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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes the legal phraseology “said”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
lines 5-6, “an RFID-tagged crop input container” should be changed to –the RFID-tagged crop input container— since this container is already set forth in line 4;
line 6, “said RFID tag” should be changed to –an RFID tag—;
line 6, “the manufacturer/formulator” should be changed to –a manufacturer/formulator—.
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.
Claims 1-8 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:
Claim 1 sets forth “manufacturer/formulator” in line 6. However, it is unclear if applicant is referring to the –manufacturer and the formulator—or the—manufacturer or the formulator—. In other words, it is unclear if the manufacturer and formulator are one and the same entities or different entities altogether. The claim is therefore indefinite.
Claims 2-8 are rejected for their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-7 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,171,156. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
While claim 1 comprises minor differences relative to claim 1 of the ‘156 document, these minor differences do not change the scope of the claims. For example, while not exhaustive, here are some of these differences:
“as-applied data” in the instant application vs. “as applied data” in the ‘156 document;
Items (a) of claims 1 differ slightly;
The second limitation of item (b) of claim 1 of the ‘156 document is included as dependent claim 4 in the instant application.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flamme et al. 6,070,539.
Independent Claim 1: Flamme discloses a system used by a method performed by an as-applied data (col. 11, lns. 49-57) storage device (80) while dispensing crop input products from RFID-tagged crop input containers (104, 132, 134, 136, 138, 140..., see col. 8, lns. 59-62) by georeferenced locations (via 182, col. 11, lns. 49-57), the method comprising:
a) reading product information from at least one RFID-tagged crop input container when an RFID tag reading device (150, col. 8, lns. 67-41, 46-50, 53-62) is operably connected to an RFID-tagged crop input container;
b) calculating and recording as applied information when the product is dispensed (col. 11, lns. 49-57);
c) transmitting said as-applied information to a data aggregator (150, col. 11, lns. 49-52); and,
d) utilizing said data aggregator for aggregating said as-applied information by georeferenced locations (col. 11, lns. 54-57), wherein said aggregation ensures the as-applied information for that crop input is recorded in a consistent manner across the field or fields so-treated (col. 2, lns. 8-27; col. 3, lns. 62-67; col. 18, lns. 36-47), as per claim 1.
However, while Flamme discloses an RFID tag (154, col. 8, ln. 59-62), Flamme fails to specifically disclose wherein the RFID tag is factory installed by the manufacturer/formulator of the crop input product, as per claim 1.
The examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the manufacturer/formulator install the RFID tag in factory since this is the natural and obvious place to wholly complete the containers and label them as they are filled for accuracy prior to shipment to a farmer.
Dependent Claims 2-8: Flamme further discloses wherein said calculating and recording of as applied data storage device is on an on-going/constant basis (in “real-time”, col. 18, lns. 36-44), as per claim 2;
wherein said calculating and recording of as-applied information is on an on-going/constant basis (in “real-time”, col. 18, lns. 36-44) and includes calculating and recording the quantity of product that has been removed from each container (Abstract, lns. 110), as per claim 3;
wherein said calculating and recording of as-applied information includes determining that a container for a given receptacle is empty and disallows additional product to be dispensed from that container (col. 14, lns. 33-39, disallows by immediately switching containers), as per claim 4;
wherein said calculating and recording of as-applied information includes notifying a human operator via an error message (an “alarm”, see col. 14, lns. 43-48) on a graphical user interface (166) in the event said calculating and recording detects from the factory-installed RFID tag (154, col. 8, ln. 59-62) that the total content quantity recorded on the tag by the crop input manufacturer has been dispensed from the container of the crop input (col. 14, lns. 43-48), as per claim 5;
wherein said calculating and recording of as-applied information utilizes a prescriptive control module (“prescription maps”) configured to receive processed georeferenced location information from a georeferencing module (182) that utilizes georeferenced location information to generate specific prescriptive rate information (col. 11, lns. 35-53), as per claim 6;
wherein said applied data storage device (80) is configured to disallow dispensing of the contents of the container (104) into dispensing equipment if said applied data storage device detects data from the factory-installed RFID tag (154, col. 8, lns. 59-62) that the total content quantity recorded on the tag by a crop input manufacturer has been dispensed from the container of the crop input (col. 14, lns. 33-47), as per claim 7;
wherein said applied data storage device (80) is configured to disallow dispensing of the contents of the container (104) by dispensing equipment if said applied data storage device detects data from the factory-installed RFID tag (154, col. 8, lns. 59-62) that the total content quantity recorded on the tag by a crop input manufacturer has been dispensed from the container of the crop input (col. 14, lns. 33-48), as per claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTOL-892.
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 30, 2026
