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 AND 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mayerle et al. (US 6,666,156 B1).
CLAIM 1 Mayerle et al. ‘156 (“Mayerle”) discloses a seed trench appurtenance assembly that is capable of being reversed, the seed trench appurtenance assembly configured for a row unit (20) of an agricultural planter (10), the row unit having an opening assembly (22) configured to open a seed trench in a soil surface as the row unit advances in a forward direction of travel, the seed trench appurtenance assembly comprising:
a mounting bracket (32) operably supported by the row unit of the planter;
a seed trench appurtenance (30, Figs. 3A, 4A, 5A, 7) having an upper portion (31) and a trailing portion (the enlarged portion that contacts the ground), said upper portion received within said mounting bracket (32);
wherein said seed trench appurtenance (30) is movable between a normal operating position in which said trailing portion extends into the seed trench and a reversing position in which said trailing portion is vertically above said normal operating position (Figs. 3A, 4A, 7);
wherein, in said reversing position, said upper portion (31) of said seed trench appurtenance (30) remains stationary with respect to said mounting bracket (32) while said trailing portion moves vertically above said normal operating position (Fig. 7);
whereby, when the row unit (20) is reversed in a direction opposite the forward direction of travel, said seed trench appurtenance (30) moves from said normal operating position to said reversing position, thereby avoiding damage to said seed trench appurtenance and said mounting bracket (Fig. 7);
CLAIM 9 wherein said upper portion and said trailing portion are made of rigid material (cl. 1, “rigid seed flap member”); and
CLAIM 10 wherein said trailing portion comprises a two-part assembly, including
a body member (51), and
a bottom cap member (52) removably secured to said body member.
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 4-6 AND 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayerle et al. (US 6,666,156 B1) in view of Hagny et al. (2016/0262304).
CLAIM 4 Mayerle fails to teach the trailing portion pivotally attached by a pin to the upper portion.
Hagny et al. ‘304 (“Hagny”) shows a seed trench appurtenance (28) comprising
a forward upper end of a trailing portion (30) that is pivotally attached to an upper portion (29) of the seed trench appurtenance by a pin (32). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have pivotally attached the upper end of the trailing portion by a pin, as suggested by Hagny. The motivation for making the modification would have been to
allow for replacement of the trailing portion for reasons such as wear and/or damage, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 5 In the combination of Mayerle and Hagny, a biasing element biases said trailing portion downwardly in said normal operating position (Mayerle, col. 6, ll. 32-9).
CLAIM 6 In the combination of Mayerle and Hagny, the trailing portion is selectively positionable relative to vertical such that said normal operating position of said trailing portion is selectively variable (Mayerle, col. 2, l. 66 thru col. 3, l. 2; col. 3, ll. 63-5; and cls. 13, 18 and 23).
CLAIMS 16-18 In the combination of Mayerle and Hagny, the trailing portion comprises a two-part assembly, including
a body member (Mayerle, 51), and
a bottom cap member (Mayerle, 52) removably secured to said body member.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP
§ 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
CLAIMS 1 AND 7-13 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over CLAIMS 1 AND 4-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,075,719 B2 in view of Mayerle et al. (US 6,666,156 B1).
CLAIM 1 USPN ‘719 recites all of the elements of the invention in claim 1, except for the upper portion of the seed trench appurtenance remaining stationary.
Mayerle discloses a seed trench appurtenance assembly that has an upper portion (31) received within a mounting bracket (32) and a trailing portion (the enlarged portion that contacts the ground),
wherein the seed trench appurtenance (30) is movable between a normal operating position in which the trailing portion extends into a seed trench and a reversing position in which the trailing portion is vertically above the normal operating position (Figs. 3A, 4A, 7); and
wherein, in the reversing position, the upper portion (31) of the seed trench appurtenance (30) remains stationary with respect to the mounting bracket (32) while the trailing portion moves vertically above the normal operating position.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the upper portion of the seed trench appurtenance to remain stationary with respect to the mounting bracket while the trailing portion moves vertically above the normal operating position, as suggested by Mayerle. The motivation for making the modification would have been to reduce wear of the upper portion, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 7 All of the limitations recited therein are recited in CLAIM 4 of USPN ‘719.
CLAIM 8 All of the limitations recited therein are recited in CLAIM 5 of USPN ‘719.
CLAIM 9 All of the limitations recited therein are recited in CLAIM 6 of USPN ‘719.
CLAIM 10 All of the limitations recited therein are recited in CLAIM 7 of USPN ‘719.
CLAIM 11 All of the limitations recited therein are recited in CLAIM 8 of USPN ‘719.
CLAIM 12 All of the limitations recited therein are recited in CLAIM 9 of USPN ‘719.
CLAIM 13 All of the limitations recited therein are recited in CLAIM 10 of USPN ‘719.
Allowable Subject Matter
CLAIMS 2, 3, 14 AND 15 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
15 September 2026
Prosecution Insights