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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that “and/or” in line 12 should be changed to –or—in order to align with the limitation as set forth in line 7. Appropriate correction is required.
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 10 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 10 recites the limitation "the spring elements" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch et al. 10,512,212 in view of Bassett 11,006,563.
Independent Claims 1, 11: Koch discloses a sowing machine (10) with a plurality of row units (200), wherein the plurality of row units comprise:
- a frame (seen in Fig. 2),
- a furrow opener (244) mounted on the frame for opening a seed furrow,
- a seed dispensing mechanism (230) for depositing seed into the seed furrow, and
- a catching device (400’’’, see Fig. 46) mounted on the frame for braking or pressing seed deposited in the seed furrow, and
a sensor carrier (5000) arranged on the frame directly behind the catching device in a direction of travel such that it is carried in the seed furrow after the seed has been braked and/or pressed in, wherein the sensor carrier has at least one sensor (350) for detecting at least one parameter related to the sowing of seed (soil reflectivity, see col. 6, lns. 52-53), as per claims 1, 11.
However, Koch fails to disclose wherein the catching device is a catching roller, as per claims 1, 11.
Bassett discloses a similar catching device in the form of a roller (20, Fig. 1) and teaches that roller type and blade type (236, Fig. 12) catchers are equally interchangeable (col. 1, lns. 39-40, 61-62), as per claims 1, 11.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a catching roller for Koch’s catching blade in light of Bassett’s teaching that the two types of catching devices are equally interchangeable.
Dependent Claims 3, 5-7, 12: Koch further discloses a closing unit (236) arranged on the frame in order to cover the seed furrow with soil, wherein the sensor carrier (5000, Fig. 46) is arranged in front of or directly adjoining a contact point of the closing unit in the direction of travel (as seen between Figs. 2, 4A, and 46, the catching device and sensor carrier are connected to seed tube 232 and so will be arranged in front of the closing unit), as per claim 3;
wherein the sensor carrier (5000) is arranged on the frame in such a way that an underside of the sensor carrier is in contact with a sole of the seed furrow and/or sweeps over braked and/or pressed in seed grains (as seen in Fig. 46), as per claim 6;
characterized by an elastic suspension device (410’’’, Fig. 46), wherein the sensor carrier (5000) is arranged on the frame by way of the elastic suspension device, as per claim 7.
However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the sensor carrier is at a distance of less than 5 cm from the catching roller, as per claim 5;
wherein the sensor carrier is at a distance of less than 1 cm from the catching roller, as per claim 12.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the sensor carrier at a distance of less than 5cm, as per claim 5, or less than 1 cm, as per claim 12, from the catching roller, as per claim 5, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch et al. in view of Bassett as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Horsch et al. DE 102018112948 A1.
Dependent Claim 4: The row unit is disclosed as applied above. However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the seed delivery mechanism is configured to accelerate individual seed grains, and wherein a direction of a flow of seeds from a seed outlet intersects a shell surface of the catching roller or rests essentially tangentially against the shell surface, as per claim 4.
Horsch discloses a similar row unit wherein the seed delivery mechanism (32) is configured to accelerate individual seed grains (at 56), and wherein a direction of a flow of seeds from a seed outlet (40) intersects a shell surface of the catching roller (42) or rests essentially tangentially against the shell surface (as seen in Fig. 6), as per claim 4.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to accelerate the seeds tangentially to the catching roller as taught by Horsch on the row unit of Koch and Bassett in order to best ensure the seed is caught at the ground and roller, preventing seed bounce.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch et al. in view of Bassett as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Stoller et al. 10,219,431.
Dependent Claim 9: The row unit is disclosed as applied above. However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the suspension device comprises a parallelogram with at least one spring element, as per claim 9.
Stoller discloses a similar row unit wherein the suspension device (1810) comprises a parallelogram with at least one spring element (1812), as per claim 9.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the parallelogram suspension device of Stoller for that of Koch and Bassett since both references disclose flexible means for mounting catching devices to row unit frames and such a predictable result would be achieved.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 8 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. Claim 2, in particular, is allowable because the applicant cites a criticality for this specific placement, so that the furrow is still open and the roller does not interfere with closing of the trench, therefore precluding a rejection under rearrangement of parts case law.
Claim 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTOL-892. Please note, Strnad et al. 10,874,042 discloses a similar row unit having a catching device with a sensor directly attached. However, in this case, if the catching device were a roller, the sensor would rotate with the roller, possibly becoming damaged or preventing accurate sensor readings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alicia M. Torres whose telephone number is 571-272-6997. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-6997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina R. Fulton, can be reached at (571) 272-7376.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the group receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-3600. The fax number for this Group is 571-273-8300.
/Alicia Torres/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 September 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights