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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
CLAIMS 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
CLAIM 1 The scope of the claimed invention is indefinite because there is a discrepancy between the preamble of the claim and its body. The preamble recites a “seed planting and detection system,” but the body of the claim fails to recite any means capable of detecting seed. For the purpose of prosecution on the merits, the examiner has considered the scope of CLAIM 1 exclusive of seed detection means.
CLAIMS 2-10 are rejected because they depend from CLAIM 1.
CLAIM 6 is rejected and interpreted the same as CLAIM 1.
CLAIMS 7-10 are rejected because they depend from CLAIM 6.
CLAIM 10 On line 2, “the second sensor” and “the first sensor” both lack proper antecedent basis in CLAIM 6. For the purpose of prosecution on the merits, the examiner has considered the claim to depend from CLAIM 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
CLAIMS 1-3 AND 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Radtke et al. (US 2014/0230705 A1).
CLAIM 1 Radtke et al. ‘705 (“Radtke”) shows a seed planting and detection system (Fig. 6A), comprising:
a seed meter (26) having a seed disc (50) with a plurality of spaced apertures (52) positioned about and adjacent an outer edge of the seed disc;
a seed pickup area (see annotated Fig. 6A) positioned about the outer edge of the seed disc (50) where a seed (62) is placed into one of the plurality of spaced apertures (52);
a singulator (22) positioned downstream from the seed pickup area and configured to knock off extra seeds from the seed disc (50); and
a release point (see annotated Fig. 6A) downstream from the singulator (22) configured to release the seed placed into the one of the plurality of spaced apertures (52) for delivery to a targeted area;
CLAIM 2 wherein a sensor (600) is positioned between the singulator (22) and
the release point and configured to detect a presence of the seed (62) placed into one of the plurality of spaced apertures (52);
CLAIM 3 wherein the sensor (600) is a reflective type configured to detect an object that protrudes off a calibrated surface a certain distance ([0079]); and
CLAIM 5 wherein the sensor (600) is positioned upstream from the release point.1
RADTKE ‘705 - FIG. 6A
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (release point)][AltContent: textbox (seed pickup area)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
449
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
CLAIM 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radtke et al. (US 2014/0230705 A1) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2022/0039310 A1).
CLAIM 4 Radtke fails to teach calibration of the sensor as claimed.
Johnson et al. ‘310 (“Johnson”) discloses a system for detecting the viability of seeds, wherein the system comprises a sensor arrangement that is calibrated to produce an output signal for seeds sized within a preferred range and to produce an attenuated signal for seeds smaller than the preferred range ([0101], cl. 19). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the prior art sensor (Radtke, 600) such that it would have been calibrated to produce an output signal for a certain sized seed and to produce no signal for seeds smaller that the certain sized seed, as suggested by Johnson. The motivation for making the modification would have been to allow for the detection of non-viable seeds with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIMS 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radtke et al. (US 2014/0230705 A1).
CLAIM 6 Radtke et al. ‘705 (“Radtke”) shows a seed planting and detection system (Fig. 12D), comprising:
a seed meter having a seed disc (51) with a first and a second series of apertures (52i, 52o) that are indexed symmetrically about a center of the seed disc; and
a release point configured to release the seed placed into the one of the plurality of spaced apertures (52i, 52o) for delivery to a targeted area.
Radtke fails to show a seed pickup area in Fig. 12D, but illustrates one in the embodiment of Fig. 6A. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have positioned a seed pick up area on the outer edge of the seed disc (51), since the structure was known as useful for entraining seeds in the disc apertures. The motivation for making the modification would have been to provide an area for loading the seed disc consistently in a dedicated area, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Radtke fails to show a singulator in the embodiment of Fig. 12D, but shows a singulator (22) in the embodiment of Fig. 6A. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have positioned a singulator downstream of the seed pickup area and upstream of the release point, since the structure was known as useful for removing excess seeds proximate to the disc apertures. The motivation for making the modification would have been to control the rate of seed release, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 7 Radtke fails to teach first and second sensors in the system embodiment of Fig. 12D. In the embodiment of Fig. 6A, Radtke teaches a sensor (600) positioned between the singulator (22) and the release point and configured to detect a presence of the seed (62) placed into one of the plurality of spaced apertures (52). Thus, 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 first and second sensors over the first and second apertures (52i, 52o), respectively. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for detecting the presence of seeds with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
CLAIMS 8-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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
/tm/
20 July 2026
1 In CLAIM 5, the functional limitation “to permit time for a controller to change a position of the detected seed relative to the release point” is interpreted to mean that the sensor (600) is positioned upstream from the release point at a distance great enough to allow the seed (62) to be repositioned before being released, since a controller having the claimed functionality is not positively recited.
Prosecution Insights