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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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: “actuation mechanism” in claim 1 and 15, “biasing member” in claims 3 and 13, and “sapling retrieval apparatus” in claims 10 and 11.
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 11-12 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 11 recites the limitation "the sapling tray" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, its dependence on indefinite claim 11 renders the claim itself indefinite.
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, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moon et al. (CN116369009A). Moon et al. discloses a sapling gripping head for a transplanter with a support frame 12,13,15,18; a sliding frame 12,13,14,17 slidably coupled to the support frame; a plurality of gripping units comprising a first fork 19 coupled to the support frame and a second fork 19 coupled to the sliding frame; and an actuation mechanism 2,9,10,11,4 configured to slide the sliding frame 17 relative to the support frame 18.
Regarding claim 6, Moon et al. discloses that the first fork 19 is normal to the support frame 18 and the second fork 19 is normal to the sliding frame 17.
Regarding claim 8, Moon et al. discloses a gap (not numbered) defined between the first fork 19 and the second fork 19, the gap is configured to hold a sapling (paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 9, Moon et al. discloses that the number of gripping units are equal to the number of saplings in a row of a sapling tray arranged on the transplanter (paragraph [0068]).
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 10-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al., as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Moiddin et al. (20210015027). Moon et al. discloses all of the claimed subject matter except for a sapling retrieval apparatus coupled to the sapling gripping head, and a controller configured to regulate the actuation mechanism.
Moiddin et al. teaches for a sapling gripping head 205 for a transplanter and that there is (claim 10) a sapling retrieval apparatus 200 coupled to the sapling gripping head 205, and (claim 15) a controller 180 configured to regulate the actuation mechanism, wherein (claim 11) the sapling retrieval apparatus 200 controls a position of the sapling gripping head 205 relative to the sapling tray 190, and (claim 12) the position of the sapling gripping head 205 is selected from a sapling pick position, a sapling drop position, and a rest position (paragraphs [0049] and [0050]) for the purposes of planting saplings accurately.
Since Moon et al. and Moiddin et al. are both in the same field of endeavor the purpose disclosed by Moiddin et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Moon et al. It would have been obvious at a time before the invention was effectively filed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the sapling gripping head of Moon et al. to include a sapling retrieval apparatus coupled to the sapling gripping head, and a controller configured to regulate the actuation mechanism, wherein the sapling retrieval apparatus controls a position of the sapling gripping head relative to the sapling tray, and the position of the sapling gripping head is selected from a sapling pick position, a sapling drop position, and a rest position for the purposes of planting saplings accurately.
Prior Art
Prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure for showing other transplanters with sapling gripping heads.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7, 13, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The improvements comprise that (claim 2) the actuation mechanism comprises a linear actuator (claim 3) the actuation mechanism further comprises a biasing member biasing the sliding frame against the support frame and the actuation mechanism slides the sliding frame against the force of the biasing member, (claim 4) the first fork further comprises a pair of fingers, (claim 7) the support frame further comprises a slot proximal to the first fork and the second fork moves within the slot, (claim 13) the second fork further comprises a biasing member placed between the second fork and the sliding frame, and (claim 14) the actuation mechanism is a linear solenoid actuator.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Lazo whose telephone number is (571) 272-4818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor Nathaniel Wiehe, can be reached on (571) 272-8648. The fax phone number for this Group 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.
/THOMAS E LAZO/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3745
July 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights