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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(lines 4-6) “a fertilizer-metering device configured to adapt to meter the fertilizer” should be changed to “a fertilizer-metering device configured to meter the fertilizer”.
(lines 11-15) “control operation of the fertilizer-metering device as a function of the relative position between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device; relative position between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device” should be changed to “control operation of the fertilizer-metering device as a function of the relative position between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a fertilizer-depositing device for depositing fertilizer” in claim 1,
“a seed-depositing device for depositing seed” in claim 1,
“a carrier mechanism…allows a change in relative position between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device” in claim 1,
“a position-detecting system…to sensor-based detect a relative position between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device” in claim 1,
“a deflection mechanism influencing seed deposition” in claim 5,
“a deflection mechanism that influences fertilizer deposition” in claim 7,
“a fertilizer-metering device configured to meter the fertilizer” in claim 12, and
“a seed-metering device configured to meter the seed” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 5-10 are 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.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "in particular" (two occurrences) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 6-9 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Houck (US 2015/0230391).
As concerns claim 1, Houck shows a distributing unit (36) for an agricultural distributor (32), comprising: a fertilizer-depositing device (52; paragraph 0029: tillage row unit 52 can include other devices in addition to or instead of disc blades 82, 84, including a fertilizer shoe) for depositing fertilizer on agricultural land; and a seed-depositing device (62) for depositing seed on the agricultural land; wherein the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device are fastened on a carrier mechanism (34b), and the carrier mechanism allows a change in the relative position between the fertilizer-depositing device (via first linkage 54) and the seed-depositing device (via second linkage 64); wherein a position-detecting system (126, 110, 112, 114, 176, 220) which is adapted to sensor-based detect a relative position between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device (paragraph 0038, 0040, 0051 & 0058) which influences the longitudinal distance of the fertilizer deposited on the agricultural land and the seed deposited on the agricultural land (the claim does not require the detection of a longitudinal distance but rather a positional relationship between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device that has an influence on the longitudinal distance; a deflection of deflection mechanism 54 and/or deflection mechanism 64 results in a relative change in height as well as a relative change in the longitudinal distance between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device as shown in Fig. 8B & 8C).
As concerns claim 2, Houck shows wherein the position-detecting system has at least one sensor (112, 114, 176, 220) and an electronic data-processing device (126), wherein the electronic data-processing device is adapted to evaluate sensor data from the sensor for detection of the relative position between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device (paragraph 0038, 0040, 0051 & 0058).
As concerns claim 4, Houck shows wherein the carrier mechanism allows a change in the alignment of the fertilizer-depositing device, wherein the relative position between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device comprises the alignment of the fertilizer-depositing device and/or a relative alignment of the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device (Fig. 2 & 8A-8D).
As concerns claim 5, Houck shows wherein the carrier mechanism has an attachment part (34b) by which the carrier mechanism can be fastened on a unit carrier (34a) of the agricultural distributor, wherein the carrier mechanism comprises a deflection mechanism (64) influencing the seed deposition, by which the seed-depositing device can be deflected with respect to the attachment part of the carrier mechanism for following the ground contour of the agricultural land (Fig. 2).
As concerns claim 6, Houck shows wherein at least one sensor (114) of the position-detecting system is adapted to detect a deflection state of the deflection mechanism (64) influencing the seed deposition.
As concerns claim 7, Houck shows wherein the carrier mechanism comprises a deflection mechanism (54) influencing the fertilizer deposition, by which the fertilizer-depositing device can be deflected with respect to the attachment part of the carrier mechanism for following the ground contour of the agricultural land (Fig. 2).
As concerns claim 8, Houck shows wherein at least one sensor (112) of the position-detecting system is configured to detect a deflection state of the deflection mechanism (54) influencing the fertilizer deposition.
As concerns claim 9, Houck shows wherein the deflection mechanism (64) influences the seed deposition and the deflection mechanism (54) influences the fertilizer deposition are mechanically coupled (178, 252) to one another.
As concerns claim 10, Houck shows wherein the deflection mechanism (54) comprises a suspension (92).
As concerns claim 11, Houck shows wherein the position-detecting system is configured to calculate a smooth-running value which characterizes the smooth running of the fertilizer-depositing device on the basis of changes in the position of the fertilizer-depositing device determined over a period of time and/or on the basis of the relative positions of the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device determined over a period of time (paragraph 0038).
As concerns claim 12, Houck shows a fertilizer-metering device (paragraph 0029: fertilizer shoe) configured to meter the fertilizer to be deposited, a seed-metering device (paragraph 0029: seeding row unit) configured to meter the seed to be deposited, and a control device (122) which is configured to control operation of the fertilizer-metering device as a function of the relative position between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device; control operation of the seed-metering device as a function of the relative position between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device; or coordinate the operation of the fertilizer-metering device and the operation of the seed-metering device with each other, as a function of the relative position between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device (paragraph 0034).
As concerns claim 14, Houck shows a method for operating the distributing unit set forth in claim 12 comprising: detecting a changeable relative position between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device by using a position-detecting system (126, 110, 112, 114, 176, 220); using the control device (122) to control operation of a fertilizer-metering device of the distributing unit, which is adapted to meter fertilizer to be deposited, or using the control device to control operation of a seed-metering device of the distributing unit, which is adapted to meter seed to be deposited, as a function of a detected relative position between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device (paragraph 0034).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not appear to anticipate and/or render obvious:
a) a distributing unit for an agricultural distributor, comprising: a fertilizer-depositing device for depositing fertilizer on agricultural land; and a seed-depositing device for depositing seed on the agricultural land; wherein the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device are fastened on a carrier mechanism, and the carrier mechanism allows a change in relative position between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device; wherein a position-detecting system which is adapted to sensor-based detect a relative position between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device which influences the longitudinal distance of the fertilizer deposited on the agricultural land and the seed deposited on the agricultural land, wherein the fertilizer-depositing device has a fertilizer-dispensing opening for dispensing fertilizer in the direction of the ground of the agricultural land; and the seed-depositing device has a seed-dispensing opening for dispensing seeds in the direction of the ground of the agricultural land; wherein the carrier mechanism allows the longitudinal distance between the fertilizer-dispensing opening and the seed-dispensing opening to be changed and the relative position between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device, which can be sensor-based detected by the position- detecting system comprises the longitudinal distance between the fertilizer-dispensing opening and the seed-dispensing opening.
b) a distributing unit for an agricultural distributor, comprising: a fertilizer-depositing device for depositing fertilizer on agricultural land; a seed-depositing device for depositing seed on the agricultural land; wherein the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device are fastened on a carrier mechanism, and the carrier mechanism allows a change in relative position between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device; wherein a position-detecting system which is adapted to sensor-based detect a relative position between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device which influences the longitudinal distance of the fertilizer deposited on the agricultural land and the seed deposited on the agricultural land, a fertilizer-metering device configured to meter the fertilizer to be deposited, a seed-metering device configured to meter the seed to be deposited, and a control device which is configured to: control operation of the fertilizer-metering device as a function of the relative position between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device; control operation of the seed-metering device as a function of the relative position between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device; or coordinate the operation of the fertilizer-metering device and the operation of the seed-metering device with each other, as a function of the relative position between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device, wherein the fertilizer-depositing device comprises a fertilizer-depositing line or the fertilizer-dispensing opening; or the seed-depositing device comprises a seed-depositing line or the seed-dispensing opening, wherein the control device is configured to: control a positioning drive to change a position of the fertilizer-dispensing opening or the alignment of the fertilizer-depositing line as a function of the relative position between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device; or control a positioning drive to change the position of the seed-dispensing opening or the alignment of the seed- depositing line as a function of the relative position between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device.
Houck (US 2015/0230391) does not show wherein the position-detecting system is configured to detect a longitudinal distance between the fertilizer-depositing device and the seed-depositing device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bergerfurth et al. (US 2021/0185891) shows wherein the adjusting device includes an evaluation electronic system which is connected to a sensor system which measures current height positions of the fertilizer coulter and/or forces acting on the fertilizer coulter, and wherein the evaluation electronic system transmits the determined actuating quantities as controlling quantities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone. 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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights