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 .
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 4/26/23. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE202023102248.0 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 1-5, 7, 10-11, 17-20, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ljungdahl (1,781,986) in view of Scheer (DE1582049A1) (cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Ljungdahl discloses a planting device for planting root crops the planting device comprising:
A cup hopper (3) for provisioning of propagating crops to be separated out; and
At least one conveying device which is formed to output the propagating crops, each said conveying device including:
At least one carrier element (Figure 1) which revolves in a direction of rotation during operation
Several conveying elements (4) arranged on the carrier element
A guide apparatus (5, 19, 6) with at least one guide element 5, 19, 6) which is formed to guide the propagating crops into an output region (6a) in such a manner that the propagating crops are output in the output region in an output direction from the planting device
Wherein each respective conveying element describe, during operation, a path which runs through the cup hopper to pick up propagating crops (Figure 1)
that the guide element (19) is formed during operation to be revolving (guide element 19 is a revolving chain – page 2 lines 17-21)
While Ljungdahl discloses the invention as described above, it fails to disclose that a vertical proportion of the output direction is smaller than a horizontal proportion of the output direction. Like Ljungdahl, Scheer also discloses a planting device with a carrier element (1) and conveying elements (4) and a guide apparatus (7,8) that guides the crops into an output region in an output direction. Unlike Ljungdahl, Scheer discloses that the guide element is angled such that the output direction has a vertical proportion that is smaller than the horizontal proportion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to angle the guide element of Ljungdahl to a greater extent such that the output direction has more of a horizontal component than a vertical component as taught by Scheer as the to change the speed at which the crops exit the output region as it would be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claim 2, the combination discloses that the horizontal proportion of the output direction is opposite to an intended direction of movement of the planting device during operation.
Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses that the guide element is formed for deflection of the propagating crops. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the deflection angle limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, the combination discloses that the guide element (6) is formed in a stationary manner relative to a device frame at least during operation.
Regarding claim 5, the combination discloses that the guide element is formed as a guiding surface element (6) with a guiding surface.
Regarding claim 7, the combination discloses that he planting device includes a multiplicity of guide elements (5, 19, 6), wherein at least one of the guide elements is formed as a guiding surface element (6) and one of the guide elements (19) is formed in a revolving manner during operation.
Regarding claim 10, the combination discloses that the guide apparatus (5, 19, 6) comprises several driver elements (17,18,19) which revolve during operation.
Regarding claim 11, the combination disclose that the guide apparatus (5, 19, 6) has an upper end portion (top of 6) which is further spaced apart from the ground than a rotational axis of a lower deflection element which rotates during operation and deflects the carrier element (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination discloses that the output direction runs at least approximately horizontally (Scheer – Figure 1).
Regarding claim 18, the guide element (5,19,6) is formed as a guiding plate (5) and the guiding surface faces the carrier element and is provided to center propagating crops separated out by the conveying elements (Ljungdahl discloses that the guide element (5) functions to drop the crop on the center spike members (20) (page 2 lines 24-32).
Regarding claim 19, the combination discloses that the guide element (5,19,6) is formed during operation in portions bearing against the conveying elements (at 5 – Ljungdahl Figure 1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination disclose that at least one of the guide elements (5,19,6) is formed as a guiding plate (5 and 6).
Regarding claim 23, the driver elements (17,18) are counter guidance elements that revolve during operation and arranged on the guide element and extend locally at an angle to the direction of rotation.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ljungdahl (1,781,986) in view of Scheer (DE1582049A1) (cited by applicant) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hobbs (3,580,417).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Ljungdahl and Scheer discloses the invention as described above including a that the guide apparatus has a roller (19) that rotates during operation. Ljungdahl discloses spike elements (20) to maintain the crop on the roller. Like the combination, Hobbs also discloses a crop planting device that moves crop from a hopper to a rotating belt. Unlike the combination, Hobbs discloses a concave shape of the rotating element to maintain crop on the center of the element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the spikes (20) of the combination with the concave belt as taught by Hobbs as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)) since both the spikes and the concave belt function to maintain the crop on the revolving element.
Claim(s) 13 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ljungdahl (1,781,986) in view of Scheer (DE1582049A1) (cited by applicant) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Smith (2,395,350).
Regarding claim 13, the combination discloses the invention as described above but fails to disclose that the guide apparatus includes a revolving member with a deflection axis at an angle to the horizontal. Like the combination, Smith also discloses a crop planting device that conveys crop material from a hopper to a second revolving conveyor (63,64). Unlike the combination, Smith discloses that the second revolving conveyor can have a deflection axis to move crop to a planting outlet instead of utilizing a guide chute as taught by Ljungdahl. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the revolving guide apparatus with tines and a deflection axis in the combination as taught by Smith as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)) since the revolving guide apparatus with deflection axis would provide more reliable spacing control than a drop chute.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ljungdahl (1,781,986) in view of Scheer (DE1582049A1) (cited by applicant) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Borgmann et al. (11,612,100).
Regarding claim 16, the combination discloses the invention as described above but fails to disclose a control system that actuates the guide system as a function of a speed of movement. Like the combination, Borgmann also discloses a planting device for root crops that conveys crops from a hopper to the ground. Unlike the combination, Borgmann discloses the use of a control system to control the conveyor at a speed proportional to the ground speed (column 4 line 64 through column 5 line 22). Borgmann discloses that this type of control system allows for maintaining a desired seed spacing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a control system in the combination as taught by Borgmann to allow the operation to maintain a consistent desired spacing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, 14-15, 21-22 and 25 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination fails to disclose a revolving guide element. The examiner disagrees. As was noted previously, the examiner indicated elements 5, 19 and 6 as part of the “guide elements”. Element 19 is disclosed by Ljundahl as being a chain that revolves around sprocket wheels (17,18) (page 2 lines 17-21). Applicant points to element 6a as being the “guide element”, but the non-final rejection clearly disclosed that element 6a was the output region and elements 5,19, and 6 make up the guide element, part of which (19) is revolving.
It is further noted that applicant has not addressed the lack of a certified copy of the foreign priority document. Applicant’s response to this action should include a certified copy.
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 Jamie L McGowan whose telephone number is (571)272-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00-5:00 CST.
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, Chris 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.
/JAMIE L MCGOWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights