Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/682,590

Agricultural Sample Handling System and Related Methods

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 09, 2024
Examiner
TATE-SIMS, CRISTI J
Art Unit
1711
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Precision Planting, LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
586 granted / 706 resolved
+18.0% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
730
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
56.4%
+16.4% vs TC avg
§102
19.6%
-20.4% vs TC avg
§112
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 706 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-7 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. Regarding claim 5, Olson in view of Ford fails to teach or suggest the piston-plunger is further operable to enter an end of the sample tube to push the agricultural material out of the sample tube. Regarding claim 6, Olson fails to teach or suggest a plurality of spray nozzles coupled to the carriage (122 holder). Claim 7 is dependent upon claim 6. 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)(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/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Olson (US 2019/0331703 cited in IDS). Regarding claim 1, Olson figures 1 and 6 teach a sample unloading system comprising: a wash-down enclosure (12 device housing) defining an inner chamber; a rotatable carriage (122 holder) disposed in the inner chamber, the carriage configured to receive a sample tube (90 sample container) containing an agricultural material and rotate the sample tube between a plurality of rotational positions (P1-P3); a tube gripper mechanism (124a, 124b grip member) disposed on the carriage, the tube gripper mechanism configured to selectively engage the sample tube when positioned in the carriage; wherein the tube gripper mechanism retains the sample tube in the carriage when the sample tube is in an inverted position.[022][0034-36] As to the limitation of a sample tube containing an agricultural material, the limitation is directed towards the intended use of the contents of the sample tube and the sample tube is capable of containing agricultural material. 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) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson (US 2019/0331703 cited in IDS), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Ford (US 2011/0150609). Regarding claim 2, Olson is silent to the tube gripper mechanism comprises a spring-biased gripper actuator operably coupled to a pair of collapsible and spreadable gripping arm linkages configured to selectively engage and disengage the sample tube. Ford is directed towards a crucible shuttle assembly where figure 7 teaches a tube gripper mechanism comprises a spring-biased gripper actuator (23’ spring) operably coupled to a pair of collapsible and spreadable gripping arm linkages (25, 27 arm) configured to selectively engage and disengage the sample tube.[0035] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide a configuration as taught in Ford for efficient movement of the crucible.[0002] Regarding claim 3, Ford figure 7 suggests the gripping arm linkages (25, 27 arm) are engageable with a circumferential retention groove formed on an exterior surface of sample tube. Regarding claim 4, Ford figure 7 teaches a piston-plunger (100 piston) linearly movable to engage the gripper actuator which actuates the tube gripper mechanism.[0039] Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Scheiderer (US 9,116,078) directed towards a soil sampler. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRISTI J TATE-SIMS whose telephone number is (571)272-1722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm. 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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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. CRISTI J. TATE-SIMS Primary Examiner Art Unit 1711 /CRISTI J TATE-SIMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 09, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603537
CLOTHES TREATMENT APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595610
SYSTEM FOR DETECTING THE POSITION OF A WASHING MACHINE SUBWASHER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595614
CLOTHES TREATMENT APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595619
LAUNDRY TREATING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593649
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR TREATING SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+15.2%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 706 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month