DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
Portions of the information disclosure statements filed fail to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because of the following reasons:
With respect to 27 May 2025, 16 September 2024 and 10 April 2024, some references are incorrectly listed as Foreign Patent Documents;
With respect to 1 February 2024, references 20, 46, 74, 95 and 98 are illegible; references 79 and 88 are so long that proper consideration would be unduly burdensome; references 64-70 are not foreign patent documents; the title of reference 105 does not match the title of the corresponding submission; and references 83 and 89 do not have a corresponding submission. Note that two documents submitted have not been considered. One document has no identifying information and one document is not listed in the information disclosure statement.
The information disclosure statement filed 20 November 2024 includes a duplicate document. One instance has been lined through but the document has been considered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “are described” (line 1) is redundant to the purpose of the abstract and should be deleted. 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The arrangement of the newly added claim is not discussed in the specification.
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 6, 8, 13, 14, 19-21, 46, 48, 49, 51, 55, 56 and 60-63 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 6 recites the limitation "the movement" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, this appears to be a process limitation, which is improper in this product claim.
Claim 8 is indefinite because starting and ending locations are beyond the scope of the claims, since the claims are a product and not a process, and any starting and ending locations refer to undefined locations on a material that is claimed for a process that is also not claimed.
Claim 13 and 14 are vague and indefinite. Each recites a broad configuration (to shield) in relation to an undefined component (plant in claim 13 and more specific part in claim 14) in an intended use material with no structure recited which would enable the arrangement or the exact manner of shielding.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the manner in which the components are disposed relative to an unclaimed, intended use surface is indefinite; particularly since the use described in the specification is the ground, which is naturally uneven and, therefore, not uniformly disposed relative to a working machine through a process which requires movement thereover.
Regarding claims 21 and 49, it is unclear how these claims further limits parent claim 1, since application of electrical energy as claimed would naturally be in the form of conducting a current/emit and receive an electrical current.
Claim 46 recites only process recitations which are improper in the product claim.
Claim 48 recites components (roots of plants) which further define an intended use component (material). It is unclear if these are intended to be a claimed part of the invention.
Further regarding claim 49, the recitation of “the same depth” not only lacks proper antecedent basis, but also is related to a position within an unclaimed material.
Claim 60 further limits a component “material” that is intended use only. This is indefinite as it is unclear if this material is intended to be a part of the claimed invention.
Claims 61 and 62 essentially recite a process within a product claim. This is improper, since a claim must be a product or process only, and indefinite. It is also unclear how claim 61 further limits claim 1, since this propose is recited as intended use in claim 1.
Claims 51, 55, 56 are rejected because of their dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-11, 13, 14, 19-22, 35, 41-46, 48-50 and 57-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roe (U.S. Patent 1,737,866).
Roe discloses a treatment system including a frame (Figures 1, 2 and 4) and an electrode assembly (6) coupled thereto. The electrode assembly includes a plurality of electrodes (Figure 3, for example) configured to apply electrical energy in the manner claimed (page 1, lines 67-72, for example). While the newly added final recitation of claim 1 is intended use only, note that Roe discloses the same purpose (page 1, lines 88-933, for example). With respect to the motion assembly, note that this is inherent, since Roe cannot function for its intended purpose without motion and discloses system motion during operation.
Regarding claim 2, the electrodes are positioned at different locations (Figure 2, for example).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, the recitation of alternating polarities is met (page 1, lines 57-60, for example) and the electrodes are positioned substantially perpendicular to the direction of travel.
Regarding claim 4, the positioning meets the recitation of “along a common line” (Figure 4, for example).
In use, Roe operates in accordance with claim 6.
The electrodes are configured in the manner of claims 7-9, since Roe teaches material engagement/cutting during use.
Claim 10 is met since the electrodes are configurations appear to be knife-shaped (Figure 3, for example) and a specifically designed to cut through material.
Regarding claim 11, the electrodes are provided with voltages different from one another during use, which meets claim recitations.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, because the electrodes are spaced apart and extend relatively vertically low compared to the overall apparatus, they are deemed to meet claim recitations. Note the 112 rejection, above.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the electrodes extend substantially vertically. This could be either perpendicular or non-perpendicular to the surface, depending on features thereof at any particular moment during treatment. See the 112 rejection, above.
Roe is configured to operate in the manner of claims 21 and 22.
Regarding claim 35, the brace (5) and vertical strut (not labeled) in combination with the wheel (not labeled) effectively control a height of the electrodes relative to a surface. This meets claim recitations.
Regarding claim 41, the unlabeled forward hitch (Figures 1 and 4) is a coupling assembly coupled to the frame and configured to couple with a tow unit, which is, again, inherent for system operation. Roe specifies that the system is insulated.
Regarding claim 42, the unlabeled forward hitch could be considered the tow unit. Further, because a tow unit is required for system operation, a tow unit is deemed to be inherent.
Regarding claim 43, there is a source (9) of electrical energy.
Regarding claim 44, the battery (9), casing (10), wires (7) and coil (8) broadly meet the recitation of the discharge assembly.
Regarding claim 45, movement in use would naturally result in the electrodes emitting and receiving current at different locations.
Roe operates in accordance with claims 46, 48 and 49.
Regarding claim 50, the electrodes are configured as claimed.
Roe is configured in the manner of claims 57-59 and 62.
Regarding claim 60, Roe is used on soil.
As discussed with respect to claim 1, Roe is used for the same purpose as claim 61.
Roe is deemed to meet the recitations of claim 63.
Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 11, 13-16, 19-22, 35, 41-49 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keller (U.S. Patent 2,429,412).
Keller discloses a treatment system including a frame (Figure 1, for example) with a motion assembly (not shown but inherent for operation) coupled thereto. There is an electrode assembly having a plurality of electrodes (28) coupled with the frame (Figure 2, for example).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Keller includes buss bars (30).
Regarding claim 35, there is a positioning assembly (Figure 1, for example).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-11, 13, 14, 19-22, 35, 36, 41-46, 48-51 and 55-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe (U.S. Patent 1,737,866), as applied above.
As discussed above, the motion assembly is deemed to be met by Roe. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a motion assembly in order to operate Roe as intended.
Regarding claim 37, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to use actuators in order to position implements as desired. For this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Roe as claimed.
Regarding claim 51, the electrode, which is also the work implement, is not arranged as claimed; however, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to utilize swept back tillage implements in order to work a soil as desired. For this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the implement of Roe in this manner. This configuration would meet claim recitation.
Regarding claims 55 and 56, given the towed arrangement of Roe, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the system as claimed in order to safely and effectively move the system during use thereof.
Claims 1-11, 13-22, 35, 41-51 and 55-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (U.S. Patent 2,429,412), as applied above.
As discussed above, the motion assembly is deemed to be met by Keller. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a motion assembly in order to operate Keller as intended.
Regarding the claims directed to electrical arrangements, such as voltage polarities, etc. The examiner takes Official notice that these are known to use in material treatment systems and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Keller as claimed in order to effectively operate the system, as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 10, because Keller moves through soil, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a knife-shape in order to ease this movement.
Regarding claim 17, Keller is silent regarding recesses; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged Keller as claimed in order to, for example, mount the bars as desired.
Regarding claim 51, the electrode is not arranged as claimed; however, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to utilize swept back tillage implements in order to work a soil as desired. For this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the implement of Keller in this manner. This configuration would meet claim recitation.
Regarding claims 55 and 56, given the towed arrangement of Keller, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the system as claimed in order to safely and effectively move the system during use thereof.
Claims 1-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe (U.S. Patent 1,737,866), as applied above, and further in view of Pluenneke et al. (U.S. Patent 3,919,806).
As discussed above, Roe requires motion in order to operate. Pluenneke discloses a treatment system including a including a frame (Figures 1 and 2, for example) with a motion assembly (12, for example) coupled thereto. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the frame and motion assembly of Pluenneke with the treatment system of Roe in order to efficiently treat a wide path of material, in accordance with the teaching of both Roe and Pluenneke.
Regarding claim 12, Pluenneke teaches insulating an upper portion (65) of an electrode (64). Further, the examiner takes Official notice that dielectric coatings are well known. Roe teaches insulation (claim 11, for example), but leaves the arrangement to one skilled in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used dielectric coating on the upper portions of Roe in order to, for example, increase safety as implied by Pluenneke, since Roe teaches insulating material, dielectric coating is a known insulator and Pluenneke teaches insulating an upper portion of a material treatment electrode. This arrangement further meets claim 13, 14 and 47 recitations.
Regarding claims 15, 16 and 18, the examiner takes Official notice that buss bars are well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included buss bars as desired in order to connect adjacent electrodes.
Regarding claim 17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the buss bars as claimed in order to, for example, mount the bars as desired.
Regarding claim 23, given the placement of Roe along the rod (20, 22) of Pluenneke, there is a preconditioning assembly (62, 63). Further, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to arrange diverse tools along a treatment path using frames having motion assemblies in order to optimally work a surface in a single pass. For this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included at least the preconditioning assembly of Pluenneke.
Regarding claims 24 and 26, the preconditioning assembly appears to be configured as claimed (Figure 2). Further, the examiner takes Official notice that preconditioning elements (disks, for example) configured to generate grooves/pre-slice are well known in material working implements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a groove generating assembly in order work the material as desired, as is common in material working systems. This also meets claim 34, 53 and 54 recitations.
Regarding claim 25, given the inclusion of a groove generating tool, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned this assembly such that claim recitations were met in order to, for example, reduce digging work required by the electrode.
Given the combination, claim 27 appears to be met. Further, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to use a plurality of spaced apart slicing members in order to work material between agricultural rows. Because both Roe and Pluenneke teach multiple assemblies, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used multiple slicing members in order to work a wide path.
Regarding claim 28, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any relative dimensions best suited to a particular application.
Regarding claim 29, Pluenneke refers to the members as “wheels,” which naturally have hubs. Further, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to position rotatable implements on hubs in order to facilitate rotation. For this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included hubs.
Regarding claim 30, because the slicing members would terminate at respective hubs, these would naturally serve to control insertion depths. This is sufficient to meet claim 30 recitations and this potential to contact also meets claim 31 recitations.
Regarding claim 32, because members cannot be positioned such that hubs overlap, claim recitations are deemed to be broadly met.
Pluenneke is isolated from the frame, as is Roe. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have electrically isolated the members from the frame in order to ensure proper operation.
Regarding claim 35, Pluenneke includes a positioning assembly (32, 34, for example) configured to control height (column 4, lines 49-57, for example). Given the combination discussed above, claim recitations would be met.
Regarding claims 36 and 37, Pluenneke includes front (62) and rear (32, 34) actuators as claimed. Given the combination discussed above, claim recitations would be met.
Regarding claims 38-40, the examiner takes Official notice that multiple, sequentially working implements are well known. Further, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to include grooming assemblies, including rollers, in order to obtain a desired surface following tilling operations. For this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Roe/Pluenneke as claimed.
Further regarding claim 41, there is a coupling assembly (not labeled, Figures 1 and 2, for example). Given the disclosures of Roe and Pluenneke, electrical isolation is deemed inherent. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured electrically isolation as claimed in order to ensure safety and proper operation.
Regarding claim 52, Pluenneke includes electrical supply to wheels (63). Because the arrangement of Pluenneke differs from the arrangement of the electrodes of Roe, given the combination, it would be unlikely that the voltages would be identical. Because there is no scope regarding a difference, even a minor difference is enough to meet claim recitations; therefore, simply this difference appears to meet claim recitations. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used different voltages as desired in order to suit a particular application.
Regarding claims 55 and 56, the examiner takes Official notice that these arrangements are known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any known arrangement in order to obtain a secure coupling between the motion assembly and the system being towed.
Claims 1-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pluenneke et al. (U.S. Patent 3,919,806) in view of Roe (U.S. Patent 1,737,866).
Pluenneke teaches the system discussed above. Roe teaches the electrode assembly discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the electrode assemblies of Roe on the motion assembly and tillage implement of Pluenneke in order to efficiently work a wide path of material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach treatment systems, at least some of which meet at least the recitations of claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571 272-0547. 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.
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights