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 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that claim 4 should depend from claim 2 since it recites “the first disc” which was set forth in claim 2. 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 6 and 9 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 6 recites the limitation "the tooth on the first disc" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the tooth on the second disc" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dille et al. US 2022/0192079 A1.
Independent Claim 1: Dille discloses an agricultural row unit (10) comprising:
a frame (16);
a trench opening assembly (18) configured to open a trench in a soil surface as the trench opening assembly moves in a forward direction of travel;
a sub-trench opener (46) disposed in the trench to open a sub-trench;
a seed conduit (40) configured to deposit seeds into the sub-trench; and
a trench closing assembly (20) for closing the trench and sub-trench, as per claim 1.
Dependent Claims 10-12: Dille further discloses a seed meter (13) connected to the frame (16) and in fluid communication with the seed conduit (40), as per claim 10;
wherein the seed conduit (40) is a seed orientation conduit (30 is a seed orientation system, see para. [0074], ln. 2) configured to orient seeds as seeds travel along the seed orientation conduit, as per claim 11;
wherein the sub trench opener (46) further comprises a blade (51) extending downward from the sub trench opener (see Fig. 3), as per claim 12.
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) 2-3, 6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dille et al. in view of Robertson et al. 4,598,654.
Dependent Claims 2-3, 6, 9: The row unit and trench opening assembly is disclosed as applied above. However, Dille fails to disclose wherein the trench opening assembly comprises a first disc and a second disc, as per claim 2;
wherein at least one of the first disc and the second disc is notched and has a tooth between notches, as per claim 3;
wherein the tooth on the first disc is tapered, as per claim 6;
wherein the tooth on the second disc is tapered, as per claim 9.
Robertson discloses a similar trench opening assembly (10) wherein the trench opening assembly comprises a first disc (12) and a second disc (14), as per claim 2;
wherein at least one of the first disc (12) and the second disc (14) is notched (16, 18, respectively) and has a tooth (28, 30, respectively) between notches, as per claim 3;
wherein the tooth (28) on the first disc (12) is tapered (as seen in Fig. 1, due to the rounded shape of the notches 16), as per claim 6;
wherein the tooth (30) on the second disc (14) is tapered (as seen in Fig. 1, due to the rounded shape of the notches 18), 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 provide the pair of notched opening discs of Robertson for the trench opening assembly of Dille’s row unit in order to adequately sever crop residue and debris and push it all laterally aside for a cleaner furrow.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dille et al. in view of Steilen 4,590,869.
Dependent Claims 2, 4, 7: Dille discloses row unit and trench opening assembly as applied above. However, Dille fails to disclose wherein the trench opening assembly comprises a first disc and a second disc, as per claim 2;
wherein the first disc is flat, as per claim 4;
wherein the second disc is flat, as per claim 7.
Steilen discloses a similar trench opening assembly (30) wherein the trench opening assembly comprises a first disc (right 60) and a second disc (left 60), as per claim 2;
wherein the first disc is flat (right 60, as seen in Figs. 2 and 4), as per claim 4;
wherein the second disc is flat (left 60, as seen in Figs. 2 and 4), as per claim 7.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the flat discs disclosed by Steilen on the row unit of Dille in order to provide a narrow V-shaped cutting point to minimize the force necessary to create a furrow and to minimize the amount of dirt thrown away from the furrow.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dille et al. in view of Schulte EP 0772963 A1.
Dependent Claims 2, 5, 8: Dille discloses the row unit and trench opening assembly as applied above. However, Dille fails to disclose wherein the trench opening assembly comprises a first disc and a second disc, as per claim 2;
wherein the first disc is concave, as per claim 5;
wherein the second disc is concave, as per claim 8.
Schulte discloses a similar trench opening assembly (7, 8) wherein the trench opening assembly comprises a first disc (7) and a second disc (8), as per claim 2;
wherein the first disc (7) is concave (as seen in Fig. 14), as per claim 5;
wherein the second disc (8) is concave (as seen in Fig. 14), as per claim 8.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide concave opening discs as disclosed by Schulte on the row unit or Dille in order to increase the dimensional stability of the discs and shape of the furrow gap opening.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTOL-892. Ellery et al. WO 2017124143 A1 and Tarver, III 5,819,855 disclose similar row units with trench opening assemblies and sub-trenchers, as claimed, but don’t disclose the detail of the closing assembly.
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, Joseph M. Rocca, can be reached at (571) 272-8971.
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 August 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights