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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 23 September 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
CLAIMS 1 AND 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoller et al. (US 2017/0049044 A1) in view of Kormann et al. (US 2014/0076216 A1).
CLAIM 1 Stoller et al. ‘044 (“Stoller”) teaches an agricultural implement (Fig. 29), comprising:
at least one row unit (200), each said at least one row unit including an opening assembly (234) and a seed delivery device (32), the opening assembly configured to open a seed trench (38) in a soil surface and the seed delivery device configured to deposit seed in said open seed trench as the agricultural implement travels in a forward direction of travel;
an image capture device disposed (8020) on said at least one row unit to capture images of said open seed trench after the seed is deposited in said open seed trench; and
a processor (50, [0064]) in data communication with said image capture device, said processor configured to analyze said captured images from said image capture device to determine agronomic properties of said open seed trench, said agronomic properties selected from the group consisting of: trench depth, trench collapse percentage and trench shape ([0064]).
Stoller fails to teach the image capture device disposed rearward of the seed delivery device and above the soil surface. Kormann et al. ‘216 (“Kormann”) shows (Fig. 2) an agricultural implement (12) comprising a row unit (14) with a seed delivery device (40), and an image capture device (58) disposed on the row unit rearward of the seed delivery device and looking down toward the soil surface to capture images of said open trench, wherein the image capture device is in data communication with a processor (Korman, [0030]). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added an image capture device (Kormann, 58) to the rear of the seed delivery device (Stoller, 32) and above the soil surface, and further, to have placed the image capture device (Kormann, 58) in data communication with the processor (Stoller, 50, [0064]), as suggested by Kormann. The motivation for making the modification would have been to provide an operator with an additional perspective of the seed trench, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 6 In the prior art combination, the agricultural implement further comprises a row cleaner assembly (Stoller, [0077]) disposed forward of said opening assembly (Stoller, 234) of said at least one row unit (Stoller, 200), said row cleaner assembly disposed to engage the soil surface to move soil and residue from the soil surface laterally with respect to the forward direction of travel and forward of said opening assembly.
CLAIM 7 In the prior art combination, said image capture devices (Stoller, 8020; and Kormann, 58) capture images of said soil surface a distance laterally to each side of said open seed trench and wherein said processor is further configured to analyze said captured image to detect a presence of an extra trench laterally of said open seed trench produced by said row cleaner assembly (Stoller, [0164]).
CLAIM 8 In the prior art combination, the agricultural implement further comprises a sensor (Stoller, 350) mounted to the agricultural implement and oriented toward the soil surface forward of said row cleaner assembly to detect soil mounds forward of said row cleaner assembly (Stoller, [0112]).
CLAIM 9 In the prior art combination, said sensor (Stoller, 350) comprises LIDAR (Stoller, [0073]).
CLAIM 10 The prior art combination discloses all of the limitations of the claimed method, including the controller functionality of adjusting the trench depth (Stoller, [0064]).
CLAIM 11 The prior art combination discloses all of the limitations of the claimed method, including the generation of seed pulses (Stoller, [0106]-[0114]).
Allowable Subject Matter
CLAIMS 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, Christine M. Mills can be reached at (571)272-8322. 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
28 September 2026
Prosecution Insights