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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention Group I (claims 1-10) and Species II in the reply filed on February 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are cancelled without prejudice by the Applicant in the reply filed on February 9, 2026.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species (first page Applicant’s reply), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 9, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “during a nutrient distribution operation,” in line 14, should read -- during the nutrient distribution operation.--
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the plurality of interchangeable nutrient spreaders include a single,” in line 2, should read -- the plurality of interchangeable nutrient spreaders includes a single.-- 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 1-9 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.
The term “large-scale” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large-scale” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The minimum weight, volume or tonnage needed to meet the claim limitation is not known. Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the spread characteristics" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the plurality of interchangeable nutrient spreaders" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The plurality of interchangeable nutrient spreaders recited in line 2 of claim 7 is insufficient because it is not a positively recited element. The terms “configured to" in line 2 of claim 7 indicates that the plurality of interchangeable nutrient spreaders is not a positively recited element (an optional element in the claimed invention). However, the plurality of interchangeable nutrient spreaders in lines 1-2 of claim 8 is positively recited to include a single cross-conveyor nutrient spreader, a dual spinner nutrient spreader, and a dual cross-conveyor nutrient spreader (a must in the claimed invention). Therefore, the claim is indefinite because the claim is ambiguous and fails to define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant.
The term “hand-off” in line 2 of claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hand-off” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The minimum degree of automation (free from manual intervention) needed to meet the claim limitation is not known. Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the floor of the hopper" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The plurality of interchangeable nutrient spreaders recited in line 2 of claim 7 is insufficient because it is not a positively recited element. However, the plurality of interchangeable nutrient spreaders in lines 1-2 of claim 8 is positively recited to include a single cross-conveyor nutrient spreader, a dual spinner nutrient spreader, and a dual cross-conveyor nutrient spreader (fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Becker (US5957394).
With respect to claim 1, Becker discloses a large-scale self-propelled front discharge nutrient spreading vehicle (Figs. 1-9) comprising: a drive chassis (of T and MS) supporting an engine, wheels, and a transmission (tractor hydraulic mechanism), which facilitates self-propelled movement of the nutrient spreading vehicle; a nutrient hopper (10) supported by the drive chassis, the nutrient hopper being configured to (capable of) store nutrients; a front-mounted nutrient spreader (64 and 66) supported by the drive chassis, the front-mounted nutrient spreader configured to (capable of) receive nutrients and regulate at least one of front or side discharge of received nutrients during a nutrient distribution operation; a conveyor system (40) supported by the drive chassis, the conveyor system operationally connected to the nutrient hopper, wherein the conveyor system is configured to (capable of) transport nutrients from the nutrient hopper to the front-mounted nutrient spreader (Fig. 4); a vehicle cabin (at the driver’s seat. Cabin is defined as “the passenger or cargo compartment of a vehicle.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cabin) supported by the drive chassis, wherein the vehicle cabin is mounted above (higher than) the conveyor system (Fig. 1) and configured to (capable of) provide an operator (driver) within the vehicle cabin a direct line of sight to nutrients discharged from the front-mounted nutrient spreader during a nutrient distribution operation; and whereby the mount location of the vehicle cabin facilitates enhanced control and precision of nutrient distribution operations by allowing the operator to monitor the flow of nutrients directly while driving the large-scale self-propelled nutrient spreading vehicle (same configuration as the Applicant’s invention).
With respect to claim 7, Becker discloses the large-scale self-propelled nutrient spreader of claim 1, including a nutrient spreader mount (36) configured to (capable of) accept a plurality of interchangeable nutrient spreaders.
With respect to claim 8, Becker discloses the large-scale self-propelled nutrient spreader of claim 7, wherein the plurality of interchangeable nutrient spreaders include a single cross-conveyor nutrient spreader, a dual spinner nutrient spreader (64 and 66), and a dual cross-conveyor nutrient spreader.
With respect to claim 9, Becker discloses the large-scale self-propelled nutrient spreader of claim 1, wherein the conveyor system is a hand-off conveyor system including a feeding conveyor (42) and a receiving conveyor (52, 56), wherein the receiving conveyor is mounted under the vehicle cabin and the feeding conveyor is integrated as the floor of the hopper such that the feeding conveyor transports nutrients from the hopper to the receiving conveyor, which in turn delivers the nutrients under the vehicle cabin and to the front-mounted nutrient spreader.
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.
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) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker in view of Rich (US 11122732).
With respect to claim 2, Becker discloses the large-scale self-propelled nutrient spreader of claim 1, wherein the front- mounted nutrient spreader is controlled by a control system (tractor hydraulic mechanism 38).
Becker fails to disclose wherein the vehicle cabin includes a user interface to adjust operation of the front-mounted nutrient spreader.
However, Rich teaches a large-scale self-propelled front discharge nutrient spreading vehicle (Figs. 1-6), wherein a control system (controller 30) of a vehicle cabin (at 20) includes a user interface (22. Fig. 6) to (capable of) adjust operation of the front-mounted nutrient spreader.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a user interface at the vehicle cabin, as taught by Rich, to Becker’s spreader, in order to control and adjust operation of the front-mounted nutrient spreader (Col. 5, lines 23-34 and Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 3, Becker’s spreader modified by Rich’s user interface at the vehicle cabin, Rich further teaches wherein the control system includes adjustable parameters stored in memory (Col. 6, lines 1-18) to (capable of) control the spread characteristics of the front-mounted nutrient spreader.
With respect to claim 4, Becker discloses the large-scale self-propelled nutrient spreader of claim 1, wherein the conveyor system is controlled by a control system (tractor hydraulic mechanism 38).
Becker fails to disclose wherein the vehicle cabin includes a user interface to adjust operation of the conveyor system.
However, Rich teaches a large-scale self-propelled front discharge nutrient spreading vehicle (Figs. 1-6), wherein a control system (controller 30) of a vehicle cabin (at 20) includes a user interface (22. Fig. 6) to (capable of) adjust operation of the conveyor system (gate control at 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a user interface at the vehicle cabin, as taught by Rich, to Becker’s spreader, in order to control and adjust operation of the front-mounted nutrient spreader (Col. 5, lines 23-34 and Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 5, Becker’s spreader modified by Rich’s user interface at the vehicle cabin, Rich further teaches wherein the control system includes adjustable parameters to tune the rate of nutrient transport to the front-mounted nutrient spreader dynamically based on varying vehicle speed (via 70, 74 and speed throttle in Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 6, Becker’s spreader modified by Rich’s user interface at the vehicle cabin, Rich further teaches wherein the control system includes adjustable parameters to (capable of) tune the rate of nutrient transport to the front-mounted nutrient spreader dynamically based on front-mounted nutrient spreader speed (Col. 2, lines 111-41; Col. 3, lines 13-63).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to a spreader: Donahoe, Peoples et al., Young, Kerr, Hetrick, Thene, Knight et al. ‘047, Hoyle, Knight et al. ‘494, Stewart and Van Vooren.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -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, Arthur O. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 May 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights