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 I, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 02/09/20226 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 (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.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Eastin [US 20180153206].
Claim 1: Eastin teaches a method for seed treater data acquisition, commercialization and use (invention relating to control use of seed treatment, packaging, shipping, and formulation of metabolic inputs and etc.) [0012, 0060] which includes providing a seed treater (applicator) with one or more seed treatment inputs (e.g. liability) [abstract] having one or more known properties (e.g. feedstock characteristics [0023] or equations) [0082], one or more seed treater operations (selection criteria or lability) [0082, 0022] and one ore more environmental inputs or measurable properties from an environment of the seed treater (environment conditions) [0064]; treating seed in the seed treater with one or more seed treatment inputs [0068; 0082]; controlling at least one of the one or more seed treater operations based on one or more programmed seed treatment parameter and one or more known properties of the seed treatment and the measurable properties of the one or more environmental inputs (using a feedback controller to monitor feedstock properties and adjust based upon monitored values and set point values such as calibration, dimensional, operational or combination of values thereof) [0146-0150]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use more than one inputs for each category since Eastin teaches you could select a combination of criteria or values [0037; 0082].
Claim 2: Eastin teaches adjusting the one or more seed treater operations based on inspection of the properties (monitoring properties) [0146].
Claim 3: Eastin teaches storing the one or more known properties for the seed treatment inputs and one more measurable properties for the environmental inputs (stored in database) [0146; 0166]; processing the database and controlling the operations based upon the one or more known properties of the one or more seed treatment inputs and environmental inputs (for example, using database and selecting selection criteria for operations based upon desired values) [0149-0150, 0152-0160, and 0166-0174].
Claim 5: Eastin teaches adjusting a rate of operation of at least one of the more seed treater operations based upon known properties of the seed treatment inputs and environment inputs (converging on an adjustment parameter, calibration parameter, dimensional parameter, operational parameter or combination thereof as well as feedstock properties) [0146].
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eastin as applied to claims 4 and 7 above, and further in view of David [US 20180352720].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, wherein Eastin teaches monitoring to collect data [0146] but does not appear to teach specifically using at least one sensor to monitor. David is provided.
Claim 4: David teaches the system is automated by receiving information from various sensors such as pressure, flow and weight sensors [0143]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use sensors to monitor and collect data since David teaches these are well known and operable devices to collect data in the seed treatment field.
Claim 7: Eastin teaches using monitored data to adjust the rate of operation [0146] and David teaches data is collected from sensor for operation (receive information from sensors to operate) [0143].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eastin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stacey [US 20200302556].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned where Eastin teaches converging data from monitored values and calculated values using optimization models to produce adjustment values [0146], but does not explicitly teach using machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI). Stacey is provided.
Claim 6: Stacey teaches that seed treatment recommendation can be provided from a variety of different data [abstract] and that machine learning or AI can be used to provide further analysis for treatment [0016; 0047; 0070]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use machine learning or AI to collect more data in order to make further adjustments and predictions for seed treatment since Stacey teaches it is already known and more accurate by using such data for agricultural industries.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM 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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718