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
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Natarjan et al. (US 2017/0086362 A1).
CLAIM 1 Natarjan et al. ‘362 (“Natarjan”) discloses (Figs. 2-7, for example) a reversible seed trench appurtenance for a row unit (24) of an agricultural planter, the row unit having an opening assembly (30) configured to open a seed trench in a soil surface (G) as the row unit advances in a forward direction of travel, the reversible seed trench appurtenance assembly comprising:
a mounting bracket (52) operably supported by the row unit of the planter;
a seed trench appurtenance (50) having an upper portion (70) and a trailing portion (the portion containing 64), said upper portion received within said mounting bracket (52), said seed trench appurtenance movable between a normal operating position in which said trailing portion extends into the seed trench (Fig. 6, for example) and a reversing position (Fig. 7, for example) in which said trailing portion is vertically above said normal operating position;
wherein in said reversing position (Fig. 7, for example), said upper portion (70) and said trailing portion (the portion including 64) of said seed trench appurtenance are both moved upwardly relative to said mounting bracket;
whereby when the row unit (24) is reversed in a direction opposite the forward direction of travel, said seed trench appurtenance (50) moves from said normal operating position to said reversing position (upon contact with a small object, such as 100) thereby avoiding damage to the seed trench appurtenance and the mounting bracket;
CLAIM 2 a wedge member (68) received between said mounting bracket (52) and said upper portion (70), wherein said wedge member secures said upper portion of said seed trench appurtenance within said bracket in said normal operating position (Fig. 6, for example), and wherein in said reversing position (Fig. 7, for example), said upper portion is moved upwardly relative to said mounting bracket and said wedge member;
CLAIM 3 a biasing member (80) biasing said upper portion (70) of said seed trench appurtenance downwardly in abutment with said wedge member (68);
CLAIMS 4-9 said upper portion (70) and said trailing portion are made of a resilient plastic material (“ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE)”, ¶0035).
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 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natarjan et al. (US 2017/0086362 A1).
CLAIMS 10, 14, 17, 18, 21
Natarjan fails to teach the trailing portion comprising a two-part assembly. It would have been an obvious modification for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the trailing portion of a body member for mating engagement within a channel in a bottom cap member removably secured to the body member, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. The motivation for making the modification would have been to provide ease of replacement of the ground contacting segment due to wear.
CLAIMS 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20
Natarajan teaches expressly ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE)(¶0035), which meets the material limitations recited therein.
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/
27 June 2026
Prosecution Insights