DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on August 4, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on August 4, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
the tackiness of adhesive-coated seed is an observed property of the coated seed itself - a result of the coating operation - and is not a condition of the liquid seed treatment upon which the liquid dispersion rate is based, as the common technical feature requires and Complete coverage of the seeds is, again, an observed result of the coating operation upon the seeds; it is not a condition of the solid seed treatment itself.
Beattie is not directed to the treatment of seed at all. Beattie is wholly silent regarding seed, regarding a throughput rate of seed based on at least one condition of the seed, regarding a liquid dispersion rate based on at least one condition of a liquid seed treatment, and regarding a solid dispersion rate based on at least one condition of a solid seed treatment. Beattie therefore supplies no prong of the common technical feature
Reineccius discloses a batch-type seed treatment apparatus in which a seed wheel having volumetric metering compartments collects a predetermined quantity of seed, which the Examiner characterizes as a "condition of the seed, such as size/volume/weight." (Office Action, p. 5, citing Reineccius at para. 24). Respectfully, a metering wheel that collects the same predetermined volume of seed with each rotation does not base the throughput rate of seed on a condition of the seed; to the contrary, it meters a fixed, predetermined volume irrespective of any condition of the seed, and any change to the seed processing rate in Reineccius is made manually by the user at a user input of the control processor. (See Reineccius at paras. 11, 31-32)..
This is not found persuasive because
a. This argument is not persuasive as the claim is not specific when process limitation of the condition of the liquid seed treatment is inferred;
b. Beattie teaches the claimed mechanism which adjusts the tilt/orientation of the drum is not an invention feature and not relied upon to teach the argued common technical feature. With regards to not being directed to the treatment of seed, applicants disclosure include broadens the characterization of the term of seed to include cereals and turf and a term of ornamental. Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would broad the field to includes areas where coating of items which are tumbled within a drum.
c. This argument is not persuasive as the claim is not specific process limitation of when the condition of the seed determined.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1, the limitation "the throughput rate of seed is based at least on one condition of the seed, the liquid dispersion rate is based on at least one condition of the liquid seed treatment, and the solid dispersion rate is based on at least one condition of the solid seed treatment" has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation and thus interpreted as an intended use of the seed treater. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification (see MPEP 2111).
The current claim limitation does not require the seed treater actually operate in accordance with the recited functions. The prior art seed treater need only be capable of operating in the claimed manner (see MPEP 2114(IV)).
In claim 2, the limitation "the adjustable orientation of the actuatable housing adjusts a rate of discharge of the combination of seed with seed treatment from the seed treatment flow path" has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation and thus interpreted as an intended use of the seed treater. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification (see MPEP 2111).
The current claim limitation does not require the seed treater actually operate in accordance with the recited functions. The prior art seed treater need only be capable of operating in the claimed manner (see MPEP 2114(IV)).
In claim 3, the limitation "the rate of operation of the actuatable housing adjusts a rate of the uniform distribution of the at least one liquid type of seed treatment, the at least one solid type of seed treatment, and seed" has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation and thus interpreted as an intended use of the seed treater. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification (see MPEP 2111).
The current claim limitation does not require the seed treater actually operate in accordance with the recited functions. The prior art seed treater need only be capable of operating in the claimed manner (see MPEP 2114(IV)).
In claim 4, the limitation " the rate of operation of the actuatable housing is adjusted based on at least one of a type of seed, the at least one liquid type of seed treatment, the at least one solid type of seed treatment, the throughput rate of seed, the liquid dispersion rate, the solid dispersion rate, and the adjustable orientation" has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation and thus interpreted as an intended use of the seed treater. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification (see MPEP 2111).
The current claim limitation does not require the seed treater actually operate in accordance with the recited functions. The prior art seed treater need only be capable of operating in the claimed manner (see MPEP 2114(IV)).
In claim 5, the limitation "the throughput rate of seed is adjusted based on at least one of a type of seed, the at least one liquid type of seed treatment, the at least one solid type of seed treatment, the liquid dispersion rate, the solid dispersion rate, the rate of operation of the actuatable housing, and the adjustable orientation" has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation and thus interpreted as an intended use of the seed treater. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification (see MPEP 2111).
The current claim limitation does not require the seed treater actually operate in accordance with the recited functions. The prior art seed treater need only be capable of operating in the claimed manner (see MPEP 2114(IV)).
In claim 6, the limitation "the solid dispersion rate is adjusted based on at least one of a type of seed, the throughput rate of seed, the at least one liquid type of seed treatment, the at least one solid type of seed treatment, the liquid dispersion rate, the rate of operation of the actuatable housing, and the adjustable orientation" has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation and thus interpreted as an intended use of the seed treater. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification (see MPEP 2111).
The current claim limitation does not require the seed treater actually operate in accordance with the recited functions. The prior art seed treater need only be capable of operating in the claimed manner (see MPEP 2114(IV)).
In claim 7, the limitation "the liquid dispersion rate is adjusted based on at least one of a type of seed, the throughput rate of seed, the at least one liquid type of seed treatment, the at least one solid type of seed treatment, the solid dispersion rate, the rate of operation of the actuatable housing, and the adjustable orientation" has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation and thus interpreted as an intended use of the seed treater. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification (see MPEP 2111).
The current claim limitation does not require the seed treater actually operate in accordance with the recited functions. The prior art seed treater need only be capable of operating in the claimed manner (see MPEP 2114(IV)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmons (US 4,465,017) in view of Beattie (US 4,430,003) and Reineccius (US 2011/0027479).
In regards to claims 1 and 7, Simmons teaches a seed treater (seed coating machine, Abstract), comprising:
a seed treatment flow path between a seed hopper (12) and a discharge drum end (72) of lower revolving drum (11) (fig. 1-2; col. 6, lines 25-40);
a valve/star feeder (13) in the seed treatment flow path and controls seed movement (fig. 1-2; col.6, lines. 30-40);
a liquid disperser provided as a pipe (43) with perforations (45) that is connected to liquid adhesive container (40), where the flow is controlled by a valve (48), where the liquid disperser is disposed downstream of the valve/star feeder (13) and within the seed treatment flow path (fig. 1-2; col. 6, lines 60-67, col. 7, lines 1-30);
a solid disperser provided as powder feeder (120) which comprises a powder hopper (121) connected to a mixer distributor (103), the flow of powder is controlled by valve (123) and where the solid disperser is within the in the seed treatment flow path and downstream of the liquid disperser (fig. 1-2; col. 8, lines 10-20), and
an actuatable housing provided as upper revolving drum (10) and/or the lower revolving drum (11) which are within the seed treatment flow path, where the rate of rotation is controlled by a motor (86) and variable speed control switch (93) (fig. 1, 2; col. 7, lines 47-60),
where the actuatable housing is downstream of the valve and revolving drums (11/12) provide uniform distribution of the liquid and solid treatments to create the combination of seed with seed treatment (fig. 1, 2); col. 9, lines 1-15).
Simmons does not explicitly teach an actuatable housing within the seed treatment flow path having an adjustable orientation.
However, Beattie teaches a rotating drum (17) connected to a mechanism (40) which the adjust the angle/tilt of the drum (17). Beattie teaches changes to particle retention is adjusted based on the change to the angle of inclination of the drum (17) (fig. 5; col. 7-line 55 – col. 8-line 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to incorporate mechanism which adjusts the tilt/orientation of the drum of Beattie onto the drums of Simmons, because it will allow for adjustment of the retention time within the drum and exposure of the particles to the treatment (col. 7, lines 50-70).
Simmons teaches the valve (48) for the liquid adhesive is adjusted to achieve the desired tackiness for the seed (condition of the liquid seed treatment) (fig. 1-2; col. 8, lines 50-55).
Simmons teaches valve (123) which controls the flow of powder, is controlled by variable speed motor (125), where the variable speed motor (125) is controlled to provide complete coverage of the seeds (condition of the solid seed treatment) (fig. 1-2; col. 8, lines 15-20, col. 9, lines 5-15).
Simmons and Beattie do not explicitly teach the throughput rate of the seed is based on one condition of the seed.
However, Reineccius teaches a seed wheel that collects a predetermined quantity of seed (condition of the seed, such as size/volume/weight) (fig. 3-5; para. 24). Reineccius teaches flow rates of the treatment products supplied to the seeds is based on the seed and quantity of seed, to provide the accurate distribution of treatment product (para. 30-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to incorporate control of treatment based on the supplied seed of Reineccius onto the drums of Simmons and Beattie, because it will provide more accurate distribution of treatment.
In regards to claim 2, Simmons, Beattie and Reineccius, where Beattie teaches change to the inclination changes the particle retention time which similar to the rate of discharge (col. 7-line 55 – col. 8-line 15).
In regards to claim 3, Simmons, Beattie and Reineccius, where Simmons teaches the valve (48) for the liquid adhesive is adjusted to achieve the desired tackiness for the seed (condition of the liquid seed treatment) (fig. 1-2; col. 8, lines 50-55) and Reineccius teaches flow rates of the treatment products supplied to the seeds is based on the quantity of seed (para. 30-31).
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmons (US 4,465,017) in view of Beattie (US 4,430,003), Reineccius (US 2011/0027479) and Stewart (US 6,199,318).
In regards to claims 1-7, Simmons teaches a seed treater (seed coating machine, Abstract), comprising:
a seed treatment flow path between a seed hopper (12) and a discharge drum end (72) of lower revolving drum (11) (fig. 1-2; col. 6, lines 25-40);
a valve/star feeder (13) in the seed treatment flow path and controls seed movement (fig. 1-2; col.6, lines. 30-40);
a liquid disperser provided as a pipe (43) with perforations (45) that is connected to liquid adhesive container (40), where the flow is controlled by a valve (48), where the liquid disperser is disposed downstream of the valve/star feeder (13) and within the seed treatment flow path (fig. 1-2; col. 6, lines 60-67, col. 7, lines 1-30);
a solid disperser provided as powder feeder (120) which comprises a powder hopper (121) connected to a mixer distributor (103), the flow of powder is controlled by valve (123) and where the solid disperser is within the in the seed treatment flow path and downstream of the liquid disperser (fig. 1-2; col. 8, lines 10-20), and
an actuatable housing provided as upper revolving drum (10) and/or the lower revolving drum (11) which are within the seed treatment flow path, where the rate of rotation is controlled by a motor (86) and variable speed control switch (93) (fig. 1, 2; col. 7, lines 47-60),
where the actuatable housing is downstream of the valve and revolving drums (11/12) provide uniform distribution of the liquid and solid treatments to create the combination of seed with seed treatment (fig. 1, 2); col. 9, lines 1-15).
Simmons does not explicitly teach an actuatable housing within the seed treatment flow path having an adjustable orientation.
However, Beattie teaches a rotating drum (17) connected to a mechanism (40) which the adjust the angle/tilt of the drum (17). Beattie teaches changes to particle retention is adjusted based on the change to the angle of inclination of the drum (17) (fig. 5; col. 7-line 55 – col. 8-line 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to incorporate mechanism which adjusts the tilt/orientation of the drum of Beattie onto the drums of Simmons, because it will allow for adjustment of the retention time within the drum and exposure of the particles to the treatment (col. 7, lines 50-70).
Simmons teaches the valve (48) for the liquid adhesive is adjusted to achieve the desired tackiness for the seed (condition of the liquid seed treatment) (fig. 1-2; col. 8, lines 50-55).
Simmons teaches valve (123) which controls the flow of powder, is controlled by variable speed motor (125), where the variable speed motor (125) is controlled to provide complete coverage of the seeds (condition of the solid seed treatment) (fig. 1-2; col. 8, lines 15-20, col. 9, lines 5-15).
Simmons and Beattie do not explicitly teach the throughput rate of the seed is based on one condition of the seed.
However, Reineccius teaches a seed wheel that collects a predetermined quantity of seed (condition of the seed, such as size/volume/weight) (fig. 3-5; para. 24). Reineccius teaches flow rates of the treatment products supplied to the seeds is based on the seed and quantity of seed, to provide the accurate distribution of treatment product (para. 30-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to incorporate control of treatment based on the supplied seed of Reineccius onto the drums of Simmons and Beattie, because it will provide more accurate distribution of treatment.
Simmons, Beattie and Reineccius, teaches the structural elements of recited in the claims thus meets the claimed apparatus.
For purposes compact prosecution, Simmons, Beattie and Reineccius do not explicitly teach the process limitation of the implied seed conditions of seed type, seed sweating, flowability, thermal properties, volume, mass, coat hardness, shape, texture, coat thickness, crude fat, soluble protein, sugar, gibberellins and abscisic acid, adhesiveness, or any other properties.
However, Stewart teaches of seed coating formulations which vary based on the type of seed (seed conditions) such as soybean, corn, rice a wheat. Stewart teaches based on the type of seed, variables for the coating process include the rotation rate of the pan/drum, the type of coating, the rate of materials are dispensed to the seed (see table 1, examples 8-25, col. 20 to col. 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the process parameters of Stewart onto the apparatus of Simmons, Beattie and Reineccius because Stewart teaches it reduce the amount of seed loss (col. 4, lines 5-20).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights