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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the handwritten reference numerals and figure numbers are difficult to read. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 4-6, 9-12, 14, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heathcote (US 2018/0263177).
As concerns claim 1, Heathcote shows an agricultural planting implement, comprising: a plurality of row units (paragraph 0024: connect the seed delivery system to any type of planter row unit), each of the plurality of row units including: a seed meter (paragraph 0035: seed meter [not shown]); and a seed to ground system (Fig. 9), the seed to ground system comprising: a housing (12) with an upper end (38) to receive seed from the seed meter and a lower end (48); one or more impellers (100) rotatably mounted in the housing (Fig. 9); a floor (114) in the housing (Fig. 9); and a delivery wheel (106) at the lower end of the housing to receive seed (Fig. 9) and to eject seed with zero net horizontal velocity (paragraph 0036: the ejector wheel is driven to rotate at an accelerated rate compared to ground speed in order to closely match the seed velocity at egress to that of the ground).
As concerns claim 4, Heathcote shows wherein the one or more impellers (100) comprises sections, and each section comprises a portion of an impeller flighting around a center shaft (Fig. 9).
As concerns claim 5, Heathcote shows an impeller motor operatively connected to the one or more impellers to provide rotation thereto, the impeller motor comprising an electric motor (paragraph 0037: the processor determines a desired rotational speed for the auger and the ejector wheel and sends a signal to the motors).
As concerns claim 6, Heathcote shows a wheel motor operatively connected to the delivery wheel, the wheel motor comprising an electric motor (paragraph 0036: the ejector wheel may be driven by a second motor [not shown]).
As concerns claim 9, Heathcote shows a wheel housing (lower portion of housing 12 adjacent ejector wheel 106) extending from the housing of the seed to ground system and covering a portion of the delivery wheel (Fig. 9).
As concerns claim 10, Heathcote shows wherein the wheel housing includes a discharge ramp (lower portion of housing 12 adjacent discharge end 112) for ejecting the seed (Fig. 9).
As concerns claim 11, Heathcote shows a row unit (paragraph 0024: connect the seed delivery system to any type of planter row unit) for use with an agricultural implement, comprising: a seed meter (paragraph 0035: seed meter [not shown]); a seed to ground system (Fig. 9) adjacent the seed meter (paragraph 0035) and comprising a housing (12) having an upper end (38) to receive seed from the seed meter (Fig. 9), a plurality of impellers (100) and a floor (114) in the housing (Fig. 9), and a delivery wheel (106) at a lower end (48) of the housing to move seed from the housing to a furrow in a field (Fig. 9; paragraph 0036: the ejector wheel is driven to rotate at an accelerated rate compared to ground speed in order to closely match the seed velocity at egress to that of the ground).
As concerns claim 12, Heathcote shows the floor (114) in the housing (Fig. 9).
As concerns claim 14, Heathcote shows an impeller motor operatively connected to the plurality of impellers to provide rotation thereto, the impeller motor comprising an electric motor (paragraph 0037: the processor determines a desired rotational speed for the auger and the ejector wheel and sends a signal to the motors).
As concerns claim 15, Heathcote shows a shaft (shaft of helical auger 100) connected to the impeller motor, and wherein the plurality of impellers are mounted on the shaft for rotation (Fig. 9).
As concerns claim 18, Heathcote shows a sensor (124) in the housing (Fig. 9; paragraph 0037).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 7, 8, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heathcote alone.
As concerns claims 7, 8 and 16, Heathcote discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the delivery wheel comprises a brush wheel. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have utilized a brush wheel for the delivery wheel, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose other than being an alternative to using another type of wheel for the delivery wheel. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the invention to perform equally well with another type of delivery wheel because the seeds would still have been capable of being moved from the housing to the furrow in the field. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a brush wheel for the expected benefit of holding the seed as the seed is moved from the housing to the furrow in the field. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a brush wheel for the delivery wheel would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Heathcote to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 17, Heathcote shows wherein the brush wheel is operatively connected to an electric wheel motor (paragraph 0036: the ejector wheel may be driven by a second motor [not shown]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3 and 13 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) an agricultural planting implement, comprising: a plurality of row units, each of the plurality of row units including: a seed meter; and a seed to ground system, the seed to ground system comprising: a housing with an upper end to receive seed from the seed meter and a lower end; one or more impellers rotatably mounted in the housing; one or more vertically spaced floors in the housing; and a delivery wheel at the lower end of the housing to receive seed and to eject seed with zero net horizontal velocity, wherein the one or more vertically spaced floors extend substantially perpendicular to an axis of the one or more impellers.
b) an agricultural planting implement, comprising: a plurality of row units, each of the plurality of row units including: a seed meter; and a seed to ground system, the seed to ground system comprising: a housing with an upper end to receive seed from the seed meter and a lower end; one or more impellers rotatably mounted in the housing; one or more vertically spaced floors in the housing; and a delivery wheel at the lower end of the housing to receive seed and to eject seed with zero net horizontal velocity, wherein the one or more vertically spaced floors are positioned between sections of the one or more impellers.
c) a row unit for use with an agricultural implement, comprising: a seed meter; a seed to ground system adjacent the seed meter and comprising a housing having an upper end to receive seed from the seed meter, a plurality of impellers and one or more floors in the housing, and a delivery wheel at a lower end of the housing to move seed from the housing to a furrow in a field, wherein the one or more floors are positioned between the plurality of impellers.
Heathcote shows wherein the seed to ground system comprises a housing with an upper end to receive seed from a seed meter and a lower end, one or more impellers rotatably mounted in the housing, a floor in the housing, and a delivery wheel at the lower end of the housing to move seed from the housing to a furrow in a field. However, Heathcote does not show at least two vertically spaced floors in the housing, wherein the at least two vertically spaced floors extend substantially perpendicular to an axis of the one or more impellers and/or wherein the at least two vertically spaced floors are positioned between sections of the one or more impellers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wilhelmi et al. (US 2015/0223392) and Rhodes et al. (US 2020/0128725) each show a seed meter and a seed to ground system, wherein the seed to ground system comprises a housing with an upper end to receive seed from the seed meter and a lower end, and one or more impellers rotatably mounted in the housing.
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, 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, 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