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 . Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) 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 delivery system”, “a dosing apparatus” and “a storage device” in claims 1 and 11; “a compression device” in Claim 3.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they 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 these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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 them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 11, in Line 8 “the terminal end” should be “a terminal end” and in Line 9 “the terminal end” should be” a terminal end”.
Regarding Claim 14, in Line 4 “the stigma” should be “a stigma”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 8-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "said compression tube" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 depends from Claim 8 and is rejected accordingly.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the storage bin" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this examination the limitation will be interpreted as referring to the storage device.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said compression device" in Line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12-13 depend from Claim 11 and are rejected accordingly.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herman (U.S. Patent No. 5,087,155), hereinafter Herman.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Herman discloses a precision metering and delivery apparatus (Figure 1) for the precise distribution of particulate material via compression and metered shaving of said particulate material (Intended use – It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex paste Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), said precision metering apparatus comprising:
a. a delivery system, (Column 4, Lines 56-63 – the air line from the blower, 18, the outlet line, 20, and the chamber, 16, make up the delivery system that pneumatically delivers the material),
b. a dosing apparatus (Column 6, Lines 3-23 – the gate, 56, controls the amount of material that is provided to the delivery system and therefore is a dosing apparatus) and
c. a storage device (Column 4, Line 67 – Column 5, Line 2 – the hopper bottom trailer is a storage device).
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Flatt (Foreign Patent Publication DE 2100135), hereinafter Flatt.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Flatt discloses a precision metering and delivery apparatus (Figures 1 and 2) for the precise distribution of particulate material via compression and metered shaving of said particulate material (Intended use – It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex paste Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), said precision metering apparatus comprising:
a. a delivery system, (the blower, 4, the air line from the blower, 4, the connection box, 23, the outlet line, 24 and 26, make up the delivery system that pneumatically delivers the material),
b. a dosing apparatus, 20, and
c. a storage device, 13.
Regarding Claim 2, Flatt discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Flatt further discloses said precision metering and delivery apparatus is mounted on field equipment (Figure 1 – the apparatus is mounted on a mobile frame which is useable in any location, including fields).
Regarding Claim 3, Flatt discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Flatt further discloses a compression device, 7, 8, 16, 17, 11 and 14.
Regarding Claim 6, Flatt discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Flatt further discloses said dosing apparatus comprises a rotating dosing plate (Paragraph 0020 - the dosing apparatus includes a rotating plate that provides an amount of the material and thus is a dosing plate).
Regarding Claim 7, Flatt discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Flatt further discloses said dosing apparatus comprises an impeller (Paragraph 0020 - the dosing apparatus includes a rotating blades that provides/moves an amount of the material and thus is a impeller).
Regarding Claim 10, Flatt discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Flatt further discloses said delivery system comprises at least one blower fan, 4, and at least one applicator (Paragraph 0024 – the outlet line, 24, and conveying line, 26, provide the material to the desired location, thus the outlet end of the conveying line, 26, and the conveying line make up the applicator).
Regarding Independent Claim 11, Flatt discloses a precision metering and delivery apparatus (Figures 1 and 2) for the precise distribution of particulate material via compression and metered shaving of said particulate material (Intended use – It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex paste Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), said precision metering apparatus comprising:
a. a delivery system, (Column 4, Lines 56-63 – the blower, 4, the air line from the blower, 4, the connection box, 23, the outlet line, 24, make up the delivery system that pneumatically delivers the material),
b. a dosing apparatus, 20, and
c. a storage device (the top portion of the bin, 13, above the reel, 18, is the storage device).
d. a compression tube, 11,
e. a compression zone (the zone between the end of the auger/screw/compression device, 14, and the end of the tube, 11, is the compression zone) between the terminal end of said compression device, 7, 8, 16, 17, 11 and 14, and the terminal end of said compression tube (the compression zone is between the end of the auger/screw/compression device, 14, and the end of the tube, 11, is the compression zone), and
f. at least one applicator, 26.
Regarding Claim 12, Flatt discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Flatt further discloses said applicator further comprises at least one guide member (the conduit of the applicator is the guide member) and at least one applicator tip (the outlet end of the applicator, 26, is the applicator tip).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herman in view of Borstmayer (U.S. Patent No. 6,112,679), hereinafter Borstmayer.
Regarding Claim 3, Herman discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Herman does not disclose a compression device.
However, Borstmayer teaches a particulate delivery apparatus (Figures 3 and 4) with a treatment device, 25, 26, 27 and 28, with a compression device (the pump, 27, is a piston pump which uses a piston as a compression device).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Herman to include a treatment device, as taught by Borstmayer, resulting in the inclusion of a compression device, in order to allow the application of liquid substances to the material (Borstmayer - Abstract).
Regarding Claim 5, Herman in view of Borstmayer disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Borstmayer further discloses the compression device is a piston (the pump, 27, is a piston pump which uses a piston as a compression device).
Thus the combination of Herman in view of Borstmayer would result in the limitations of Claim 5.
Claim(s) 4, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flatt in view of Van Zee (U.S. Patent No. 5,205,416), hereinafter Van Zee.
Regarding Claim 4, Flatt discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Flatt does not disclose a shaftless auger.
However, Van Zee teaches an delivery apparatus (Figures 1 and 5) that uses a shaftless auger, 11.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Flatt by making the compression device a shaftless auger, as taught by Van Zee, because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element (an auger with a shaft of Flatt), for another (shaftless auger of Van Zee), to obtain predictable results of moving material by the rotation of the auger (Van Zee – Column 3, Lines 1-15) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421; MPEP 2141 III B.
Regarding Claim 8, Flatt in view of Van Zee disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Flatt further discloses the auger predominately coextensive with said compression tube (the auger, 14, is positioned within extends along with the compression tube, 11, and comprises a position adjustment mechanism (Paragraphs 0016-0017 - the motor, 7, gearboxes 8 and 16, and tiles, 17, cause the auger to move and thus are position adjustment mechanism).
Further Van Zee discloses shaftless flighting (Figure 1 – the shaftless auger includes shaftless flighting).
Thus the combination of Flatt in view of Van Zee would result in the shaftless flighting being predominately coextensive with said compression tube.
Regarding Claim 9, Flatt in view of Van Zee disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Flatt further discloses an auger chute (the chute including the reel, 18, and above the auger, 14, is an auger chute) between said storage bin and said compression device (the auger chute is located between the storage bin and the compression device/auger, 14).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flatt in view of Maddoux (U.S. Patent No. 5,937,773), hereinafter Maddoux.
Regarding Claim 13, Flatt discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Flatt does not disclose said applicator is an arch applicator having at least one applicator tip on each side of said arch.
However, Maddoux teaches a delivery apparatus (Figures 1 and 2) with an applicator, 48, 80 and 82, that is an arch applicator (Figure 1 – the applicator is shown such that there are multiple applicator sub-assemblies where adjacent sub-assemblies form an arc, 80) having at least one applicator tip, 82, on each side of said arch (the tips are on opposite sides of the arch, 80).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Flatt by making the applicator includes subassemblies such that the applicator is an arch applicator having at least one applicator tip on each side of said arch, as taught by Maddoux, in order to deliver metered amounts of material to rows of crops (Maddoux – Column 5, Lines 11-15).
Claim(s) 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hvistendahl (U.S. Patent No. 2,685,149), hereinafter Hvistendahl, in view of Flatt.
Regarding Independent Claim 14, Hvistendahl discloses a method of distributing viable pollen to plants (Figures 1-3) comprising:
a. compressing disaggregated pollen (Column 1, Lines 7-12, Column 2, Lines 3-38 and Column 3, Lines 36-75 – as the apparatus is pulled along the field the wheels, 12, roller and drive the rollers, 34, via multiple shafts, gears and chains; the rollers, 34, compress the plants and pollen from each plant to release the pollen);
c. dispensing said pollen to the stigma of said plant (Column 1, Lines 13-24 – the pollen is dispensed using an airflow provided by an air delivery system on to a blossom, which would include the stigma of the plant).
Hvistendahl does not disclose a. compressing disaggregated pollen into a semisolid shape; b. shaving said pollen from said semisolid shape at a consistent rate.
However, Flatt teaches a precision metering and delivery apparatus (Figures 1 and 2) for the precise distribution of particulate material connected to an air delivery system that operates using a method of a. compressing a particulate into a semisolid shape (Paragraph 0020 – the particulate is pressed and extruded through the housing/tube, 11, via the auger, 14, and thus is compressed into a semisolid shape); b. shaving said particulate from said semisolid shape at a consistent rate (Paragraphs 0017 and 0020 – the particulate is shaved/cut by the plate/knives, 20, where the plate is driven at a consistent rate with the auger, 14).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Hvistendahl by including precision metering and delivery apparatus, as taught by Flatt, such that the collect pollen is provided into the hopper of the device of Flatt which is then provided to the air delivery system of Hvistendahl resulting in the method including a. compressing disaggregated pollen into a semisolid shape; b. shaving said pollen from said semisolid shape at a consistent rate in order to better provide the pollen to the desired location (Flatt – Paragraph 0003).
Regarding Claim 16, Hvistendahl in view of Flatt disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Hvistendahl further discloses said compression step occurs via a piston (Figures 1 and 3 – Column 2, Lines 3-15 – the wheels, 12, that drive the rollers, 34, that provide a first compression of the pollen are supported by the piston rods, 22, and thus the pistons are part of the compression step).
Regarding Claim 17, Hvistendahl in view of Flatt disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Flatt further discloses the shaving step occurs via a dosing plate (Paragraph 0020 - the rotating plate, 14, that provides an amount of the material performs the shaving step).
Regarding Claim 18, Hvistendahl in view of Flatt disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Flatt further discloses the shaving step occurs via an impeller (Paragraph 0020 - the rotating plate, 14, includes a rotating blades that provides/moves an amount of the material and thus is a impeller and performs the shaving step).
Regarding Claim 19, Hvistendahl in view of Flatt disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Hvistendahl further discloses the dispensing step occurs via an air delivery system (Column 1, Lines 13-24 – the pollen is dispensed using an airflow provided by an air delivery system on to a blossom, which would include the stigma of the plant).
Regarding Claim 20, Hvistendahl in view of Flatt disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Flatt further discloses said semisolid shape is a circular puck (Figures 3 and 4 – the particulate is extruded in a circular puck/cylinder as it is pressed in a circular tube).
Thus the combination of Hvistendahl in view of Flatt would result in the limitations of Claim 20.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hvistendahl in view of Flatt as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Van Zee
Regarding Claim 15, Hvistendahl in view of Flatt disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Flatt further discloses the compression step occurs via an auger (Paragraph 0020 – the particulate is pressed and extruded through the housing/tube, 11, via the auger, 14, and thus is compressed into a semisolid shape).
Hvistendahl in view of Flatt do not disclose said compression step occurs via a shaftless auger.
However, Van Zee teaches an delivery apparatus (Figures 1 and 5) that uses a shaftless auger, 11.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Hvistendahl in view of Flatt by making the auger a shaftless auger, as taught by Van Zee, because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element (an auger with a shaft of Flatt), for another (shaftless auger of Van Zee), to obtain predictable results of moving material by the rotation of the auger (Van Zee – Column 3, Lines 1-15) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421; MPEP 2141 III B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hazelton (U.S. Patent No. 9,682,646) shows a delivery apparatus that uses a shaftless auger.
Hobbs (U.S. Patent No. 5,189,965) shows a delivery apparatus with multiple applicator guides and tips.
Hartley (U.S. Patent No. 1,959,864) and Do Amaray Assy (U.S. Patent No. 9,775,282) shows a delivery apparatus with dosing plates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4pm EST.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571)272-7118. 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.
/KYLE ROBERT THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3741