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.
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, 3-4, 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holoubek et al. (2021/0153421) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Anderson (6,178,901).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Holoubek et al. discloses a method and apparatus for planting with a row unit comprising:
A frame configured to be coupled to a toolbar (Figure 2, 3A)
A seed trench opening assembly (22) carried by the frame and configured to form a seed trench (104) (Figure 3A,3B)
A seed delivery mechanism (28) carried by the frame and configured to deliver seeds to the seed trench (106) (Figure 3A)
A covering device (30,34,44) carried by the frame and configured to penetrate a wall of the seed trench and cover the seeds with soil (108) (pgph 0053)
A seed trench closing assembly (24) carried by the frame and configured to close the seed trench (110) (pgph 0054);
wherein the method of planting comprises
Seed is dispensed from an outlet of the seed delivery mechanism (106)
A wall of the seed trench is penetrated to aid in covering the seed with soil (108) (pgph 0053)
The seed trench is closed with the seed trench closing assembly (110)(pgph 0054)
Holoubek discloses the invention as described above, but fails to disclose that the seed delivery mechanism extends into the trench such that the outlet is covered by the covering device. Like Holoubek, Anderson also discloses a seed delivery mechanism for a seeder. Unlike Holoubek, Anderson discloses an extension on the seed tube (27) (seed delivery mechanism) such that the seed delivery mechanism (seed tube plus extension) extends into the trench such that the outlet (at the end of the extension) is covered by soil (Figure 7). 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 seed tube extension on the seed delivery mechanism that allows for the outlet to be covered by soil and therefore ensures that the seeds are covered by soil immediately as they are deposited to ensure that their desired position is maintained as it would be combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, the combination discloses that the covering device (30) that penetrates the seed trench is a knife (44) (Figure 6A, 9A; pgph 0057).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, the combination discloses that the covering device that penetrates the wall of the seed disc can be a disc (34) (Figure 7A) (pgph 0061).
Regarding claim 6, the combination discloses that penetrating a wall of the see trench with a covering device comprises transferring soil from the wall of the seed trench to a bottom of the seed trench (pgph 0053).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Holoubek and Anderson discloses the invention as described above including contacting the wall of the seed trench with the covering device in close proximity of a point at which the seed first contacts the bottom of the seed trench (Figure 9A shows the wings (44) of covering device (30) in close proximity to the initial placement of the seed at the bottom of the trench), but fails to specifically disclose the claimed range. While it appears that the combination discloses the claimed range due to the size of the seed in relation to the location of the covering device (30,44), it is not specifically disclosed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the location 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 11, the combination discloses that the seed delivery mechanism comprises an extension configured to extend into the seed trench formed by the seed trench opening assembly (Figure 9A shows the outlet located in the trench).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holoubek et al. (2021/0153421) in view of Anderson (6,178,901) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Fernandez (EP3777505).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Holoubek and Anderson discloses the invention as described above, but fails to disclose depositing the seed in the trench in a specific orientation. Like the combination, Fernandez also discloses a seed delivery mechanism for a seeder. Unlike the combination, Fernandez discloses that it is desirable to control the orientation of the seed when depositing from the seed delivery mechanism to allow for more homogenous growth (pgph 0021). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a seed delivery mechanism in the combination as taught by Fernandez to control the orientation of the seed when planting for homogenous growth as the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that the extension on the seed tube would not be considered a part of the outlet is not persuasive. The examiner maintains that the seed tube plus the extension of the combination make up the seed delivery mechanism and the “outlet” of the mechanism is the exit from the tube and the protection of the extension. There is insufficient structure claimed to prevent the tube plus extension of the combination from reading on the term “outlet”. Further, applicant points out that Holoubek discloses that it is important to not displace the seed when it is covered (pgph 0058). This teaching of Holoubek provides further evidence that one would be motivated to combine Holoubek with Anderson because the extension would ensure that the seed is protected from disturbance during positioning while soil is moved from the trench sidewalls and would then drop easily thereon from above as the extension moves forwardly. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, applicant argues that Anderson’s positioner does not penetrate the side walls, but instead gathers soil from opposite sides of the furrow. Holoubek, however, does penetrate the side walls during the closing action. The combination would therefore disclose that the closing mechanism of Holoubek that penetrates the sidewalls could direct soil over the outlet/extension to cover the seeds as they exit the outlet/extension. It is further noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, the combination would disclose that the extension could be used with the seed delivery mechanism to protect the placement of the seed while the trench sidewall penetrating closing mechanism moves soil on top of the extension for the soil to drop onto the seeds as the extension moves forwardly through the trench.
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