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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obrien [GB 2516061] in view of Wagers [US 20140277959].
Claim 1: Obrien teaches a device for coating seeds at the time of planting [title], wherein the method teaches the seed and foamed liquid (seed applied substance) exit the device may be placed onto or into the soil (planter), growing medium or other desired location under influence of gravity [pg 2, para 1]. Obrien also teaches the foam and contents can be varied according requirements of specific location to which the seeds are being planted (selecting and generating the combination of the seed and seed applied substance prior to being planted at location) and planting the combination (seed and foamed liquid exiting device directly into soil) [pg 2, para 1]. Obrien does not appear to teach calculating a location to where the seed would be planted and selecting based in part on a condition for a combination of seed and seed applied substance. Wagers is provided.
Wagers teaches a method of automatically planting different types of seed with a planter by monitoring a planter location on a prescription map (calculating location) [abstract], and the selected seed type is dispensed, where the planting characteristics of the planter filed is dynamically changed based on the seed type selected according to monitored planter location (selecting, based at least in part on a condition) [abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to automatically calculate a seed location and based upon prescription map, selecting a seed to be planted at that location as suggested by Wagers so as to overcome problems from static or semi-static planting [0006].
Claim 2: Obrien teaches that an amount of seed-applied substance can be varied [pg 2, para 7]. Obrien also teaches providing a receptacle, a substance flow path, a seed flow path and a substance applicator [Fig. 1 or Fig. 2] and delivering the amount of seed applied substance from substance receptable through substance flow bath to substance applicator (e.g. foam distribution collar) [Fig. 1] and using the substance applicator to apply the amount of seed within the seed flow path [Fig. 1].
Claims 4-5: Wagers teaches selecting seed type [abstract].
Claim 7: the prior art teaches the combination of seed and substance varies based on type of seed [Wagers abstract], substance type [Obrien pg 1, para 2] and substance amount (or application rate) [Obrien pg 2, ln 5].
Claim 8: Wagers teaches a controller is used to calculate the location for the seed to be planted depending on what is desired to be planted from the prescription map [abstract; 0036; Fig. 4].
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obrien in view of Wagers as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miller [WO2008016368].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach using a plurality of seed receptacles comprising different seeds and substances. Miller is provided.
Claim 3: Miller teaches a treatment apparatus applying treatment to a particle such as a seed can include a plurality of collection tanks to receive a plurality of ingredients [abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality of tanks as taught by Miller so as to increase the number of seed with proper amount and coating of seed treatment [pg 3, para 1].
Claim 6: Wagers teaches the different combination of seed and seed applied substances with different seed and substances [0026].
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obrien in view of Wagers as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deppermann [US 20060278143].
Obrien teaches providing a seed hopper, a seed meter, seed drop tube [Fig. 1]; however, does not appear to teach providing a seed receptable and seed deliver tube. Deppermann is provided.
Claim 9: Deppermann teaches that transfer mechanism for transferring seeds between storage unit (seed receptacle) and planter units may be any system that quickly and reliably transfer seeds, which may further include pneumatic tubes (seed delivery tubes) between storage and planter [0056]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide this transfer mechanism since Deppermann teaches it is well known mechanism used in conjunction with seed planters.
Claims 10-11: Obrien teaches the seed substance is applied to the seed proximate to seed drop tube [Fig. 1].
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obrien in view of Wagers as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Knake [US 4356934].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach using a nozzle to apply seed applied substance. Knake is provided.
Claim 12: Knake teaches an in-the field seed treatment method [abstract] where the seed treatment is sprayed onto seeds as they move from hopper to planting tube [abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide spraying since Knake teaches this is another operable way of applying seed treatment on seeds during planting.
Claim 14: Knake teaches a metering or bypass nozzle may be provided (metering device) for spraying the treatment onto the seed [col 5, ln 24].
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obrien in view of Wagers as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Fick [US 5931882].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach using a control system to manage inputting a list of different combinations for planting. Fick is provided.
Claim 13: Fick teaches a system by planning and using different combinations to plant a variety of seeds by a control console [abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a control system to store data about variety of combinations since Fick teaches such technology is already well known in the art.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obrien in view of Wagers as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view Wilkerson [US 20040231575].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach using a timing mechanism to calculate the delivery time of substance to the travel time of the seed. Wilkerson is provided.
Claims 15-16: Wilkerson teaches uses sensors to calculate and communicate to a control unit between applicator and how much time an object passes during a first location [abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a timing mechanism as taught by Wilkerson to improve efficiency and minimize variable costs [0010].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Obrien discloses no step, structure or mechanism by which any selection is made: no controller, no positioning or location determining system, no prescription map and no means responsive to any condition. However, it is argued by the examiner that the specific limitations listed by applicants in the arguments are not explicitly required by the claims. While it is appropriate to use the specification to determine what applicant intends a term to mean, a positive limitation from the specification cannot be read into a claim that does not itself impose that limitation. See MPEP § 2111.01. Obrien explicitly states selecting appropriate foaming material [pg 3]. Furthermore, applicant’s argument that Obrien merely stating one could select was not determined to persuasive, since the step of selecting in claim 1 appears to be open to the step being performed manually by the operator, whereas the applicant appears to argue that that a selection step can only be performed by a controller. Regarding applicant’s arguments that Wagers fails to disclose a coating treatment applied to a seed, it is argued that Wager is relied upon for teaching that it already well known in the agricultural art that the method steps of calculating a location where a seed would be planted and selecting parameters for treatment process based on that selected location is operable and obvious. Whereas Obrien teaches it would have been obvious for the operator to select both the seed treatment and seed material manually. Applicant’s argument that Wagers does not provide a teaching in which the combination of the seed and seed applied substance is generated before planting; however, Wager teaches dynamically changing the seed time according to the monitored planter location, which suggests that the determination of the seed and/or seed treatment would be conducted based upon the preconceived location; therefore, prior to planting. As for applicant’s arguments that Wager merely reacts where the planter is rather than calculating a location where the seed will be planted; the term “calculating a location” since Applicant’s disclosure does not define the term to be solely limited to using GPS for calculating a location; therefore, the limitation would be given its broadest and most reasonable interpretation, which may include other processes using location data. Regarding applicant’s argument that Miller fails to disclose the tanks are seed receptacles and only hold liquid treatment ingredients; however, Miller does teaches that the seed treater may receive a plurality of pre-measured bags (of seeds) onto the conveyor [pg 6], furthermore the claims are open to having the same seeds, but different fluid treatment ingredients as Miller teaches. Regarding Miller is irrelevant to the claimed invention due to the stationary nature of the treatment process taught by Miller, rather than in-situ with a planter, it is argued that Obrien and Wager provide this teaching of treating seeds in-situ during planting operations is already well known in the agricultural field. Regarding applicant’s argument that Deppermann is directed to a custom planter, but contains no seed-applied substance, it argued that Deppermann is reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved, such as transferring and transporting seeds between devices for a seed treatment apparatus. Regarding applicant’s arguments of Knake failing to disclose a calculation of location where the seed will be planted; however, Knake is relied upon for teaching a nozzle to apply seed substance. Regarding applicant’s argument that Fink fails to teach a list of different combination of seed and substances associated with seed receptacles; it is argued that Fick disclosing a grid system that would innately have a list of different combinations since each area is calculated to be treated with specific recipes. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that such assignment of data would require to pull from specific tanks or receptacles containing the necessary ingredients for the designated combination of that particular selected area. Regarding applicant’s arguments of Wilkerson does not specifically teach performing the calculation of a seed traveling from a substance receptacle to a substance applicator; however, since Wilkerson teaches a general solution for calculating and controlling how much time an object travels from original location to an applicator, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Wilkerson is reasonably pertinent to the problem of applicant’s claimed invention, therefore, would be considered analogous art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
