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 .
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 3/10/2026, with respect to claims 7-10 and 12-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 7-10 and 12-14 has been withdrawn. However, 7-10 and 14 are still objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with regard to claims 1 and 4.
With regard to claim 1, applicant argues that “Crucianelli does not teach a conveyor air opening that directs conveyor air flow in the direction of received material to generate mixed flow of conveyor air and material, as recited by claim 1”. Applicant uses the flap (6) of Figure 3 to suggest that it would be closed during operation, and thus not generate a mixed flow.
The examiner respectfully maintains that Crucianelli does anticipate claim 1. The action used Figure 2, instead of Figure 3, to demonstrate the manner in which Crucianelli anticipates the claim 1. Crucianelli teaches what the examiner considers a conveyor air opening in Figure 2, the unnumbered dashed line just under the drag cylinder (3). The specification says of the register (6) in Figure 2, “In said figure we observe that if there is a communication of air diverted towards the upper wall or vault (15) that communicates from below with the opening (5) at the bottom of the hopper with the seed chamber, this diverted air current is canceled when the register (6) is closed so that the entire air stream (4) passes through the delivery box (10).” The Examiner draws the Applicant’s attention to the phrases “if there is a communication” and “when the register (6) is closed”. The examiner interpreted these phrases as conditional, and therefore not true in every case. Meaning, the register could be open in some cases and thus create a conveyor air opening as claimed by claim 1.
The Applicant argued that the element 3 of Crucianelli is not arranged between a material inlet opening and a first receiving opening.
However, the Examiner respectfully maintains that Figure 4 does show a material inlet opening via the top of the hopper (1) and a first receiving opening via the beginning of the pipe (shown as 42 later in Crucianelli). The stirring element (3) is located in an intermediate location among the inlet opening and the receiving opening, which in the interpretation of the Examiner, would constitute “between”.
Lastly, the Applicant then argues “that element 3 of Crucianelli is not arranged in such a way that material is loosened in an area where conveyor air flow is directed onto the material.”
However, the small, substantially curved arrows near the screen labeled 15 in Fig. 4, show that air would pass into the air opening, and given the fluid properties of air, it would in all likelihood jostle and loosen the granular material as it is broken up by the stirring element (3).
In light of the above, the Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of claim 1 under U.S.C. 102(a)(2), and claim 4 under U.S.C. 112(b). Subsequently, the remainder of the U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejections and the U.S.C. 103 rejections are maintained.
With regard to claim 4, it is still unclear how the conveyor air flow is emitted at any angular range whatsoever. Neither the specification or the drawings indicate what is meant by “angular range”. The claim is still indefinite.
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 4 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.
It is unclear how the conveyor air flow is emitted at any angular range. This angular range is not shown in the drawings. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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(s) 1, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WIPO
Application WO-2020245637-A1 (hereinafter Crucianelli).
Regarding claim 1, Crucianelli discloses A seed on-demand system for granular material (Page 16, lines 20-21, Fig. 12) comprising: at least one storage container for granular material (Fig 2, No. 1, No. 2), at least one fan to provide a conveyor air flow (page 25, lines 18-22), and a distributing device having a distributor housing which is designed to receive material from the storage container by means of a material inlet opening and has a conveyor air opening to direct the conveyor air flow in the direction of the received material to generate a mixed flow of conveyor air and material (Fig. 2), and at least one distributing segment, which forms at least one first conduit with a first receiving opening and a first outlet opening (Fig. 5, No. 59 & page 29, lines 19-21), wherein the conduit is arranged to receive at least a part of the mixed flow by the receiving opening and to discharge it from the outlet opening (Fig. 4), wherein at least one stirring element is arranged between the material inlet opening and the first receiving opening to loosen the material in the area where the conveyor air flow is directed onto the material (Fig. 4, No. 3 & page 26, line 11).
Regarding claim 5, Crucianelli discloses the system of claim 1, characterized by a plurality of distributing segments which are arranged next to each other on an axis, wherein the stirring element is designed as a stirring shaft which extends parallel to the axis (Figure 19, shows them unlabeled, No. 59 and No. 3 elsewhere).
Regarding claim 11, Crucianelli discloses the system of claim 1, characterized in that stirring elements extend between opposite end faces of the distributor housing, in particular through all distributing segments (Fig. 10).
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crucianelli, as they
result in routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 2, Crucianelli teaches a drivable stirring element (Fig. 5, No. 3) but does not
specify a distance between the axis and the receiving opening. Since the application made no indication
of the importance or necessity of the claimed distance there is no reason to suggest that any other
distance would render the invention inoperable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the distance between the axis
and the receiving opening as this yields routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 3, Crucianelli teaches the system of claim 2, but does not specify a distance
from the axis to the side wall or the axis to the receiving opening. Since the application made no
indication of the importance or necessity of the claimed distance there is no reason to suggest that any
other distance would render the invention inoperable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the distance between the
axis and the receiving opening as this yields routine experimentation.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crucianelli in further view of
US Patent Application US 2020/0068789 A1 (hereinafter Rieder).
Crucianelli discloses the system of claim 1, but does not disclose a bypass opening. Rieder discloses a conduit that has a bypass opening between the receiving opening and the outlet opening to introduce a bypass flow of the conveyor air flow, characterized in that the bypass opening is arranged directly above the receiving opening (Fig 3, BASL & BASR).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the system of Crucianelli with the bypass of Rieder. The motivation
would be to accommodate different flow rate requirements and to increase homogeneity of the
air/granule mixture.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crucianelli in
further view of US Patent Application 2022/0400603 (hereinafter Flucke). Crucianelli discloses the seed on-demand system of claim 1, but does not disclose an overpressure operated separating device. Flucke discloses an overpressure operated separating device (Fig. 1, No. 13) with a controller 34 for regulating/adjusting airflow.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the seed on-demand system of Crucianelli with the overpressure
operated separating device of Flucke. The motivation would be to maintain or increase even distribution
of planted seeds or released granular material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The reasons for indication of allowability are: a second stirring element including a stirring shaft
arranged between the material inlet opening and the second receiving opening, of claim 7, in
combination with the rest of the claim language were not found in the prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMARI JADAN MEDDLING whose telephone number is (571)272-8178. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 5712726911. 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.
/AMARI J MEDDLING/ Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights