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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) and subspecies A1 (Figs 1-13) in the reply filed on 06/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/09/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/26/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the third air system and second distributor (claims 9-10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baldet (US 20210045306 A1), hereinafter referred to as Baldet.
Regarding claim 1:
Baldet discloses a pollination assembly for use in transferring pollen between plants (title), the pollination assembly comprising:
a collection unit (collecting means 12, Fig 2) configured to dislodge pollen from pollen-bearing plants (abstract), the collection unit including a first air system (right air flow amplifier 18, Fig 2) configured to direct the dislodged pollen from the pollen-bearing plants to an outlet of the collection unit (¶0065);
at least one applicator unit (distributing means 14, Fig 2) configured to direct the dislodged pollen received from the pollen-bearing plants at pollen-receiving plants (abstract); and
a distribution unit disposed adjacent the collection unit (left airflow amplifier 18 and ductwork downstream thereof, prior to distributing means 14, Fig 2), the distribution unit including a second air system configured to direct the dislodged pollen from the outlet of the collection unit to the at least one applicator unit (left airflow amplifier 18, Fig 2; ¶0065).
Regarding claim 2:
Baldet discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the distribution unit includes a distributor disposed between the outlet of the collection unit and the at least one applicator unit, the distributor configured to decelerate the dislodged pollen received, via the second air system, from the outlet of the collection unit (¶0066).
Regarding claim 3:
Baldet discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the collection unit includes at least one agitator configured to engage the pollen-bearing plants to thereby dislodge the pollen from the pollen-bearing plants (shaking member 42, Fig 4; ¶0081-0082).
Regarding claim 4:
Baldet discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the second air system includes an air conveyor configured to generate an air flow to direct the dislodged pollen from the outlet of the collection unit to the at least one applicator unit (left air flow amplifier 18, Fig 2; ¶0065); and wherein the air conveyor includes a body and an air plenum coupled to the body, and wherein the body and the air plenum define a discharge extending circumferentially around the air conveyor and configured to generate the air flow (see annotated Figure 3 below; ¶0070).
PNG
media_image1.png
670
938
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8:
Baldet discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the at least one applicator unit includes at least one nozzle configured to discharge the pollen at the pollen-receiving plants and at least one duct coupled to the nozzle, the at least one duct configured to redirect at least some of the pollen discharged by the nozzle at the pollen-receiving plants (see annotated Fig 2 below; the outlet of channel 16, at the applicator unit may be considered a duct under broadest reasonable interpretation of the plain meaning of the word ‘nozzle’ – see, e.g., Merriam Webster which defines nozzle as “a projecting vent of something”; the lateral walls 26 of the box 33 are inherently capable of redirecting at least some of the pollen discharged by the nozzle, and therefore fulfill the functional language).
PNG
media_image2.png
254
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldet, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Patrick Baldet (US 20230270066 A1), hereinafter referred to as Patrick (for distinction).
Regarding claim 5:
Baldet discloses the limitations of claim 4 above.
Baldet fails to specifically disclose wherein the air plenum is moveable relative to the body to adjust a size of the discharge.
Patrick discloses a very similar air conveyer for conveying pollen (¶0006), wherein the air plenum is moveable relative to the body to adjust a size of the discharge (¶0083).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the plenum and body of Baldet, such that they were moveable relative to each other to adjust a size of the discharge, as in Patrick, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to tailor the flow rate, and therefore the amplification, as needed, based on the pollen being conveyed, or the distance it must be conveyed (¶0083). Further, it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldet, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Oh (KR 20130073168 A) hereinafter referred to as Oh.
Regarding claim 6:
Baldet discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Baldet fails to disclose wherein the collection unit includes a separation chamber configured to separate the dislodged pollen from an air flow associated with the first air system and direct the separated pollen to the outlet of the collection unit.
Oh discloses a very similar pollen collection and distribution device (abstract) where, between the collection unit (all upstream of closure 250, Fig 3 – storage 400, air moving system 300, inhalation pipe 100, etc.) and the distributing unit (discharge tube 200, Fig 3) the device includes a separation chamber (see annotated Fig 3 below) configured to separate dislodged pollen from an air flow associated with a first air system of the collecting unit and to direct the separated pollen to the outlet of the collection unit (see annotated Fig 3 below; Pg 3, ¶4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a separation chamber with controller operated closure between the collection and distribution components of Baldet, as in Oh, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow for greater control over the pollination process – for example, with the addition of a separation chamber, the farmer may choose to simply collect pollen for storage, or for usage on a different field of plants; this may allow the farmer to collect pollen to sell or to cross-pollinate between different fields, rows, or species, in order to improve the genetic diversity of his crops.
Regarding claim 7:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 6 above, and Oh further discloses wherein the collection unit includes a closure at the outlet; and wherein the separation chamber is configured to store the dislodged pollen within the separation chamber when the closure is in a closed position (see annotated Fig 3 below; Pg 3, ¶4).
PNG
media_image3.png
235
419
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldet, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9:
Baldet discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The elected embodiment of Baldet fails to disclose at least a third air system arranged in series with the second air system; wherein the at least a third air system is configured to operate in conjunction with the second air system to direct the dislodged pollen from the outlet of the collection unit to the at least one applicator unit.
However, in the specification, Baldet discloses disposing a plurality of air flow amplifiers (which may be considered air systems, and are configured to direct dislodged pollen from collection to applicator) in series along the conveying channel 16, and that the number of air flow amplifiers is chosen as a function of the length of the conveying channel – more amplifiers must be used for longer channels (¶0067).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided at least an additional air amplifier, to act as a third air system along the channel of the elected embodiment of Baldet, as suggested in the specification, in order to allow for a greater distance between the applicator and collector, so as to best suit the crop pattern and the farmer’s farming practices, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 10:
Baldet discloses the limitations of claim 9 above and further discloses wherein the distribution unit includes a first distributor and a second distributor; wherein the first distributor is disposed between the outlet of the collection unit and the second distributor (first distributor is the length of duct between the second air system and the third air system of the distribution unit), the first distributor configured to decelerate the dislodged pollen received, via the second air system, from the outlet of the collection unit (functional language: a duct is inherently capable of decelerating pollen traveling therethrough due to the friction/drag that would occur intrinsically); and wherein the second distributor is disposed between the first distributor and the at least one applicator unit (second distributor is the length of duct after the third air system and before the applicator 14, including the segment with increased diameter – see ¶0066), the second distributor configured to further decelerate the dislodged pollen received, via the at least a third air system, from the first distributor of the distribution unit (¶0066).
Conclusion
Those references cited on the attached 892 form, but not referenced in the rejection above exhibit similarities to the present invention, particularly, Boyer (US 2021/0337736), Becker (US 2024/0306571), and Petriakov (WO 2025087820 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
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, Joshua Huson, can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/B.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights