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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 of claim 1, the “1.” should be deleted. 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.
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 1-10 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 1 recites the limitations "the fertilizer" in line 1, “the two spreader openings” in line 6, and “the size” in line 10. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for depending from indefinite claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitations "the discharge opening" in line 1 and “the spreader opening” in line 2. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Further regarding claim 2, the limitations of “a plurality of discharge openings” in line 2 and “spreader openings” in lines 2-3 render the claim indefinite because “discharge openings” was positively recited in line 3 of claim 1 and “spreader openings” was positively recited in line 5 of claim 1, respectively. As a result, it is unclear if claim 2 requires additional and separate discharge openings and spreader openings, or if these limitations are referring to the respective elements that were already recited. For the purposes of examination, the latter interpretation will be assumed; this appears to be consistent with the drawings.
Claims 3-10 are rejected for depending from indefinite claim 2.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "the bottom" in line 2 and “the first limiting hole” in line 3. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 5-8 are rejected for depending from indefinite claim 4.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the second limiting hole" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 is further rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear what configuration is required for the “plurality of arc-shaped second limiting holes”. Lines 2-3 appear to require this element to be formed on both the first and second turntable, but it is unclear if this limitation requires a plurality of these holes to be formed on both turntables, or if it requires a single hole to be formed on each (such that together they comprise “a plurality”). Moreover, lines 3-4 require the second limiting block to penetrate through “the second limiting hole” which appears to refer to just a single limiting hole, and not to the plurality of limiting holes recited earlier.
Claims 6-8 are rejected for depending from indefinite claim 5.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the axle" in line 3 and “the roller” in line 3. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 10 is rejected for depending from indefinite claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marcelin (FR 1.097.241).
Regarding claim 1, Marcelin teaches a fertilization cart (par. 2), comprising a hopper (par. 2 – “funnel”) for containing the fertilizer (par. 2 – “powdered or granular fertilizers”), a first turntable (21), and a second turntable (27), wherein the first turntable and the second turntable are located below the hopper and arranged in correspondence with discharge openings (6, see fig. 1) on the hopper (fig. 2);
spreader openings are formed on either of the first turntable and the second turntable (25 and 28, respectively), and when the two spreader openings are communicated with the discharge openings after rotating, a spreader channel is formed (par. 4);
the first turntable is capable of rotating relative to the hopper to open or close the spreader channel (par. 4); and the second turntable is capable of rotating relative to the first turntable to adjust the size of the spreader channel (par. 4).
Regarding claim 2, Marcelin teaches the fertilization cart described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the discharge opening and the spreader opening have the same shape (par. 4 – “dosing disc 21 has openings such as 25 which correspond exactly to the openings 6”), and a plurality of discharge openings and spreader openings are arranged at intervals along the circumferential direction (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Marcelin teaches the fertilization cart described regarding claim 2, and further wherein a throwing disc (7) is arranged below the second turntable (fig. 2), the throwing disc rotates to radially spread the fertilizer falling into the throwing disc (par. 3), and the first turntable, the second turntable and the throwing disc are coaxially arranged (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Marcelin teaches the fertilization cart described regarding claim 3, and further comprising a rack, wherein the hopper is mounted on the rack (par. 2 – “the vehicle which carries the distributor”), rollers (par. 2 – “wheels”) are connected to the bottom of the rack, a transmission assembly is fixedly arranged on the axle of the roller, and the transmission assembly is in transmission connection with the throwing disc (par. 2 – “the rotation of which is controlled by means of an appropriate transmission, either by the wheels”).
Regarding claim 10, Marcelin teaches the fertilization cart described regarding claim 9, and further wherein a control handle (29) is arranged on the rack, and the control handle (22/24) is connected to the first turntable (fig. 2).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcelin in view of Horeth et al. (US 10,736,263).
Regarding claim 4, Marcelin teaches the fertilization cart described regarding claim 3, but not further wherein a first limiting block is fixedly arranged at the bottom of the first turntable, arc-shaped first limiting holes are formed on the second turntable, and the first limiting block is slidably embedded into the first limiting hole.
Horeth teaches a fertilization cart (100, see fig. 1) comprising a first turntable (138), wherein a first limiting block (186) is fixedly arranged at the bottom of the first turntable (fig. 11), a second turntable (136), wherein arc-shaped first limiting holes are formed on the second turntable (fig. 9), and the first limiting block is slidably embedded into the first limiting hole (182, see col. 6, ln. 34-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fertilization cart of Marcelin to further comprise a first limiting block is fixedly arranged at the bottom of the first turntable, arc-shaped first limiting holes are formed on the second turntable, and the first limiting block is slidably embedded into the first limiting hole, as taught by Horeth. This was known to provide a structure to guide adjustment of the first turntable relative to the second turntable in order to control a metering position of the turntables (col. 6, ln. 42-56).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not disclose wherein a first set of a plurality of arc-shaped second limiting holes are formed on the first turntable along the circumferential direction and a second set of a plurality of arc-shaped second limiting holes are formed the second turntable along the circumferential direction, and a second limiting block penetrates through one of these second limiting holes and is detachably connected to the hopper.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gamble et al. (US 2006/0180680), Lefebvre et al. (US 2019/0116724), van der Lely (US 4,609,153), Bennie et al. (US 4,785,976), and Bogart et al. (US 7,063,280) all disclose fertilization carts having elements of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752