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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Response to Election/Restriction filed on April 02, 2026. Claims 5, 8, 11, 14, 17-18, 20, and 28 have been canceled. Claims 23-27 have been withdrawn per the Election/Restriction noted below. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, 19, and 21-27 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, 19, and 21-22) in the reply filed on April 02, 2026 is acknowledged. However, Applicant’s remarks did not provide any specific arguments pointing out supposed errors in the restriction requirement; thus, the statement of traversal is not found persuasive. The requirement is still deemed proper and is made FINAL. Claims 23-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0050], line 7, it appears the word “paramedical” should read as --pyramidical--.
In paragraph [0116], line 6, it appears the word “treaded” should read as --treated--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference character “208” has been used to designate both “baffles” (at least para [0064]) and “annular wall” (at least para [0070]).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “1244” in Para. [0064].
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “1242” in Fig. 12.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 § 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.
Claim 6-7, 13, 15, and 22 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, lines 2-3, recites “openings configured to allow ingress of…any additional materials used in a treatment process”. However, the phrase “any additional materials” renders the claim indefinite, as it is not clear what substances are and are not included within the scope of the claim limitation.
Claim 7, lines 3-5, recites wherein at least one of the concave surfaces of each baffle “has a radius of curvature of between about 25 percent and about 60 percent”. However, the term “about” renders the claim indefinite, as it is not clear how close to the claimed value a measured value would have to be in order to meet the claim limitation. The Examiner further notes that the specification does not appear to provide additional guidance on the definition of the term “about”.
Claim 13, line 2, recites “wherein said each baffle is coupled to the inner surface of the lid”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the inner surface of the lid” in the claims. It is currently unclear whether the limitation of claim 13 refers to the “inner face surface” recited in claim 1 or to another element. Therefore, the structure of the lid is also rendered unclear, and the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. Claim 15 is similarly rejected by virtue of dependency upon claim 13. The Examiner notes further use of the term “the inner surface of the lid” in claim 13, lines 3-4 and claim 15, line 3.
Claim 22, lines 2-3, recites “wherein the rotor is configured to rotate in a first direction or a second direction”. However, the terms “first direction” and “second direction” have been previously introduced in claim 1, lines 16 and 18, respectively. It is thus unclear whether claim 22 refers to same directions or to different directions relative to those recited in claim 1. Therefore, the functionality of the rotor is also rendered unclear, and the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 13, 15-16, 19, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehrkens (US 2016/0198622 A1), hereinafter Mehrkens, in view of Kovich et al. (US 5,271,251 A), hereinafter Kovich.
Regarding claim 1, Mehrkens discloses a seed treatment device (batch seed treater 20) comprising:
a mixing chamber (see fig. 1, defined by containment 26 having containment base 50 and cover 52) in which seeds and a seed treatment formulation are mixed when received therein (abstract; para [0029]), the mixing chamber having an interior portion (see fig. 2A-2B, interior defined by containment base 50, rotatable bowl 24, and cover 52) and a vertical axis (see fig. 2A, vertical axis through center of containment base 50);
a body (containment base 50) including an inner surface defining at least part of the mixing chamber (fig. 2B);
a rotor (rotatable bowl 24 coupled to drive system, para [0029]) positioned at least partly in the body (fig. 2A) and including an inner surface defining at least a lower portion of the mixing chamber (fig. 2A), the rotor configured to rotate relative to the body about the vertical axis of the mixing chamber (para [0029]), to thereby cause the seeds in the lower portion of the mixing chamber to flow upwards along the inner surface of the rotor and along the inner surface of the body (fig. 2A and 4, rotatable bowl 24 is capable of holding seeds, and rotation of rotatable bowl 24 is capable of directing seeds upwards along the inner side of rotatable bowl 24 and along the inner surface of containment base 50 via centrifugal force);
a lid (cover 52) detachably coupled to the body (fig. 2B, selectively detachable via latches 62) and defined by a perimeter edge (edge of cover flange 56 of cover 52; fig. 2B), the lid including an inner face surface (bottom surface of cover 52, as shown in fig. 4) adjacent to the mixing chamber when the lid is coupled to the body (fig. 4); and
one or more baffles (baffles 82) disposed in the mixing chamber (fig. 4).
Mehrkens does not appear to specifically disclose wherein each baffle of the one or more baffles comprises a first concave surface and a second concave surface both facing at least partly toward the interior portion of the mixing chamber, the first concave surface configured to redirect the seeds and the treatment formulation in the mixing chamber toward the interior portion of the mixing chamber when the rotor rotates in a first direction and the second concave surface configured to redirect the seeds and the treatment formulation in the mixing chamber toward the interior portion of the mixing chamber when the rotor rotates in a second direction opposite the first direction.
However, Kovich is in the field of rotational treatment devices (abstract) and teaches wherein each baffle of the one or more baffles (baffles 220) comprises a first concave surface (inwardly facing baffle surface 222a) and a second concave surface (inwardly facing baffle surface 222b) both facing at least partly toward the interior portion of the mixing chamber (tub 34; fig. 1 and 4C-4D), the first concave surface configured to redirect the seeds and the treatment formulation in the mixing chamber toward the interior portion of the mixing chamber when the rotor (spin basket 35 coupled to motor 39) rotates in a first direction (col 5, lines 59-68; fig. 4C-4D) and the second concave surface configured to redirect the seeds and the treatment formulation in the mixing chamber toward the interior portion of the mixing chamber when the rotor rotates in a second direction opposite the first direction (col 5, lines 59-68; fig. 4C-4D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seed treatment device with baffles of Mehrkens to incorporate a baffle shape with first and second concave surfaces as taught by Kovich with a reasonable expectation of success to more effectively shift seeds around within the mixing chamber, regardless of direction of movement, thereby promoting more even treatment of seeds (col 6, lines 37-45).
Regarding claim 2, Mehrkens as modified discloses the seed treatment device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein a shape of said each baffle (from Kovich, baffle 220) is generally pyramidical (from Kovich, fig. 4C).
Regarding claim 3, Mehrkens as modified discloses the seed treatment device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the one or more baffles (from Kovich, baffles 220) include from two to four baffles disposed in the mixing chamber (from Kovich, tub 34; fig. 4C-4D).
Regarding claim 4, Mehrkens as modified discloses the seed treatment device of claim 3, and further discloses wherein the baffles (from Kovich, baffles 220) each have substantially the same shape (from Kovich, fig. 4D); and/or wherein the baffles are approximately equally spaced about the mixing chamber (from Kovich, fig. 4D).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Mehrkens as modified discloses the seed treatment device of claim 4, and further discloses wherein the lid (from Mehrkens, cover 52) defines openings (from Mehrkens, openings of seed inlet 28 and chemical treatment inlet tube 30) configured to allow ingress of seed stock, treatment composition, finishing powders, and/or any additional materials used in a treatment process (from Mehrkens, fig. 1, para [0029]), and wherein the baffles (from Mehrkens, baffles 82) are spaced about the mixing chamber with clearances for the openings (from Mehrkens, fig. 1 and 4, baffles 82 spaced to allow clearance for openings).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Mehrkens as modified discloses the seed treatment device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the body (from Mehrkens, containment base 50) includes an annular upper inner surface (from Mehrkens, upper portion of cylindrical wall portion 90 of containment base 50, shown in fig. 2A-2B)
Mehrkens as modified does not appear to specifically disclose wherein at least one of the first concave surface and the second concave surface of said each baffle has a radius of curvature of between about 25 percent and about 60 percent of a radius of curvature of the annular upper inner surface of the body.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the radius of curvature of at least one of the first concave surface and the second concave surface within the abovementioned range, with the motivation of more effectively circulating seeds and other substances within the mixing chamber of the device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, Mehrkens as modified discloses the seed treatment device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the body (from Mehrkens, containment base 50) includes an annular upper inner surface (from Mehrkens, upper portion of cylindrical wall portion 90 of containment base 50, shown in fig. 2A-2B); and wherein the rotor (from Mehrkens, rotatable bowl 24) includes a concave inner surface (from Mehrkens, conical portion 70 of rotatable bowl 24) below the annular upper inner surface of the body (from Mehrkens, fig. 2A-2B).
Regarding claim 10, Mehrkens as modified discloses the seed treatment device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein said each baffle (from Kovich, baffle 220) includes an edge (from Kovich, vertical edge extending from point 224; fig. 4C-4D), wherein the first concave surface (from Kovich, baffle surface 222a) and the second concave surface (from Kovich, baffle surface 222b) adjoin along the edge (from Kovich, fig. 4C-4D), and wherein the first and second concave surfaces are mirrored relative to the edge (from Kovich, fig. 4C-4D).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Mehrkens as modified discloses the seed treatment device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein said each baffle (from Mehrkens, baffles 82) is coupled to the inner surface of the lid (from Mehrkens, inner surface of cover 52; fig. 4), and wherein the first concave surface (from Kovich, baffle surface 222a) and the second concave surface (from Kovich, baffle surface 222b) of said each baffle (from Kovich, baffle 220) face away from the inner surface of the lid (from Kovich, lid 26; fig. 1 and 4C-4D).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Mehrkens as modified discloses the seed treatment device of claim 13, and further discloses wherein said each baffle (from Kovich, baffle 220) is configured to provide a smooth transition (from Kovich, fig. 4C-4D; col 5, lines 63-65) between at least one of the first concave surface (from Kovich, baffle surface 222a) and the second concave surface (from Kovich, baffle surface 222b) and the inner surface of the lid (from Mehrkens, cover 52; fig. 4).
The Examiner notes that Mehrkens teaches baffles 82 on cover 52; said baffles 82 are modified by the teachings of Kovich to have first and second concave baffle surfaces 222a, 222b which provide a smooth transition between surfaces 222a, 222b and a neighboring inner surface, as shown in Kovich fig. 4C-4D and taught by Kovich col 5, lines 63-65. Thus, in the combined device of Mehrkens as modified by Kovich, each baffle would have a smooth transition between concave surfaces and the inner surface of the lid.
Regarding claim 16, Mehrkens as modified discloses the seed treatment device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein said each baffle (from Kovich, baffle 220) is coupled to the inner surface of the body (from Kovich, cabinet 25; fig. 1 and 4C-4D, baffles 220 are at least indirectly coupled to the inner surface of cabinet 25), and wherein the first concave surface (from Kovich, baffle surface 222a) and the second concave surface (from Kovich, baffle surface 222b) of said each baffle face away from the inner surface of the body (from Kovich, fig. 1 and 4C-4D).
Regarding claim 19, Mehrkens as modified discloses the seed treatment device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the body (from Mehrkens, containment base 50) defines an exit opening (from Mehrkens, discharge port 110) in communication with the mixing chamber (from Mehrkens, fig. 9) and configured to allow the seeds to exit the mixing chamber (from Mehrkens, para [0033]; fig. 9).
Regarding claim 21, Mehrkens as modified discloses the seed treatment device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the lid (from Mehrkens, cover 52) defines at least a first inlet opening (from Mehrkens, opening of seed inlet 28) and a second inlet opening (from Mehrkens, opening of chemical treatment inlet tube 30) each in communication with the mixing chamber (from Mehrkens, fig. 1), wherein the first inlet opening is configured to receive the seeds (from Mehrkens, fig. 1; para [0029]), and wherein the second inlet opening is configured to receive the seed treatment formulation (from Mehrkens, fig. 1; para [0029]).
Regarding claim 22, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Mehrkens as modified discloses the seed treatment device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the rotor (from Kovich, spin basket 35 coupled to motor 39) is configured to rotate in a first direction or a second direction opposite the first direction (from Kovich, col 5, lines 66-68).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mehrkens (US 2016/0198622 A1), hereinafter Mehrkens, in view of Kovich et al. (US 5,271,251 A), hereinafter Kovich, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bretschneider et al. (US 6,354,728 B1), hereinafter Bretschneider.
Regarding claim 12, Mehrkens as modified discloses the seed treatment device of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein at least one of the first concave surface and the second concave surface includes a compound surface having two or more sections.
However, Bretschneider is in the field of seed treatment devices (col 5, lines 15-21) and teaches wherein at least one of the first concave surface and the second concave surface (concave surface of guide vanes 11) includes a compound surface having two or more sections (fig. 2, portion of guide vane 11 closest to inner edge 18 and portion of guide vane 11 closest to outer edge 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seed treatment device with baffles having first and second concave surfaces of Mehrkens as modified to have made at least one of the concave surfaces as a compound surface as taught by Bretschneider with a reasonable expectation of success to more effectively guide seeds or other substances in a desired direction.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA M HUEBNER whose telephone number is (703)756-4560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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, Kimberly Berona, can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights