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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e). The provisional Application No. 63/524,385, filed on 06/30/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 10/22/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings that were filed on 03/15/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14, 16-18, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoller et al. (US 20190124829 A1), and herein after will be referred to as Stoller.
Regarding Claim 1, Stoller teaches a self-adjusting plant row guide apparatus for applying material via at least one applicator to a plurality of plants in a row (The fluid application unit self-adjusts its position using the guide members and applies fluid to plants via outlets; Stoller [0102]),
said row having a longitudinal center and wherein at least one of said plants is located a lateral distance from said longitudinal center (A centered and non-centered position between rows of plants laterally positioned from the longitudinal center; Stoller [0117]),
said self-adjusting plant row guide apparatus comprising at least one guide member configured to successively sense each of said plurality of plants in said row (Guide members “feelers” that contact passing plants to physically sense the plants; Stoller [0090])
and if a plant is located a different lateral distance from said longitudinal center than the immediate previously sensed plant, said…to move said at least one applicator (Guidance members deflect the frame to allow the base member to remain center “equidistant” from each row of plants; Stroller [0102]).
Stoller does not explicitly teach the guide member actuates said self-adjusting plant row guide apparatus.
However, Stoller discloses a system that uses guidance members that deflect a flexible or semi-flexible frame to allow the base member to stay centered in the row of plants. The deflection of the frame achieves the equivalent result of the actuating movement of the apparatus to maintain row alignment (Stoller [0102]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Stoller to achieve the lateral movement by actuating the guide members based on the motivation to center the base member and maintain row alignment in the row of plants. This provides the benefit of a more precise and rigid applicator to the crops compared to a flexible frame that may bend inconsistently.
Regarding Claim 2, Stoller remains as applied above in claim 1. Stoller further teaches the self-adjusting plant row guide apparatus of claim 1 further comprising a self-adjusting pivot (Stoller explicitly teaches that the guide members “feelers” pivot within a range of motion and deflects upon contacting passing plants. The feelers automatically move in response to physical contact from a plant without needing any manual input from an operator; Stoller [0090]).
Regarding Claim 3, Stoller remains as applied above in claim 2. Stoller further teaches the self-adjusting pivot comprises:
a. a pivot point (The feelers pivot in an angular motion about an axis from the frame, which in definition is a pivot point; Stoller [0090]),
b. a biasing member (A spring element or biasing element that biases the feelers into a neutral position; Stoller [0090]),
c. and at least one pivot member (The “feelers” and fluid outlets are pivotally connected to the frame, which in definition is a pivot member; Stoller [0090]).
Regarding Claim 4, Stoller remains as applied above in claim 3. Stoller further teaches said biasing member biases said self-adjusting plant row guide in a neutral position (The spring or biasing element returns the guide members “feelers” to a neutral position when not deflected by a plant or obstacle; Stoller [0090]).
Regarding Claim 5, Stoller remains as applied above in claim 4. Stoller further teaches said neutral position is at the longitudinal center of said row (Linkage members are biased in a neutral centered position between rows of plants to keep the base at an equidistance position from the rows of plants; Stoller [0117]).
Regarding Claim 6, Stoller remains as applied above in claim 4. Stoller further teaches at least one guide member senses said plants by touching said plants (Guide members “feelers” operate by making physical contact with the plants; Stoller [0090]).
Regarding Claim 7, Stoller remains as applied above in claim 6. Stoller further teaches the touching of said at least one guide member by said plants causes said at least one guide member to move laterally (The guide members contact the plants causing the frame to deflect and maintain an equidistant position that is equivalent to a lateral adjustment to stay centered from each row of plants; Stoller [0102]).
Regarding Claim 8, Stoller remains as applied above in claim 7. Stoller further teaches the lateral movement of said at least one guide member overcomes the bias of said biasing member, causing movement of said biasing member (The guide members “feelers” comprises a spring biasing element that deflects the feelers when contacting passing plants and returns the feelers into a neutral position when not deflected by a plant or obstacle; Stoller [0090], FIG. 3B).
Stoller does not explicitly teach the guide member overcomes the bias of said biasing member, causing movement of said biasing member.
However, Stoller teaches a biased object that is deflected by plant contact and subsequently returns to its neutral position (Stoller [0090]), which illustrates the principle of a spring-biased object. In such a system, the force exerted by the contacting plant must exceed the restoring force of the biasing element, thereby causing a deflection. The action of deflecting the feelers necessarily overcomes the bias and causes the biasing member to move. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand that the deflection of the biased feelers involves overcoming the bias of the biasing element.
Regarding Claim 9, Stoller remains as applied above in claim 8. Stoller further teaches the movement of said biasing member causes said at least one pivot member to pivot about said pivot point (The guide members “feelers” (biasing members) pivot in an angular motion from the frame (pivot point); Stoller [0090], FIG. 3B).
Regarding Claim 10, Stoller remains as applied above in claim 9. Stoller further teaches at least one pivot member is engaged with said at least one applicator, such that movement of said at least one pivot member moves said at least one applicator (The guide members “feelers” are linked to the applicator (fluid outlet) where moving one moves the other; Stoller [0091]).
Regarding Claim 11, Stoller remains as applied above in claim 10. Stoller further teaches comprising two pivot members (The system contains two guide members “feelers”; Stoller [0090], FIG. 3A and 3B).
Regarding Claim 12, Stoller remains as applied above in claim 11. Stoller further teaches each pivot member is connected to at least one applicator (Each feeler is linked to one fluid outlet; Stoller [0091]).
Regarding Claim 13, Stoller remains as applied above in claim 12. Stoller further teaches the applicator is selected from the group consisting of:
a. a nozzle (A nozzle at the end of the fluid lines; Stoller [0182])
b. an atomizer (Pressurized spray emitted from the fluid outlet; Stoller [0092])
Stoller does not explicitly teach the applicator is an atomizer.
However, Stoller teaches an applicator system with fluid outlets that emits a pressurized spray (Stoller [0092]). Stoller further discloses that the nozzle outlets located at the end of the fluid lines may contain an aerator to regulate flow fluid. A nozzle containing an aerator in a spray system mixes air with the liquid to create a fine atomized spray functionally equivalent to an atomizer, which converts fluid into a fine mist by forcing it through a small opening under pressure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that the pressurized spray emitted from the fluid outlet as taught in Stoller performs the same atomizing function. This provides the benefit of improving the uniformity and efficiency of material application at the base of the plants.
Regarding Claim 14, Stoller remains as applied above in claim 12. Stoller further teaches said applicator is designed for metered application (The implement containing a flow controller with at least one flow sensor for metered application; Stoller [0087], FIG. 2).
Regarding Claim 16, Stoller remains as applied above in claim 10. Stoller further teaches at least one height adjustment member configured to adjust the height of said at least one guide member with respect to the ground (A vertically sliding frame with a ground engaging element to adjust and maintain the height of the apparatus and the guide members relative to the ground; Stoller [0105]).
Regarding Claim 17, Stoller teaches a method of applying material to a plurality of plants using a self-adjusting plant row guide apparatus having at least one guide member, wherein said self-adjusting plant row guide apparatus is connected to at least one applicator, comprising (The fluid application unit self-adjusts its position using the guide members and applies fluid to plants via outlets; Stoller [0102]);
a. Sensing said plurality of plants with said at least one guide member connected to said at least one applicator, wherein said sensing causes said self-adjusting plant row guide to move to accommodate said plurality of plants (The guide members connected to fluid outlets (applicators) contacting (sensing) the plants causing the frame (apparatus) to adjust in order to remain equidistant from each row of plants; Stoller [0102], FIG. 6A), and
b. Applying material to said plurality of plants with said at least one applicator after sensing said plurality of plants with said guide member (The applicator unit applies a pressurized spray emitted from the fluid outlets after contact (sensing) by the feeler; Stoller [0092]).
Stoller does not explicitly teach the method comprising steps of sensing said plurality of plants with said at least one guide member connected to said at least one applicator, wherein said sensing causes said self-adjusting plant row guide to move to accommodate said plurality of plants and applying material to said plurality of plants with said at least one applicator after sensing said plurality of plants with said guide member.
However, Stoller discloses the operations of the apparatus in separate embodiments. Specifically, the apparatus is designed to move laterally by deflecting the frame allowing the base member to remain equidistant from each row of plants (Stoller [0102]) in response to contact (sensing) from its guidance members. Furthermore, in a separate embodiment, Stoller discloses a pressurized spray emitted from the fluid outlet that is contacted by the guide member “feelers”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stoller to perform the sequential method steps of sensing the plants with guidance members, adjusting the frame to remain equidistant to the row of plants, and apply material with the application unit after sensing with the feelers based on the motivation to accurately apply material to the base of the plant providing the benefit of improving the application of material to non-uniform rows.
Regarding Claim 18, Stoller remains as applied above in claim 17. Stoller further teaches said plurality of plants are selected from the group consisting of corn, sorghum, cotton, canola, sunflowers, soybeans, wheat, barley, pearl millet, oats, and rice (The application unit applies an application to plants such as corn plants, soy bean plants, etc.; Stoller [0089]).
Regarding Claim 20, Stoller remains as applied above in claim 17. Stoller further teaches said material is selected from the group consisting of liquids (A fluid application unit for applying an application to plants; Stoller [0089]).
Regarding Claim 22, Stoller remains as applied above in claim 20. Stoller further teaches said liquids are liquid fertilizers (The tank containing a fluid application of liquid fertilizer; Stoller [0096]).
Regarding Claim 24, Stoller remains as applied above in claim 17. Stoller further teaches adjusting the height of said at least one guide member to target application of said material to a particular plant tissue of said plurality of plants (A height adjustable frame that applies material towards the base region of the plant (a particular plant tissue) with a ground engaging element guide member; Stoller [0096], [0105]).
Claim(s) 15, 21, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoller in view of Sibley et al. (US 20210186005 A1), and herein after will be referred to as Sibley.
Regarding Claim 15, Stoller remains as applied above in claim 12. Stoller does not explicitly teach said applicator is configured to apply pollen.
However, Sibley, in the same field of endeavor teaches an agricultural treatment system where the treatment includes applying pollen to a stigma of blossom to affect the germination process (Sibley [0059]). Furthermore, Sibley discloses an event detector and action selector to detect an event for a “king-blossom” and determines an action of applying a treatment that pollinates the blossom (Sibley [0167]).
Stoller and Sibley are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of applying material to agricultural crops. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the self-guiding applicator of Stoller to incorporate the teachings of Sibley to apply pollen as the material to the plants based on the motivation to positively affect the germination process and ensure that pollen is delivered accurately to the crops. This provides the benefit of increasing the likelihood of improved crop yields.
Regarding Claim 21, Stoller and Sibley remains as applied above in claim 20. Stoller further teaches applying common agricultural fluid materials such as fertilizers (Stoller [0096]).
Stoller does not explicitly teach solid particulates of powdered fertilizers.
However, Sibley teaches the agricultural treatment delivery system delivers treats that include fertilizer or any other applicable agricultural material or substance (Sibley [0062]). Furthermore, Sibley teaches that the material used for application is not limited to liquid based projectiles and may include solid and gas-based emissions or projectiles (Sibley [0072]). The teachings of Sibley establishes that the use of applicators to dispense solid material onto crops where fertilizers and pesticides are commonly known and available in both liquid and powdered forms. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stoller to apply fertilizers or pesticides in a powdered form as taught by Sibley. Fertilizers and pesticides are available in both liquid and powdered forms and would have found it as an obvious choice to use the applicator to apply a powdered fertilizer instead of a liquid fertilizer. This provides the benefit of allowing the operator to select the most suitable material for the crop depending on weather conditions or available material.
Regarding Claim 23, Stoller remains as applied above in claim 17. Stoller does not explicitly teach said material is pollen.
However, Sibley teaches a method where treatment includes applying pollen to a stigma of a blossom to effect germination (Sibley [0059]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stoller to use pollen as the applied material as taught by Sibley based on the motivation to precisely apply pollen and ensuring that the pollen is delivered to fertilize the plants. This provides the benefit of increasing the pollination efficiency and improving crop yields.
Regarding Claim 25, Stoller remains as applied above in claim 24. Stoller does not explicitly teach said particular plant tissue is one or more stigmas.
However, Sibley teaches a method where treatment includes applying pollen to a particular plant tissue, the stigma of a blossom, to effect germination (Sibley [0059]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the height adjustment of Stoller to target the stigma of a blossom as taught in Sibley based on the motivation to achieve fertilization of applying pollen to the stigma. This provides the benefit of achieving pollination and increasing crop yields.
Claim(s) 19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoller in view of Aguiar et al. (US 11641817 B2), and herein after will be referred to as Aguiar.
Regarding Claim 19, Stoller remains as applied above in claim 17. Stoller does not explicitly teach said sensing further comprises bunching said plurality of plants by said guide member.
However, Aguiar teaches a pollination unit with a crop guide assembly where the guide members funnel the crops into a passage (Aguiar Col 14 lines 7-11, FIGS. 12 and 13). The funneling passes the plants through a passage and gathers and compressing plants into a narrow space equivalent to the claimed “bunching” of plurality of plants by the guide member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Stoller to funnel the plants through the passage by the guide assembly as taught by Aguiar based on the motivation to accurately position the plants and effectively apply fertilizer or pollen providing the benefit of an improved guidance and application of material.
Regarding Claim 26, Stoller remains as applied above in claim 24. Stoller does not explicitly teach said particular plant tissue comprises one or more corn silks.
However, Aguiar teaches a method of pollinating corn plants and explains that for the pollination process to be successful, the pollen must be delivered to the specific part of the female flower of the corn plant, in this case, corn silks (Aguiar Col 3 lines 50-66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stoller to target the corn silks as taught by Aguiar based on the motivation to effectively pollinate the corn plants and providing the benefit of an increased yield of crops.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent, most relevant, to applicant's disclosure.
Harden (US 5613635)
Stoller (US 20190216009 A1)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON whose telephone number is (571)272-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663