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
Claims 30-49 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(claim 30, line 1) “Agricultural implement” should be changed to “An agricultural implement”.
(claim 31, line 1) “Agricultural implement” should be changed to “The agricultural implement”.
(claim 32, line 1) “Agricultural implement” should be changed to “The agricultural implement”.
(claim 33, line 1) “Agricultural implement” should be changed to “The agricultural implement”.
(claim 34, line 1) “Agricultural implement” should be changed to “The agricultural implement”.
(claim 35, line 1) “Agricultural implement” should be changed to “The agricultural implement”.
(claim 36, line 1) “Agricultural implement” should be changed to “The agricultural implement”.
(claim 37, line 1) “Agricultural implement” should be changed to “The agricultural implement”.
(claim 38, line 1) “Agricultural implement” should be changed to “The agricultural implement”.
(claim 38, line 1) “according to Claim 31” should be changed to “according to Claim 32” to provide proper antecedent basis for the limitation “the air outlet”.
(claim 39, line 1) “Agricultural implement” should be changed to “The agricultural implement”.
(claim 40, line 1) “Agricultural implement” should be changed to “The agricultural implement”.
(claim 40, line 1) “according to Claim 30” should be changed to “according to Claim 31” to provide proper antecedent basis for the limitation “the separator”.
(claim 41, line 1) “Agricultural implement” should be changed to “An agricultural implement”.
(claim 41, line 20) “which wall portion” should be changed to “wherein the wall portion”.
(claim 42, line 1) “Agricultural implement” should be changed to “The agricultural implement”.
(claim 43, line 1) “Agricultural implement” should be changed to “The agricultural implement”.
(claim 44, line 1) “Agricultural implement” should be changed to “The agricultural implement”.
(claim 45, line 1) “Agricultural implement” should be changed to “The agricultural implement”.
(claim 46, line 1) “Agricultural implement” should be changed to “The agricultural implement”.
(claim 47, line 1) “Agricultural implement” should be changed to “The agricultural implement”.
(claim 48, line 1) “Agricultural implement” should be changed to “The agricultural implement”.
(claim 49, line 1) “Agricultural implement” should be changed to “The agricultural implement”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a driveable volumetric feeder unit for feeding” in claim 30.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 31-38, 40 and 45-48 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 31, the phrase "preferably" 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).
Claims 32-38, 40 and 45-48 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 30, 31, 39, 40 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wendte et al. (US 2016/0095274).
As concerns claim 30, Wendte shows an agricultural implement (7) for distributing granular material to ground over which the agricultural implement is travelling, comprising: a container (31, 33) for the material, a fan (19) for producing an air flow in a primary channel (25), a driveable volumetric feeder unit (41) for feeding the material to the primary channel, such that an material laden air flow is produced (Fig. 3 & 4A), a plurality of secondary channels (27) for transporting the material laden air flow (Fig. 3 & 4A), and a plurality of output units (15) which are each connected to one of said secondary channels and have an outlet channel (28a) for discharging the material to the ground (Fig. 3 & 4A), wherein each of the output units comprises a singulator (28b), which has a singulating part (internal seed disk) which is movable in a singulating space and has a plurality of through-holes or recesses, and over which a pressure difference can be applied, such that the singulating part has a high-pressure side and a low-pressure side (paragraph 0029 & 0030), wherein the singulator has a material inlet (inlet connected to secondary seed conduit 27) and an air inlet (inlet connected to airflow system 19b), which connect to the singulating space on the high-pressure side (Fig. 4A), wherein a material outlet (outlet connected to seed tube 28a) of the singulator connects to the outlet channel (Fig. 4A), and wherein said air flow is used for pressurizing the singulator (Fig. 4A; paragraph 0030).
As concerns claim 31, Wendte shows wherein at least some of the output units (15) comprise a separator (65; Fig. 4A; paragraph 0036).
As concerns claim 39, Wendte shows a distributor (29, 30), which has a distributor inlet connected to the primary channel, and a plurality of distributor outlets, which connect to a respective singulator (Fig. 3 & 4A).
As concerns claim 40, Wendte shows a level sensor (69) for measuring a material level at the material outlet of the separator and/or in the singulating space (Fig. 4A; paragraph 0036).
As concerns claim 49, Wendte shows a bypass channel, for selective bypassing of the singulator, such that said material laden air flow is conveyed directly to an outlet (Fig. 4A; paragraph 0038).
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 32-36, 38 and 45-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendte et al. as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Gilstring (US 2015/0189828).
As concerns claim 32, Wendte discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the separator comprises an inlet connected to one of the secondary channels, a material outlet connected to the material inlet of the singulator, and an air outlet connected to the air inlet of the singulator. Gilstring teaches wherein a separator (112) comprises an inlet (1121) connected to a secondary channel (103), a material outlet (1122) connected to a material inlet (117) of a singulator (109), and an air outlet (1123) connected to an air inlet (111) of the singulator (Fig. 7-9d). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Wendte, as taught by Gilstring, to include a separator having an air outlet connected to the air inlet of the singulator for the expected benefit of utilizing the air flow separated from the material to pressurize the singulator. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a separator having an air outlet connected to the air inlet of the singulator in the output unit 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 agricultural implement design.
As concerns claim 33, the combination teaches wherein the separator (Gilstring: 112) comprises at least one of: a cyclone separator, a separator of the filter type (Gilstring: 1), and a gravitational separator.
As concerns claim 34, the combination teaches wherein the separator (Gilstring: 112) and the singulator (Gilstring: 109) are mounted releasably on each other (Gilstring: Fig. 9a-9d).
As concerns claim 35, the combination teaches wherein the separator (Gilstring: 112) and the singulator (Gilstring: 109) are integrated with each other (Gilstring: Fig. 7).
As concerns claim 36, the combination teaches wherein the separator has a separator space of substantially circular cross section, wherein the inlet is designed such that it produces a direction of flow which is substantially tangential with respect to the separator space, wherein the material outlet is located at a lower part of the separator space, and wherein the air outlet is located at an upper portion of the separator space (Gilstring: Fig. 9a-9d).
As concerns claim 38, the combination teaches wherein the separator (Gilstring: 112) comprises a channel (Gilstring: 1122) having a wall portion (Gilstring: 15’) which is apertured (Gilstring: 12’) over at least part thereof, such that air but not material can pass through the wall portion to the air outlet (Gilstring: Fig. 9a-9d & 10a).
As concerns claim 45, the combination teaches wherein said connection between the air outlet of the separator and the air inlet of the singulator is the only source the singulator has to a positive air pressure (Gilstring: Fig. 7-9d; paragraph 0051).
As concerns claim 46, Wendte shows wherein a further source (19b) of positive air pressure is connected to the air inlet of the singulator (Fig. 4A).
As concerns claim 47, Wendte shows wherein said further source of positive air pressure is a second fan (19b).
As concerns claim 48, the combination teaches wherein said further source of positive air pressure is a channel which connects to the primary channel upstream of the container (Gilstring: paragraph 0051).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 41-44 would be allowed if amended as suggested below.
The following claim, drafted by the examiner and considered to distinguish patentably over the art of record in this application, is presented to applicant for consideration:
41. An agricultural implement for distributing granular material to ground over which the agricultural implement is travelling, comprising:
a container for the material,
a fan for producing an air flow,
a plurality of take-up zones to which the material falls by gravity from the container in order to be taken up by the air flow, such that a material laden air flow is obtained,
a plurality of primary channels, each connected to a respective take-up zone, for transporting the material laden air flow,
a plurality of output units which are each connected to one of said primary channels and have an outlet channel for discharging the material to the ground, each of the output units comprise:
a separator comprising an inlet connected to one of said primary channels, a material outlet and an air outlet,
a singulator, which has a singulating part which is movable in a singulating space and has a plurality of through-holes or recesses, and over which a pressure difference can be applied, such that the singulating part has a high-pressure side and a low-pressure side, a material inlet connected to the material outlet of the separator, and an air inlet connected to the air outlet of the separator,
wherein the material inlet and air inlet of the singulator connects to the singulating space on the high-pressure side,
wherein a material outlet of the singulator connects to the outlet channel,
wherein the separator comprises a cyclone separator, and
a wall portion arranged in the cyclone separator, wherein the wall portion is apertured such that air, but not the material, can pass through the wall portion to the air outlet.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not appear to anticipate and/or render obvious the use of a cyclone separator in an output unit such that the cyclone separator separates air from a granular material, wherein the material flows into a material inlet of a singulator and the air flows into an air inlet of the singulator.
Claim 37 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jagow et al. (US 2020/0000010) shows an output unit having a separator and a singulator (Fig. 1, 2 & 11).
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