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 .
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 or more environmental inputs or measurable properties from an environment of the seed treater (application environment conditions) [0085]; treating seed in the seed treater with one or more seed treatment inputs [0068; 0082]; wherein the treatment method can be performed during planting (during operation of seed treater) [0068], and 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], wherein such inputs can be determined during operation (of the seed treatment) [0082]. 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments that Eastin is directed to only a labile-based spray and emissions for food applications and fails to teach a closed loop operation control of a seed treater in response to that treater’s surrounding environment. Examiner disagrees, since the claims do not explicitly require a closed loop operation control. Furthermore, Eastin teaches the lability characteristics may be a function of the application environment [0085], explicitly indicating environmental inputs can be included towards the determination and control of the seed treatment. Eastin also teaches the treatment can be performed during planting (operations) [0068] and selection and configuration of the characteristics criteria is based upon determining conditions during operations [0082]. Eastin also teaches temperature is one of the many inputs that is considered that affects the characteristics [0082, 0085], suggesting that Eastin factors environmental inputs among other inputs in controlling and determining the treatment method during operation.
Regarding applicant’s arguments of “monitoring properties” at paragraph 0146 does not meet an inspection of properties of a treated seed used to adjust a seed treater operation and fails to disclose the post treatment seed inspection as recited in claim 2, the examiner argues in light of applicant’s disclosure and given its broadest and reasonable interpretation, monitoring the properties would appear to meet the limitation of “inspection of properties” and using a feedback controller system such as a PID would suggest that such inspection is performed post-treatment in order to make adjustments using a feedback system.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that David is not directed to a system using sensors of environmental inputs, it is argued that since Eastin teaches pressures and flow rates are environmental inputs that affect the labile characteristics [0085], such as sensors of David measuring the same types of properties such as pressure and flow would also be relevant to sensors being used in measuring environmental factors. Again, Eastin teaches adjusting the method during operations [0068; 0082].
Regarding applicant’s arguments of claim 6, where Stacey does not converge actual seed treatment results towards programmed parameters, it is argued that Eastin already teaches combining actual seed treatment results (from during operation) and towards predetermined ranges or programmed parameters [0082]. As for using AI, Stacey teaches using machine learning or AI can provide further analysis upon a given seed treatment data [0016; 0047; 0070]; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that is already know in the art to augment data with AI such as augmenting the converged seed treatment data with AI or machine learning so as to provide a more thorough analysis of the data.
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
Prosecution Insights