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 Interpretation
Claims 4 and 7 recite the term “assigned.” The term assign is defined as: to designate; attribute. Dictionary.com. The term does not require a physical location.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the flow-generating device is designed to generate, by means of a respective connection” in lines 11-12. The specification fails to provide a written description of a design of the flow-generating device.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the storage container and the metering device are assigned to the central part of the distribution boom and the storage container and the metering device are assigned to the chassis.” The specification does not appear to enable a storage container and a metering device that are capable of being “assigned” to the distributor boom and the chassis at the same time.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a positive pressure and/or air pressure, detected by means of a sensor device, in the storage container and/or in at least one distribution line” in lines 5-6. The specification does not appear to disclose a sensor that can detect pressure in both the storage container and the distribution line. How does one sensor detect pressure in two places?
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the metering device is formed by one or more cell rotors…and rotary airlocks…and one or more worm metering means.” The specification does not appear to disclose a metering device that can be formed by all three means.
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 1-11 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 "granular agricultural spreading material" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "agricultural productive land" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "agricultural productive land" in line 2. The interpretation of whether land is agriculturally productive requires a subjective determination because the claim provides no objective standard. What may be considered productive by one of ordinary skill in the art may not be considered productive by another of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a chassis carrying components of the fertilizer spreader” in line 3. The “components” appear to be a double inclusion of the remainder of the elements in the claims. The distributor boom, the distribution lines, the distribution elements, the metering device, the storage container, the flow-generating device, and the means of a respective connection appear to be components of the fertilizer spreader.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the direction of travel" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “mounted height-adjustably” in line 5. The claim fails to recite structure to accomplish the function of adjusting the height. The structure recited in the claim is not commensurate in scope with the function recited in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “pivotably mounted” in line 6. The claim fails to recite structure to accomplish the function of pivoting. The structure recited in the claim is not commensurate in scope with the function recited in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “spreading material” in lines 8-9. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “granular agricultural spreading material” recited in line 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “by means of a respective connection” in lines 11-12. It is uncertain whether the claim is limited to two means, one means comprising two connections, or one means comprising one connection.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the flow-generating device is designed to generate, by means of a respective connection” in lines 11-12. It is uncertain whether the “means” is a separate element from the flow-generating device or an element of the flow-generating device.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "atmospheric pressure" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the air pressure" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “atmospheric pressure” recited in claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the positive pressure is greater than or equal to the air pressure, generated by the feed air flow" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation (the positive pressure) in the claim. It is uncertain whether “generated by the feed air flow” is referencing the “positive pressure” or the “air pressure.” The “greater positive pressure” recited in claim 1 is generated by the “flow-generating device.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the region" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The interpretation of “region” requires a subjective determination because the claim provides no objective standard. What may be considered “in the region” by one of ordinary skill in the art may not be considered “in the region” by another of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "in the region" in line 3. The interpretation of “in the region” requires a subjective determination because the claim provides no objective standard. What may be considered “in the region” by one of ordinary skill in the art may not be considered “in the region” by another of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a resulting pressure difference between the distribution lines and the storage container” in line 4. The recitation is technically and idiomatically incorrect. The resulting pressure difference is a pressure difference between the “feed air flow” pressure and the “greater positive pressure.”
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “250 millibar,” and the claim also recites “100 millibar…50 millibar…0 bar” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the flow-generating device is formed by a fan…or by two or more fans” in lines 4-5. It is uncertain whether the flow-generating device is formed/made by a fan (or two or more fans) or the flow-generating device comprises a fan (or two or more fans).
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the respective connection” in line 6. If parent claim 1 requires more than one respective connection, it is uncertain which respective connection is being referenced.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “assigned” in line 2. It is uncertain how to determine a mere designation. A designation appears to be arbitrary and subjective.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, it is uncertain whether each claim positively requires the air flow divider device. Intervening claim 3 defines two alternatives where the air flow divider device is not required. It appears that claims 4 and 5 are further defining a limitation that is not required by intervening claim 3.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a multiplicity” in line 2. It is uncertain what multiple is limited by the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the distribution device" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “formed by” in line 6. See the reasoning for claim 3 above.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “assigned” in lines 2 and 4. It is uncertain how to determine a mere designation. A designation appears to be arbitrary and subjective.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "open-loop and/or closed-loop control" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "open-loop and/or closed-loop control" in lines 2-3. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “open-loop and/or closed-loop control” recited in line 2.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the basis" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "air pressure" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “at least one distribution line” in line 6. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “distribution lines” recited in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “formed by” in line 1. See the reasoning for claim 3 above.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the connection" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the connection" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "granular agricultural spreading material" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The “granular agricultural spreading material” recited in claim 1 is a double inclusion of that recited in claim 11.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "agricultural productive land" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The “agricultural productive land” recited in claim 1 is a double inclusion of that recited in claim 11.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "agricultural productive land" in lines 1-2. The interpretation of whether land is agriculturally productive requires a subjective determination because the claim provides no objective standard. What may be considered productive by one of ordinary skill in the art may not be considered productive by another of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, the “chassis” recited in claim 1 is a double inclusion of that recited in claim 11.
Regarding claim 11, the “distributor boom” recited in claim 1 is a double inclusion of that recited in claim 11.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a defined amount” in line 4. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “defined quantity” recited in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “spreading material” in line 4. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “spreading material” recited in claim 1 and the “granular agricultural spreading material” recited in claim 11, line 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a storage container” in line 4. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “storage container” recited in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a plurality of distribution lines” in lines 4-5. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “plurality of distribution lines” recited in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a feed air flow” in lines 6-7. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “feed air flow” recited in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a flow-generating device” in line 7. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “flow-generating device” recited in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a greater positive pressure” in line 8. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “greater positive pressure” recited in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “atmospheric pressure” in line 8. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “atmospheric pressure” recited in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “means” in line 9. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “flow-generating device.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a positive pressure” in line 9. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “greater positive pressure.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the region" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The interpretation of “region” requires a subjective determination because the claim provides no objective standard. What may be considered “in the region” by one of ordinary skill in the art may not be considered “in the region” by another of ordinary skill in the art.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with idiomatic errors.
The claims are replete with indefiniteness. The above listing is only exemplary. Limited time for examination precludes a complete editorial review. Applicant required to review and amend all of the claims in their entirety to ensure full compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b).
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) 1-11 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van der Lely et al. (4,008,854).
Van der Lely et al. disclose a pneumatic fertilizer spreader for spreading granular agricultural spreading material on agricultural productive land, comprising
a chassis (chassis of tractor or vehicle; col. 1, ll. 61-62) carrying components of the fertilizer spreader;
a distributor boom 3, 4, 6, 7, 15, 93, 94 (including supporting hardwar) which extends transversely to the direction of travel (FR) 246 and is mounted height-adjustably (via the three point hitch; col. 1, l. 61) on the chassis, wherein the distributor boom has a central part 6, 7, 15, 93, 94 and side arms 3, 4 pivotably mounted on the central part, and wherein a plurality of distribution lines 70-73 with distribution elements 111, 112, 113, 114 are attached to the distributor boom;
a metering device 42, which is designed for metering a defined quantity of spreading material from a storage container 2 into the distribution lines; and
a flow-generating device 153,
wherein the flow-generating device is designed to generate, by means of a respective connection (via channels 62-65),
a feed air flow (via chamber 91 and channels 62-65) in the distribution lines for transporting the spreading material along the distribution lines, and
a greater positive pressure (via pipe 166) than atmospheric pressure in the storage container;
wherein the positive pressure is greater than or equal (col. 10, ll. 50-57) to the air pressure, generated by the feed air flow, in the distribution lines in the region of the metering device, and/or
a resulting pressure difference between the distribution lines and the storage container in the region of the metering device is smaller than 250 millibar or is smaller than 100 millibar or is smaller than 50 millibar or is essentially 0 bar (this sub paragraph is not positively required);
wherein
the flow-generating device is designed to provide an air flow and/or an air pressure, and/or
the flow-generating device is formed by a fan (impeller, col. 6, l.7), which is operable (only requires the capability to operate) at a variable rotational speed (tractor PTO is capable of operating a variable speeds), or by two or more fans, which are each operable at a variable rotational speed, and/or
for the respective connection, the flow-generating device is coupled to an air flow divider device (chamber 91 and channels 62-65) (this sub paragraph is not positively required);
wherein the flow-generating device and/or the air flow divider device are/is assigned to the central part of the distribution boom;
wherein
for the respective connection, the air flow divider device has a multiplicity of connection ports (ports of channels 62-65), and/or
at least one pressure-equalizing connection is arranged for the respective connection between the air flow divider device and the storage container (this sub paragraph is not positively required), and/or
a plurality of connection lines (lines of channels 62-65) having identical and/or different cross sections are arranged for the respective connection between the air flow divider device and the distribution lines;
wherein
a pressure-equalizing connection 91 is provided between the storage container and the distribution device and/or
between the storage container and the distribution lines (this sub paragraph is not positively required) and/or
between the metering device and the distribution lines (this sub paragraph is not positively required),
wherein the pressure-equalizing connection is formed by a pressure-equalizing line and/or a pressure-equalizing channel (line/channel of chamber 91);
wherein
the storage container and the metering device are assigned to the central part of the distributor boom, and/or
the storage container and the metering device are assigned to the chassis (this sub paragraph is not positively required);
wherein the flow-generating device can be subjected (only requires the capability to be subjected; the device of Van der Lely et al. has the capability to be subjected) to open-loop and/or closed-loop control by means of a control device, wherein open- loop control and/or closed-loop control takes place by
a manual operator input and/or
on the basis of a positive pressure and/or air pressure, detected by means of a sensor device, in the storage container and/or in at least one distribution line;
wherein the metering device is formed by
one or more cell rotors 214, which are operable at a variable rotational speed (control arm 214 can be rotated a variable speed), and/or rotary airlocks having a cam wheel (not positively required), and/or
one or more worm metering means, which are operable at a variable rotational speed and have conveyor worms (not positively required);
wherein the storage container is closable at least substantially pressure-tightly (col. 10, ll. 53-66), and/or in that the connection between the storage container and the metering device is formed at least substantially pressure-tightly (not positively required), and/or in that the connection between the metering device and the distribution lines is formed at least substantially pressure-tightly (not positively required).
The limitations of method claim 11 are met by operating the device of Van der Lely et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 CHRISTOPHER S. KIM
Examiner
Art Unit 3752
CK
Prosecution Insights