DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
Currently claims 1-5 are under examination.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dille (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0367425) in view of Campbell (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0246551).
Regarding Claim 1, Dille discloses a seeding system comprising:
A seed meter (Dille: 13: Figure 1, spaces seen in disc of 13) comprising a seed disc and a plurality of apertures disposed around the seed disc creating a seed path (Dille: path that seed takes through machine) (Dille: Paragraph [0049]);
A seed accelerator (Dille: 14);
A conduit (Dille: 36) for receiving seeds accelerated from the seed accelerator (Dille: 14) at a first end (Dille: end of 36 distal from 40) of the conduit (Dille: 36), and the conduit (Dille: 36) having a second end (Dille: end of 36 adjacent 40) opposite the first end (Dille: end of 36 distal from 40);
A seed orientation coil assembly (Dille: 40) connected to the second end (Dille: end of 36 adjacent 40) to receive the accelerated seed.
Dille does not disclose the seed accelerator comprising a wheel and a wall, wherein the wall is disposed over the seed path to entrain seeds, and the wall and wheel are configured to cooperate to accelerate seed.
Campbell discloses a seed accelerator comprising a wheel and a wall, wherein the wall is disposed over the seed path to entrain seeds, and the wall and wheel are configured to cooperate to accelerate seed (Campbell: Figures 16, 17, housing and wheel disposed therein).
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 accelerator of Campbell within the invention of Dille, with the predicable result of having consistent, controllable speed for seed delivery independent of the speed of the planter or irregularities in terrain as discussed in the invention of Campbell (Campbell: Paragraph [0006])
Regarding Claim 2, Dille and Campbell render obvious the seeding system of claim 1, wherein the conduit (Dille: 36) is curved.
Regarding Claim 3, Dille and Campbell render obvious the seeding system of claim 1, wherein the seed path has a first side and a second side, the wheel is disposed adjacent the first side of the seed path, and the wall extends to the second side of the seed path (Campbell: Figure 16: path of seed is enclosed by housing).
Regarding Claim 4, Dille and Campbell render obvious the seeding system of claim 1, wherein the wheel is a finger wheel (Campbell: Figure 17: 294).
Regarding Claim 5, Dille and Campbell render obvious the seeding system of claim 4, wherein the finger wheel has a sinusoidal shape (Campbell: Figure 7: fingers may optionally be sinusoidal (wavy) in shape).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the reference of Dille is not eligible for use as prior art as it is subject to an obligation of assignment to Precision Planting LLC and therefore the same person not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The examiner respectfully submits that while the Dille reference would be ineligible pursuant to an exception from 35 U.S.C. (a)(2) under an exception by 35 U.S.C. 102 (b)(2)(C), the reference is still viable as a base for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as there do not appear to be any inventors in common and therefore it does not qualify for an exception under 35 U.S.C. 102 (b)(1)(A): a disclosure of subject matter that occurs after the subject matter had been publicly disclosed by the inventor, a joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor, or 35 U.S.C. 102 (b)(1)(B): (1) the disclosure was made one year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; and (2) the subject matter disclosed had been previously publicly disclosed by the inventor, a joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor. Therefore the claims remain rejected over Dille in view of Campbell.
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 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