, 454; Fig. 21).
CLAIM 6 In the prior art combination, the delivery tube (Pfitzner, 460) is laterally offset relative to the fixed blade (Pfitzner, 454; Fig. 19).
CLAIM 7 In the prior art combination, the delivery tube (Pfitzner, 460) is located substantially behind an outer envelope of the rotating disc (McLuckie, 36; Pfitzner, 590).
CLAIM 8 In the prior art combination, the fixed blade (Pfitzner, 410) is positioned in advance of the exit aperture (Pfitzner, 455) relative to the direction of travel (McLuckie, 28).
CLAIM 9 In the prior art combination, the soil lifting surface (Pfitzner, 454) sits outside the circumference of the first soil-engaging member (McLuckie, 36) when viewed transversely to the direction of travel (McLuckie, 28) and parallel to the soil surface (Pfitzner, Fig. 22).
CLAIM 10 In the prior art combination, the exit aperture (Pfitzner, 455) of the delivery tube (Pfitzner, 460) sits outside the circumference of the first soil-engaging member (McLuckie, 36) when viewed transversely to the direction of travel (McLuckie, 28) and parallel to the soil surface (Pfitzner, Fig. 22).
CLAIM 13 In the prior art combination, the first soil-engaging surface is configured to penetrate into the soil to a first depth below the soil surface, and the soil lifting surface (Pfitzner, 454) is configured to penetrate into the soil to a second depth below the soil surface, the second depth being less than the first depth (Pfitzner, [0132],[0136]).
CLAIM 14 In the prior art combination, the soil lifting surface (Pfitzner, 454) extends at a third angle relative to the soil surface, wherein the third angle lies in the range of about 0°-45°.
CLAIM 15 In the prior art combination, the fixed blade (Pfitzner, 454) defines leading and trailing fixed blade edges and the soil lifting surface comprises a substantially planar blade surface extending between the leading and trailing fixed blade edges.
CLAIM 16 In the prior art combination, one or more the leading and trailing fixed blade edge (Pfitzner) projects substantially parallel to the soil surface.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friesen et al. (US 2008/0257237 A1) in view of Pfitzner (US 2019/0239420 A1).
CLAIM 11 Friesen fails to teach the first angle greater than the second angle. Pfitzner ‘420 (“Pfitzner”) discloses a soil opener comprising a rotating disc (590) inclined at a first angle to a perpendicular to the soil surface and second angle to the direction of travel, wherein the first angle can range from 4°-5° and the second angle is preferably 3° ([0131]). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have oriented the prior art disc (Friesen, 30) at a first angle greater than the second angle, as suggested by Pfitzner. The motivation for making the modification would have been to have formed a furrow having a desired width and depth, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 12 In the combination of Friesen and Pfitzner, the first angle lies in a range of about 5 to about 30 degrees (i.e., 5°) and the second angle lies in the range of about 2-15 degrees (2°-3°).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friesen et al. (US 2008/0257237 A1).
CLAIM 17 Friesen fails to teach a fourth angle of the leading edge on the fixed blade. However, as the angle of the leading edge on the fixed blade (58) varies directly with its depth of penetration into the sidewall of a formed furrow (i.e., for a leading edge angled between 0° and 90°, the greater the angle, the greater its depth of penetration), it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the angle 0°-30°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation for making the modification would have been to produce a cut of desired depth in the sidewall of the formed furrow.
CLAIM 18 All of the limitations recited therein are taught by Friesen as applied above (sec. 6) to address CLAIM 1, except for a second soil opener unit. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added a second soil opener unit mounted to the support (22) opposite the first soil opener unit along a central axis, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for simultaneously forming a second, parallel furrow.
CLAIM 19 Friesen, as modified above to address CLAIM 18, teaches first and second fixed blades located on the leading sides of the first and second rotating discs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Campbell (US-1416331-A) shows a soil opener assembly comprising a rotating disc (3), a trailing fixed blade (13), and a delivery tube (8).
Forsyth et al. (US-3213812-A) shows a soil opener assembly comprising a rotating disc (12), a trailing fixed blade (21), and a delivery tube (15, 16).
Barton (US-9655297-B2) shows a soil opener assembly comprising a rotating disc (5), a leading fixed blade (15) with trailing soil lifting surfaces (25), and a delivery tube (35, 37).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/tm/
27 February 2026