Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/779,144

SEED CONVEYOR

Non-Final OA §101§102§112
Filed
Jul 22, 2024
Examiner
RUSHIN, LESTER III
Art Unit
3651
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Deere & Company
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
609 granted / 694 resolved
+35.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
8 currently pending
Career history
702
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
48.4%
+8.4% vs TC avg
§102
35.1%
-4.9% vs TC avg
§112
14.6%
-25.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 694 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102 §112
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 § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 14-18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. As claimed, there is no apparatus claimed to accomplish the method set out in claims 14-18. Accordingly, the claim is open to interpretation as being done by people, that is, a person may be doing the measuring in claim 14. Whether a device falls within the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained until a particular user engages the device. Consequently, the claim is indefinite. Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (BdPatApp & Inter 1989). No particular person is identified and likewise no particular apparatus is identified. There is not way to ascertain if the claim is anticipated by the prior art. 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. Claim 13 is 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 13 is an independent claim that is not part of claim 1. The evidence for this is that the preamble of claim 13 is for a “work vehicle” whereas the preamble of claim 1 is for “A tank assembly …”. Therefore reference in claim 13, for a work vehicle, to claim 1, a tank assembly, does not particularly point out, nor does it distinctly claim the invention. The two are drawn to different inventions and therefore claim 1 cannot be so referenced in claim 13. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by GB2231767 to Simpson. With respect to claim 19, Simpson discloses a tank defining an enclosure see numeral 12 in Fig. 2 and configured to receive a granular material material (sic) (see Abstract); an egress port (see numeral 22 in Fig. 2 and page 3, fourth sentence); a conveyor (see numeral 14 in Fig. 2 and page 3, first full paragraph, first sentence) positioned towards a bottom portion of the tank PNG media_image1.png 426 756 media_image1.png Greyscale and extending between the egress port (22) and the enclosure of the tank (11) and (see annotated Fig. 2, supra); and wherein operation of the conveyor expels the granular material from the enclosure (see page 3, second to last sentence). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 20 is 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. Claims 1-12 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach or disclose a first and second tank attached to and in communication with an granular material applicator having sensors associated with each tank and a conveyor between the tanks to move material therebetween. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESTER RUSHIN, III whose telephone number is (313)446-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4p. 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, GENE CRAWFORD can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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. /LESTER RUSHIN, III/ Examiner Art Unit 3651 /GENE O CRAWFORD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 22, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102, §112
Apr 02, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600575
Conveyor Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595138
SYSTEM FOR SEPARATING BULK-SUPPLIED PLANT-BULBS AND METHOD FOR TRANSPORTING AND SPACING PLANT-BULBS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595133
Conveyor belt calibration device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589958
MODULAR BASE FOR DRIVING CONVEYORS AND RELATED COMPONENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583682
CONVEYOR ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+8.0%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 694 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month