DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
In the reply filed July 20, 2026, the applicant amended claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 13, and 14.
The applicant cancelled claim 6.
The applicant added claims 21-24.
Currently claims 1-5 and 7-24 are under examination.
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 14, 20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wendte (U.S. Patent No. 9,603,299).
Regarding Claim 14, Wendte discloses a seed planting method, the method comprising:
(a) operating a seeding machine including a bulk supply hopper (Wendte: 129) in a first mode, wherein the first mode includes discharging particulate material from two or more row units of the seeding machine at a first row spacing (Wendte: discharging 17a or 17c from the bulk hopper);
(b) inserting a particulate distribution system into the bulk supply hopper (Wendte: 129) of the seeding machine to provide a modified seeding machine, wherein the particulate distribution system comprises two or more individual hoppers (Wendte: 33) received within an internal volume (Wendte: interior of 129) of and fixed relative to the bulk supply hopper (Wendte: 129), wherein adjacent ones of the individual hoppers (Wendte: 33) do not share a sidewall; and
(c) operating the modified seeding machine in a second mode, wherein the second mode includes discharging particulate material from two or more row units at a second row spacing different from the first row spacing Wendte: discharging 17b from individual hopper 31).
Regarding Claim 20, Wendte and Rollenhagen render obvious the method of claim 15, wherein the first and second particulates are different types of particulate material (Wendte: Abstract).
Regarding Claim 24, Wendte and Rollenhagen render obvious the method of claim 14, wherein the particulate distribution system does not include removable baffles or removable dividing walls and wherein each of the individual hoppers (Wendte: 33) is self-contained.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 16, 18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendte in view of Rollenhagen (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0224843).
Regarding Claim 1, Wendte discloses a kit of parts for assembling into a particulate distribution system for controlling the distribution of particulate material from a seeding machine including at least one bulk supply hopper (Wendte: 129) with an internal volume (Wendte: interior of 129), the kit comprising:
Two or more individual hoppers (Wendte: 33) each configured to be received within the internal volume (Wendte: interior of 129) of the bulk supply hopper (Wendte: 129) of the seeding machine, wherein each of the individual hoppers (Wendte: 33) has an internal volume (Wendte: interior of 33) less than the internal volume (Wendte: interior of 129) of the bulk supply hopper (Wendte: 129) and wherein each of the individual hoppers (Wendte: 33) is self-contained and configured to hold a volume of particulate material;
Wendte does not disclose an installation component configured to fix each of the individual hoppers relative to the bulk supply hopper, and wherein each of the individual hoppers is configured to be removably coupled to at least a portion of the installation component.
Rollenhagen discloses disclose an installation component configured to fix each of the individual hoppers (Rollenhagen: 34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing to have utilized the attachment components of Rollenhagen in the invention of Wendte in order to provide the predictable and well known effect of attaching the individual hoppers securely as required, but not explained, in the invention of Wendte.
Regarding Claim 2, Wendte and Rollenhagen render obvious the kit of claim 1, wherein the installation component is configured to be removably coupled (Rollenhagen: Paragraph [0030]: secured via fasteners like screws/dowels) to at least one surface of the bulk supply hopper (Wendte: 129) using one or more holes already present in the surface of the bulk supply hopper (Wendte: 129).
Regarding Claim 3, Wendte and Rollenhagen render obvious the kit of claim 1, further comprising one or more fasteners (Rollenhagen: Paragraph [0030]: secured via fasteners like screws/dowels) configured to fasten the individual hoppers (Wendte: 33) to the installation component and/or one or more fasteners configured to fasten the installation component to the bulk supply hopper (Wendte: 129).
Regarding Claim 4, Wendte and Rollenhagen render obvious the kit of claim 1, wherein a portion of the installation component is integral with at least one of the individual hoppers (Wendte: 33).
Regarding Claim 8, Wendte and Rollenhagen render obvious the kit of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein at least one of the individual hoppers has a different internal volume (Wendte: interior of 129) than one or more other individual hoppers.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to vary the size of the individual hoopers of Wendte since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 9, Wendte discloses a seeding machine comprising:
A mobile frame (Wendte: Figure 7: 11);
Two or more ground-engaging wheels coupled to the frame (Wendte: Figure 7: wheels on 13);
A plurality of row units (Wendte: Figure 7: 13) mounted to the frame;
At least one bulk supply hopper (Wendte: 129) supported on the frame above the row units, wherein the bulk supply hopper (Wendte: 129) includes a plurality of outlets for discharging particulate material from the bulk supply hopper (Wendte: 129) to each of the plurality of row units; and
A particulate distribution system, wherein the particulate distribution system comprises two or more smaller individual hoppers (Wendte: 33) received within an internal volume (Wendte: interior of 129) of the bulk supply hopper (Wendte: 129) and fixed relative to the bulk supply hopper (Wendte: 129), and wherein the particulate distribution system does not include removable baffles or removable dividing walls, wherein each of the individual hoppers (Wendte: 33) is configured to discharge particulate material out of at least one outlet of the bulk supply hopper (Wendte: 129) to at least one row unit, and wherein the total number of individual hoppers (Wendte: 33) received in the bulk supply hopper (Wendte: 129) is less than the total number of outlets of the bulk supply hopper (Wendte: 129).
Wendte does not disclose the particulate distribution system being removably fastened to the bulk supply hopper or wherein the total number of individual hoppers received in the bulk supply hopper is less than the total number of outlets of the bulk supply hopper..
Rollenhagen discloses a particulate distribution system being removably fastened to the bulk supply hopper (Rollenhagen: Paragraph [0030]: secured via fasteners like screws/dowels) and wherein the total number of individual hoppers received in the bulk supply hopper is less than the total number of outlets of the bulk supply hopper (when removable, the number of individual hoppers can be made less than the total number of outlets).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing to have utilized the attachment components of Rollenhagen in the invention of Wendte in order to provide the predictable and well known effect of attaching the individual hoppers securely as required, but not explained, in the invention of Wendte.
Regarding Claim 10, Wendte and Rollenhagen render obvious the machine of claim 9, wherein the total number of individual hoppers (Wendte: 33) received within the bulk supply hopper (Wendte: 129) (A) and the total number of outlets of the bulk supply hopper (Wendte: 129) (B) satisfy the relationship B=nA, wherein n is at least 1.25 (when removable, the number of individual hoppers can be made less than the total number of outlets to a desired proportion).
Regarding Claim 11, Wendte and Rollenhagen render obvious the machine of claim 9, wherein each of the individual hoppers (Wendte: 33) are configured to be removably coupled to two or more different locations within the bulk supply hopper (Wendte: 129) via at least one installation component (hoppers can be swapped).
Regarding Claim 16, Wendte and Rollenhagen render obvious the method of claim 14, but does not disclose wherein during the operating of step (c), the number of individual hoppers received within the bulk supply hopper of the seeding machine (B) is less than the total number of outlets of the bulk supply hopper (A), and wherein A=nB, wherein n is at least 1.25.
Rollenhagen discloses a particulate distribution system being removably fastened to the bulk supply hopper (Rollenhagen: Paragraph [0030]: secured via fasteners like screws/dowels) and wherein the total number of individual hoppers received in the bulk supply hopper is less than the total number of outlets of the bulk supply hopper (when removable, the number of individual hoppers can be made less than the total number of outlets), and the total number of outlets of the bulk supply hopper (Wendte: 129) (B) satisfy the relationship B=nA, wherein n is at least 1.25 (when removable, the number of individual hoppers can be made less than the total number of outlets to a desired proportion).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing to have utilized the attachment components of Rollenhagen in the invention of Wendte in order to provide the predictable and well known effect of attaching the individual hoppers securely as required, but not explained, in the invention of Wendte, therefore making it further obvious that the number of individual hoppers may be modified to a desired proportion, such as wherein n is at least 1.25.
Regarding Claim 18, Wendte discloses the method of claim 14, wherein two or more outlets of the bulk supply hopper (Wendte: 129) are fed by the individual hoppers (Wendte: 33), and wherein after the inserting of step (b) leaves two or more outlets of the bulk supply hopper (Wendte: 129) inactive;
Wendte does not disclose wherein the inserting of step (b) includes removably coupling the individual hoppers to an installation component.
Rollenhagen discloses disclose an installation component configured to fix each of the individual hoppers (Rollenhagen: 34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing to have utilized the attachment components of Rollenhagen in the invention of Wendte in order to provide the predictable and well known effect of attaching the individual hoppers securely as required, but not explained, in the invention of Wendte.
Regarding Claim 21, Wendte and Rollenhagen render obvious the kit of claim 1, wherein the kit does not include any removable baffles or removable dividing walls (none present).
Regarding Claim 22, Wendte and Rollenhagen render obvious the machine of claim 9, wherein each of the individual hoppers (Wendte: 33) is self- contained and configured to hold a volume of particulate when not received within the bulk supply hopper (Wendte: 129).
Regarding Claim 23, Wendte and Rollenhagen render obvious the machine of claim 9, wherein adjacent ones of the individual hoppers (Wendte: 33) do not share a sidewall and wherein adjacent individual hoppers (Wendte: 33) are spaced apart from one another by from about 2 to about 12 inches.
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendte in view of Rollenhagen, further in view of Secrest (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0295792).
Regarding Claim 7, Wendte and Rollenhagen render obvious the kit of claim 1, but do not disclose wherein each of the individual hoppers has an internal volume in the range of from 0.10 to 1.5 bushels.
Secrest discloses a hopper having row unit hoppers with a volume between 0.1 and 1.5 bushels (Secrest: Paragraph [0045]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to vary the size of the bulk supply hopper of Wendte with those of the sizes disclosed by Secrest since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 12, Wendte and Rollenhagen render obvious the machine of claim 9, but do not disclose wherein the particulate distribution system comprises more than two individual hoppers and wherein the bulk supply hopper has an internal volume in the range of from about 1 to 5 bushels per row.
Secrest discloses a hopper having row unit hoppers with a volume between 1 to 5 bushels (Secrest: Paragraph [0045]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to vary the size of the bulk supply hopper, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendte in view of Rollenhagen, further in view of Kinzenbaw (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0043194).
Regarding Claim 13, Wendte and Rollenhagen render obvious the machine of claim 9, but do not disclose wherein the internal volume of each individual hopper is less than 20 percent of the internal volume of the bulk supply hopper and wherein the width of the bulk supply hopper is at least 5 feet and/or not more than about 60 feet, wherein width is the dimension of the bulk supply hopper oriented in a direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of the seeding machine.
Kinzenbaw discloses the internal volume of each individual hopper being less than 20 percent of the internal volume of the bulk supply hopper and wherein the width of the bulk supply hopper is at least 5 feet and/or not more than about 60 feet, wherein width is the dimension of the bulk supply hopper oriented in a direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of the seeding machine (Kinzenbaw: Paragraph [0008], [0020]: seed storage tanks extend substantially the entire width of the planter; Figure 3: individual hoppers visibly less than 20% of volume of bulk hopper).
It would however have been an obvious matter of design choice to vary the size of the bulk supply hopper of Wendte to the dimensions disclosed by Kinzenbaw, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendte in view of Rollenhagen, further in view of Meyer (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0110999).
Regarding Claim 15, Wendte discloses the method of claim 14, but does not disclose wherein the first row spacing is X inches and the second row spacing is Y inches, and wherein Y=nX, wherein n is an integer of at least 2.
Meyer discloses wherein the first row spacing is X inches and the second row spacing is Y inches, and wherein Y = nX wherein n is an integer of at least 2 (Meyer: Figure 2: spacing between rows in partitioned and un-partitioned configurations varies by at least n=2 depending on which flexible tubes 26 are utilized).
It would however have been an obvious matter of design choice to vary the spacing of the individual rows of Wendte to the dimensions disclosed by Meyer, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 17, Wendte discloses the method of claim 14, but does not disclose wherein the first row spacing is in the range of from 5 inches to 15 inches and wherein the second row spacing is in the range of from 8 to 36 inches.
Meyer discloses wherein the first row spacing is in the range of from 5 inches to 15 inches and wherein the second row spacing is in the range of from 8 to 36 inches (Meyer: Paragraph [0029]).
It would however have been an obvious matter of design choice to vary the spacing of the individual rows of Wendte to the dimensions disclosed by Meyer, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see reply, filed July 20, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-24 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wendte as disclosed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 19 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 following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The use of language specifying that the installation component comprises one or more installation rails configured to be coupled to an upper portion of at least one of the individual hoppers and to the bulk supply hopper wherein the individual hopper is configured to be removably coupled to two or more different locations along the installation rail, when combined with the other limitations of claim 5, is sufficient to distinguish the applicant’s invention from prior art.
The use of language specifying that step (c) further comprises removing the particulate distribution system from the bulk supply hopper, and operating the seeding machine in the first mode again, when combined with the other limitations of claim 19, is sufficient to distinguish the applicant’s invention from prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DOUGLAS S WOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-5954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:30 AM - 7:00 PM 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, Nicole A Coy can be reached at (571) - 272 - 5405. 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.
DOUGLAS S. WOOD
Examiner
Art Unit 3672
/DOUGLAS S WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3672
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights