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 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 1-12 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 recites the limitation "the air vent" in ln. 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “an air vent” to refer back to for this limitation. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the air vent is the air exhaust vent previously recited in the claim.
Claims 2-12 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the guide tube" in ln. 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a guide tube” to refer back to for this limitation. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the guide tube is the upper flexible section previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 4.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the flexible sections" in ln. 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a plurality of flexible sections” to refer back to for this limitation. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the flexible sections are the upper flexible section and the lower flexible section previously recited in claim 1. The examiner recommends revising "the flexible sections" to “the upper flexible section and the lower flexible section” to clarify the features.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the connections" in ln. 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a plurality of connections” to refer back to for this limitation.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1-2, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newton et al. (US 7063276) in view of Preston (CA 2465044).
With respect to claim 1, Newton discloses a drop tube (10, Fig. 3) for dropping particulate fertilizer from an air boom assembly onto a field (Col. 3, Ln. 23-32), the drop tube (10, Fig. 3) comprising:
a rigid elbow (16, Fig. 3) connectable to an air boom outlet (14, shown in Fig. 3) of the air boom assembly (Col. 9, Ln. 53-65) and configured to cooperate with the air boom outlet (14, shown in Fig. 3) to direct the particulate fertilizer away from the air boom outlet into the drop tube (10, Fig. 3) and vertically downward in the drop tube (10, shown in Fig. 3) when in operation (liquid agrichemical is transported from a reservoir or tank through conduit 14 to be dispensed through system 10 under pressure, shown in Fig. 3, Col. 9, Ln. 53-65);
an upper flexible section (26, Fig. 3) connected to the rigid elbow (16, shown in Fig. 3) and in particulate fertilizer communication with the rigid elbow (16, shown in Fig. 3) to receive the particulate fertilizer from the rigid elbow (16, Fig. 3, Col. 10, Ln. 1-20), the upper flexible section (26, Fig. 3) bendable in at least a direction parallel to a direction of travel of the air boom assembly to permit flexing of the drop tube in response to contacting obstructions in the direction of travel (delivery conduits or micro-tubes are flexible to flex with the application as well as to be movable positioned on the working tool, shown in Fig. 3, Col. 7, Ln. 43-46);
a rigid section (32, Fig. 3) connected to the upper flexible section (26, shown in Fig. 3) and in particulate fertilizer communication with the upper flexible section (26, shown in Fig. 3) to receive the particulate fertilizer from the upper flexible section (26, Fig. 3, Col. 10, Ln. 1-20), and
a lower flexible section (38, Fig. 3) connected to the rigid section (32, shown in Fig. 3) and in particulate fertilizer communication with the rigid section (32, shown in Fig. 3) to receive the particulate fertilizer from the rigid section (32, Fig. 3, Col. 10, Ln. 1-20); the lower flexible section (38, Fig. 3) bendable in at least the direction parallel to the direction of travel of the air boom assembly to permit flexing of the drop tube in response to contacting obstructions in the direction of travel (delivery conduits or micro-tubes are flexible to flex with the application as well as to be movable positioned on the working tool, shown in Figs. 3, 6, Col. 7, Ln. 43-46, Col. 11, Ln. 25-38).
However, Newton does not disclose the rigid section comprising an air exhaust vent in a side thereof and a deflector therein, the deflector constricting flow of air and the particulate fertilizer in the rigid section to a position below the air vent where the deflector no longer restricts the flow of the air and particulate fertilizer, and an exit aperture through which the particulate fertilizer exits the drop tube, the exit aperture having a cross-sectional area less than a cross-sectional area of the lower flexible section of the drop tube above the exit aperture.
Preston teaches the rigid section (5, Fig. 1) comprising an air exhaust vent (6, Fig. 1) in a side thereof (shown in Fig. 1) and a deflector (4, Figs. 1-2) therein, the deflector (4, Figs. 1-2) constricting flow of air and the particulate fertilizer in the rigid section (5, Figs. 1-2) to a position below the air vent (6, Fig. 1) where the deflector (4, Figs. 1-2) no longer restricts the flow of the air and particulate fertilizer (shown in Fig. 1, Pg. 3); and
an exit aperture (10, Fig. 1) through which the particulate fertilizer exits the drop tube (entire structure, shown in Fig. 1), the exit aperture having a cross-sectional area (cross-sectional area of seeder shank 10, shown in Fig. 1) less than a cross-sectional area of the lower section (cross-sectional area of device 8, shown in Fig. 1) of the drop tube (entire structure, shown in Fig. 1) above the exit aperture (10, shown in Fig. 1).
Newton and Preston are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of drop tubes. Therefore, 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 air exhaust vent, the deflector, and the exit aperture taught in Preston’s drop tube to Newton’s drop tube, to allow Newton’s drop tube to have the rigid section comprising an air exhaust vent in a side thereof and a deflector therein, the deflector constricting flow of air and the particulate fertilizer in the rigid section to a position below the air vent where the deflector no longer restricts the flow of the air and particulate fertilizer, and an exit aperture through which the particulate fertilizer exits the drop tube, the exit aperture having a cross-sectional area less than a cross-sectional area of the lower flexible section of the drop tube above the exit aperture. Doing so would have the motivation to prevent plugging of the tube and reduce seed bounce (Preston, Pg. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Newton, as modified by Preston, discloses the drop tube of claim 1. Newton discloses a bottom end of the lower flexible section (bottom end of delivery tubes 38, shown in Fig. 3), and as modified by Preston regarding claim 1 above, would result in having the exit aperture (10, Fig. 1) is an opening (shown in Fig. 1) at a bottom end of the lower flexible section.
With respect to claim 8, Newton, as modified by Preston, discloses the drop tube of claim 1. Newton discloses the rigid section (32, Fig. 3) comprises a rigid pipe (32 is a manifold, shown in Fig. 3, Col. 10, Ln. 43-48).
In regards to claim 10, Newton, as modified by Preston, discloses the drop tube of claim 1. Newton discloses all aspects of the present invention except for the rigid elbow is a 90-degree elbow.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the rigid elbow is a 90-degree elbow, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the angle of the rigid elbow which achieves the recognized result of forming a fluid tight circuit from the reservoir to an exit port (Newton, Col. 10, Ln. 1-5), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newton et al. (US 7063276) in view of Preston (CA 2465044) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ricke (US 20200329634 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Newton, as modified by Preston, discloses the drop tube of claim 1. However, Newton and Preston do not teach a rigid outlet tube connected to and in particulate fertilizer communication with the lower flexible section to receive the particulate material from the lower flexible section, wherein the rigid outlet tube comprises the exit aperture.
Ricke teaches a rigid outlet tube (252, Fig. 15, Paragraph 0094) connected to and in particulate fertilizer communication with the lower flexible section (262, shown in Fig. 15) to receive the particulate material from the lower flexible section (262, Fig. 15, Paragraph 0094), wherein the rigid outlet tube (252, Fig. 15) comprises the exit aperture (246, shown in Fig. 15).
Newton, Preston, and Ricke are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of drop tubes. Therefore, 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 rigid outlet tube taught in Ricke’s drop tube to Newton’s drop tube, as modified by Preston, to have the motivation to distribute nutrients directly to an area (Ricke, Paragraph 0005).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newton et al. (US 7063276) in view of Preston (CA 2465044) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schimke (US 4911090).
With respect to claim 4, Newton, as modified by Preston, discloses the drop tube of claim 1. However, Newton and Preston do not teach a guide for reducing transverse flexing of the drop tube relative to the direction parallel to the direction of travel while permitting longitudinal flexing of the guide tube in the direction parallel to the direction of travel.
Schimke teaches a guide (36, Fig. 1) for reducing transverse flexing of the drop tube (23, Fig. 1) relative to the direction parallel to the direction of travel while permitting longitudinal flexing of the guide tube (35, Fig. 1) in the direction parallel to the direction of travel (clamp 36 extends around the tube 35 and semi-circular extension 32 and tightens which holds the tube 35 against extension 32, shown in Fig. 1, Col. 3, Ln. 23-34).
Newton, Preston, and Schimke are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of drop tubes. Therefore, 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 guide taught in Schimke’s drop tube to Newton’s drop tube, as modified by Preston, to have the motivation to prevent misalignment that upsets distribution of material (Schimke, Col. 3, Ln. 23-34).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newton et al. (US 7063276) in view of Preston (CA 2465044) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Schimke (US 4911090) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Chartier et al. (US 3717272) and Benest (US 5957383).
In regards to claim 5, Newton, as modified by Preston and Schimke, discloses the drop tube of claim 4. However, Newton, Preston, and Schimke do not teach the guide comprises a ring around but not attached to a circumference of the rigid section of the drop tube whereby the rigid section can move horizontally within the ring, a hinge rigidly connected to the elbow, and a rod connected to the ring and pivotally connected to the hinge, whereby the rod is pivotable on the hinge in the direction parallel to the direction of travel but not pivotable in a direction transverse to the direction of travel.
Chartier teaches the guide (90, Fig. 2) comprises a ring (94, Fig. 2) around but not attached to a circumference of the rigid section (38b, shown in Fig. 2) of the drop tube (10, Fig. 2) whereby the rigid section (38b, Fig. 2) can move horizontally within the ring (38b, concentric rings 94 snugly clasp about lower tube section 38b to hold it in coaxial relationship with auger section 40b and engine 72 operates to rotate shaft 78 and auger section 40b, Fig. 2, Col. 2, Ln. 54-64, Col. 3, Ln. 5-11), and a rod (78, Fig. 2) connected to the ring (94, shown in Fig. 2).
Newton, Preston, Schimke, and Chartier are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of drop tubes. Therefore, 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 ring and the rod taught in Chartier’s drop tube to Newton’s drop tube, as modified by Preston and Schimke, to have the motivation to provide a structure without the need for expensive, heavy, and complicated assemblies to convey material and allows for the rigid section to be held in place during movement (Chartier, Col. 1, Ln. 5-12, Col. 2, Ln. 54-64, Col. 3, Ln. 5-11).
However, Newton, Preston, Schimke, and Chartier do not teach a hinge rigidly connected to the elbow, and a rod pivotally connected to the hinge, whereby the rod is pivotable on the hinge in the direction parallel to the direction of travel but not pivotable in a direction transverse to the direction of travel.
Benest teaches a hinge (22, Figs. 1-3) rigidly connected to the elbow (14, 16, Figs. 1-3), and a rod (18, Figs. 1-3) pivotally connected to the hinge (22, shown in Figs. 1-3), whereby the rod (18, Figs. 1-3) is pivotable on the hinge (22, Figs. 1-3) in the direction parallel to the direction of travel but not pivotable in a direction transverse to the direction of travel (shown in Figs. 1-3, Col. 5, Ln. 57-67).
Newton, Preston, Schimke, Chartier, and Benest are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of drop tubes. Therefore, 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 hinge taught in Chartier’s drop tube to Newton’s drop tube, as modified by Preston, Schimke, and Chartier, to have the motivation to provide a structure that limits travel (Benest, Col. 4, Ln. 6-15).
Regarding claim 6, Newton, as modified by Preston, Schimke, Chartier, and Benest, discloses the drop tube of claim 5. Newton, as modified by Preston, Schimke, Chartier, and Benest, regarding claim 5 above, would result in the air exhaust vent and the deflector are below the ring.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newton et al. (US 7063276) in view of Preston (CA 2465044) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hyman et al. (US 20170118904 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Newton, as modified by Preston, discloses the drop tube of claim 1. However, Newton does not explicitly disclose the flexible sections comprise elastomeric hoses.
Hyman teaches the flexible sections (106, 710a-c, Figs. 1, 7) comprise elastomeric hoses (Paragraphs 0062, 0084).
Newton, Preston, and Hyman are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of drop tubes. Therefore, 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 flexible sections taught in Hyman’s drop tube to Newton’s drop tube, as modified by Preston, to have the motivation to aid in dispersing material to a dry and firm ground that can cause it to bounce off (Hyman, Paragraph 0084).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newton et al. (US 7063276) in view of Preston (CA 2465044) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Norris et al. (US 3964639).
In regards to claim 9, Newton, as modified by Preston, discloses the drop tube of claim 1. However, Newton and Preston do not teach the connections are secured with clamps. Norris teaches the connections (21, 22, Fig. 2) are secured with clamps (13, Fig. 2).
Newton, Preston, and Norris are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of drop tubes. Therefore, 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 clamps taught in Norris’ drop tube to Newton’s drop tube, as modified by Preston, to have the motivation to allow the connection of parts while securing cut ends (Norris, Col. 3, Ln. 9-26).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newton et al. (US 7063276) in view of Preston (CA 2465044) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moss et al. (US 5485962) and Ricke (US 20200329634 A1).
In regards to claim 11, Newton, as modified by Preston, discloses the drop tubes as defined in claim 1. However, Newton and Preston do not explicitly teach an air boom assembly as claimed.
Moss teaches an air boom assembly (24, 26, Fig. 1) of an air boom spreader (10, shown in Fig. 1), the air boom assembly (24, Fig. 1) comprising:
a boom (112, Fig. 1);
a plurality of air boom outlets (32, Fig. 1) transversely spaced apart on the boom (112, shown in Fig. 1), and
a plurality of air lines (106, Figs. 2-3) terminating at respective air boom outlets of the plurality of air boom outlets (32, air passes through plenum tubes 106, distribution tubes 112 connect with plenum tubes 106, and material is dispensed out of discharge ends 32, shown in Fig. 1, Col. 4, Ln. Ln. 27-32, Col. 9, Ln. 1-12, Col. 10, Ln. 59-64).
Newton, Preston, and Moss are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of drop tube systems. Therefore, 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 air boom assembly taught in Moss’ drop tube system to Newton’s drop tube system, as modified by Preston, to have the motivation to have a device that provides even distribution of material and improved aerodynamic properties to allow a greater amount of material to be entrained and distributed (Moss, Col. 2, Ln. 5-10).
However, Newton, Preston, and Moss do not explicitly teach a plurality of drop tubes as defined in claim 1 connected to respective air boom outlets of the plurality of air boom outlets.
Ricke teaches a plurality of drop tubes (246, Fig. 15) as defined in claim 1 connected to respective air boom outlets of the plurality of air boom outlets (outlets of boom 248, shown in Fig. 15).
Newton, Preston, Moss, and Ricke are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of drop tube systems. Therefore, 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 plurality of drop tubes taught in Moss’ drop tube system to Newton’s drop tube system, as modified by Preston and Moss, to have the motivation to allow precise application of the material to a crop (Ricke, Paragraphs 0003, 0005).
In regards to claim 12, Newton, as modified by Preston, Moss, and Ricke discloses the air boom assembly as defined in the air boom assembly as defined in claim 11. However, Newton and Preston do not teach an air boom spreader as claimed.
Moss teaches an air boom spreader (10, Fig. 1) for particulate fertilizer, the air boom spreader (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a hopper (16, Fig. 1) for containing the particulate fertilizer;
a particulate fertilizer metering device (30, Fig. 2) in particulate fertilizer communication with the hopper (16, shown in Fig. 2), the metering device (30, Fig. 2) partitioning the particulate fertilizer into portions (Col. 4, Ln. 27-32);
a blower (88, 92, Fig. 1) to generate an air stream; and,
wherein the plurality of air lines (106, Figs. 2-3) are in fluid communication with the blower (Col. 8, Ln. 28-37) and in particulate fertilizer communication with the metering device (30, shown in Fig. 2) to receive respective portions of the particulate fertilizer and transport the respective portions to the respective air boom outlets and then to respective drop tubes by the air stream (shown in Figs. 1-2, Col. 4, Ln. 27-32).
Newton, Preston, and Moss are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of drop tube systems. Therefore, 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 air boom spreader taught in Moss’ drop tube system to Newton’s drop tube system, as modified by Preston, to have the motivation to have a device that provides even distribution of material and improved aerodynamic properties to allow a greater amount of material to be entrained and distributed (Moss, Col. 2, Ln. 5-10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights