DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
In the reply filed May 12, 2026, the applicant amended claims 1 and 10.
Currently claims 1-11 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garner (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0086358) in view of Hubner (U.S. Patent No. 11,051,445).
Regarding Claim 1, Garner discloses a seed-delivery device, comprising:
A seed meter (Garner: 102) having a metering disc (Garner: 106) configured to receive seeds;
A seed tube (Garner: 104) coupled to the seed meter (Garner: 102), the seed tube having a generally cylindrical wall (exterior of seed tube 104 is generally cylindrical along the majority of its length except for upper and lower ends.) and a helical channel (Garner: 220) formed in an interior of the generally cylindrical wall (Garner: Figure 5: outer wall of seed tube except for top portion is cylindrical. Though the helical portion of the appears to be in an axially different portion of the seed tube, 104 meets the limitations in that it is both helical (at the top end) and generally cylindrical (along most of the body of the seed tube));
An insert (Garner: Paragraph [0019]: rotating brush belt may be included within 104) within the seed tube (Garner: 104); and
A drive mechanism configured to rotate the insert (Garner: Paragraph [0019]: rotating brush belt may be included within 104).
Garner does not disclose a drive mechanism configured to rotate the insert.
Hubner discloses a drive mechanism configured to rotate an insert (Hubner: brush belt 640 driven by electric motor 800).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to have utilized the drive motor of Hubner, configured to drive both a seed meter and a brush belt, with the practical and well known effect providing a rotary driving force for the insert (brush belt) disclosed by Gardner.
Regarding Claim 2, Garner and Hubner render obvious the seed-delivery device of claim 1, wherein the seed tube (Garner: 104) has a generally cylindrical interior (Gardner: lower end of 104 is cylindrical).
Regarding Claim 3, Garner and Hubner render obvious the seed-delivery device of claim 1, wherein the insert (Garner: Paragraph [0019]: rotating brush belt may be included within 104) comprises a brush (Hubner: Column 5: lines 8-33).
Regarding Claim 4, Garner and Hubner render obvious the seed-delivery device of claim 3, wherein the brush comprises a plurality of resilient bristles extending radially from a center support (Hubner: Column 5: lines 8-33).
Regarding Claim 5, Garner and Hubner render obvious the seed-delivery device of claim 1, wherein the insert (Garner: Paragraph [0019]: rotating brush belt may be included within 104) comprises a generally cylindrical body (Hubner: 642, 644 are generally cylindrical).
Regarding Claim 7, Garner and Hubner render obvious the seed-delivery device of claim 1, wherein the drive mechanism comprises a variable-speed motor (Hubner: Column 15: lines 23-29: speed through stepper or servo motor is controllable).
Regarding Claim 8, Garner and Hubner render obvious the seed-delivery device of claim 1, wherein the metering disc (Garner: 106) is configured to provide the seeds to the seed tube (Garner: 104) in a preselected orientation (singulating seeds from one another is a form of orientation).
Regarding Claim 9, Garner and Hubner render obvious a row unit for planting seeds, comprising:
A frame (Hubner: 14) configured to be coupled to a toolbar;
A seed-trench opening assembly (Hubner: 30) carried by the frame (Hubner: 14) and configured to form a seed trench (furrow);
The seed-delivery device of claim 1 carried by the frame (Hubner: 14) and configured to deliver seeds to the seed trench; and
A seed-trench closing assembly (Hubner: 34) carried by the frame (Hubner: 14) and configured to close the seed trench over seeds in the seed trench.
Regarding Claim 10, Garner discloses a method of planting with a row unit, the method comprising:
Singulating seeds with a metering disc (Garner: 106) carried by the row unit;
Transferring singulated seeds from the metering disc (Garner: 106) to a first end of a seed tube (Garner: 104) having a generally cylindrical wall and a helical channel (Garner: 220) formed in an interior of the generally cylindrical wall (Garner: Figure 5: outer wall of seed tube except for top portion is cylindrical);
Rotating an insert (Garner: Paragraph [0019]: rotating brush belt may be included within 104) within the seed tube (Garner: 104) to urge the seeds along the helical channel (Garner: 220) to a second end of the seed tube (Garner: 104); and
Dispensing seeds from the second end of the seed tube (Garner: 104).
Garner does not disclose forming a seed trench in soil with a row unit; or
Closing the seed trench with a seed-trench closing assembly.
Hubner discloses forming a seed trench in soil with a row unit (Hubner: via 30); and
Closing the seed trench with a seed-trench closing assembly (Hubner: via 34).
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 seed metering system of Garner in conjunction with the row unit of Hubner with the predictable effect of Garner functioning to plant seeds in a controlled manner in furrows opened and then closed by the apparatus of Hubner.
Regarding Claim 11, Garner and Hubner render obvious the method of claim 10, wherein dispensing seeds from the second end of the seed tube (Garner: 104) comprises dispensing the seeds with a preselected orientation (singulating seeds from one another is a form of orientation).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garner in view of Hubner, further in view of Radtke (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0212932).
Regarding Claim 6, Garner and Hubner render obvious the seed-delivery device of claim 5, but do not disclose wherein the generally cylindrical body comprises a material selected from the group consisting of foam, rubber, and elastomers.
Radtke discloses a cylindrical body (Radke: 254) of a brush belt mechanism wherein the cylindrical body comprises a material is selected from the group consisting of foam, rubber, and elastomers (Radke: Paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s effective filing to have utilized the material or Radtke in the wheel component rendered obvious by Garner and Hubner with the predictable effect of having a lightweight and yieldable material to elastically connect an outer surface driving the brush belt to the bearing of the cylindrical component).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the applicant argues that the invention of Garner fails to disclose the seed tube having a generally cylindrical wall with a helical channel formed within.
The examiner respectfully submits that while the interior of the seed tube (at the top portion) does not have a cylindrical shape, the outer surface of the seed tube (Garner: Figure 5) is cylindrical along most of its length except for the top portion and that the interior portion of the seed tube below the helix appears to possess cylindrical walls as well with a divider down the middle. The seed tube being cylindrical along most of its length meets the requirements of “a generally cylindrical wall” while the helical portion is contained within said seed tube. The invention of Garner therefore possesses all of the limitations as they are currently written.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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