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 .
Drawings
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: "109” 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 § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 11, 13, 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kjellsson et al. (WO 2004004441 A1), hereinafter Kjellsson.
Regarding claim 11, Kjellsson discloses a system comprising:
a vehicle assembly (tractor 11; Fig. 2);
a container adapted to hold a granular material (container 13; Fig. 3);
a vibration motor connected to the container and configured to vibrate the container (page 3, lines 24-26, “Common for all embodiments is that the apparatus 1 is adapted to be driven by a power source, for causing at least a part of the apparatus to rotate and/or to vibrate,” page 4, lines 17-23, “A power source 21 in the form of an electric motor is provided. Of course, the power source may instead be pneumatic, hydraulic, electromagnetic or be a mechanic transmission. Alternatively, the power source may cause the housing and or the distributing member to vibrate. In that case, the frusto-conical member may be rotatable”);
a dispensing arrangement configured to dispense the granular material from the container while the container is vibrating (tubings 12; Figs. 1 and 2); and
an attachment arrangement adapted to attach the container to the vehicle assembly (Fig. 3 shows structure attaching container 13 to tractor 11).
Regarding claim 13, Kjellsson discloses the device of claim 11.
Kjellsson discloses wherein the dispensing arrangement comprises at least one metering drum configured to meter an amount of the granular material to be dispensed (apparatus 2; Fig. 1; page 4, lines 6-9, “A computer associated with the control panel controls the apparatus 2, so that the distance between the granules is substantially the same, irrespective of the speed of the equipment”).
Regarding claim 14, Kjellsson discloses the device of claim 11.
Kjellsson discloses wherein the container comprises: a center portion connected to the dispensing arrangement (Fig. 2 shows container 13 has a center portion); a first side portion having a bottom angled downward toward the center portion; and a second side portion having a bottom angled downward toward the center portion (Figs. 1 and 3 show container 13 has at least two side portions having bottoms angled downward toward the center portion).
Regarding claim 16, Kjellsson discloses the device of claim 11.
Kjellsson discloses wherein the container is configured to rotate while being vibrated (page 3, lines 24-26, page 4, lines 17-23).
Regarding claim 18, Kjellsson discloses the device of claim 11.
Kjellsson discloses further comprising at least one processor configured to control the vibration motor and/or the dispensing arrangement (page 4, lines 6-9).
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 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.
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjellsson (WO 2004004441 A1) as applied to claims 11 and 14.
Regarding claim 15, Kjellsson discloses the device of claim 14, however, Kjellsson fails to specifically disclose wherein the first side portion and the second side portion are at least partially conical. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Kjellsson such that the first side portion and the second side portion are at least partially conical in order to provide a more uniform surface. Additionally, there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 20, Kjellsson discloses the device of claim 11.
Kjellsson discloses further comprising: at least one additional dispensing arrangement configured to dispense the additional granular material from the container while at least one additional container is vibrating (Fig. 2 shows multiple tubings 12 attached to container 13).
Kjellsson, however, fails to specifically disclose at least one additional container adapted to hold additional granular material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Kjellsson to include at least one additional container adapted to hold additional granular material in order to allow for the dispensing of additional material. Additionally, 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjellsson (WO 2004004441 A1) in view of Barbieri (WO 2018158721 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kjellsson discloses a device comprising:
a container adapted to hold a granular material (container 13; Fig. 3);
a vibration motor connected to the container and configured to vibrate the container (page 3, lines 24-26, page 4, lines 17-23);
a dispensing arrangement configured to dispense the granular material from the container while the container is vibrating (tubings 12; Figs. 1 and 2);
an attachment arrangement adapted to connect to a platform (Fig. 3 shows structure attaching container 13 to tractor 11);
Kjellsson, however, fails to specifically disclose at least one dampener arranged between the container and the attachment arrangement, the at least one dampener adapted to dampen vibrations from the container.
Barbieri is in the field of granular material dispensers and teaches at least one dampener arranged between the container and the attachment arrangement, the at least one dampener adapted to dampen vibrations from the container (page 5, lines 12-25, “The frame 10 comprises a first tubular support 140 and a second tubular support 142, that are arranged laterally at opposite sides of the plane P, and therefore distinct from each other but rigidly coupled together through a tubular spacing member 52 and frontally through a tubular coupling member 54. The spacing member 52 is arranged inside the hopper 20 between the first end portions 144 to connect the first and the second supports 140/142 to close the frame 10 frontally and to dampen, in use, the vibrations of the conical mantle of the hopper 20. The coupling member 54 has a central seat 56 designed to be coupled, in use, to the frame of a tractor or any other self-propelled agricultural machine provided with adequate coupling members and with a power take-off”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of granular material dispensers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kjellsson to include at least one dampener arranged between the container and the attachment arrangement, the at least one dampener adapted to dampen vibrations from the container, as taught by the damping structure of Barbieri. This would dampen the vibrations from the container, which would improve the overall stability of the device. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Kjellsson in view of Barbieri discloses the device of claim 1.
Kjellsson discloses wherein the dispensing arrangement comprises at least one metering drum configured to meter an amount of the granular material to be dispensed (apparatus 2; Fig. 1; page 4, lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 3, Kjellsson in view of Barbieri discloses the device of claim 1.
Kjellsson discloses wherein the container comprises: a center portion connected to the dispensing arrangement (Fig. 2 shows container 13 has a center portion); a first side portion having a bottom angled downward toward the center portion; and a second side portion having a bottom angled downward toward the center portion (Figs. 1 and 3 show container 13 has at least two side portions having bottoms angled downward toward the center portion).
Regarding claim 4, Kjellsson in view of Barbieri discloses the device of claim 3, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the first side portion and the second side portion are at least partially conical (Barbieri; Fig. 1 shows all sides of dispenser 1 are conical).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of granular material dispensers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kjellsson in view of Barbieri such that the first side portion and the second side portion are at least partially conical, as taught by the conical structure of Barbieri. This would provide a more uniform surface, which would improve grain distribution. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success. Additionally, there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 5, Kjellsson in view of Barbieri discloses the device of claim 1.
Kjellsson discloses wherein the container is configured to rotate while being vibrated (page 3, lines 24-26, page 4, lines 17-23).
Regarding claim 7, Kjellsson in view of Barbieri discloses the device of claim 1.
Kjellsson discloses wherein the attachment arrangement is adapted to connect to a platform of a vehicle (Fig. 3 shows structure attaching container 13 to tractor 11).
Regarding claim 8, Kjellsson in view of Barbieri discloses the device of claim 1.
Kjellsson discloses further comprising at least one processor configured to control the vibration motor and/or the dispensing arrangement (page 3, lines 24-26, page 4, lines 17-23).
Regarding claim 12, Kjellsson discloses the device of claim 11, however, Kjellsson fails to specifically disclose further comprising at least one dampener arranged between the container and the vehicle assembly, the at least one dampener adapted to dampen vibrations from the container.
Barbieri teaches further comprising at least one dampener arranged between the container and the vehicle assembly, the at least one dampener adapted to dampen vibrations from the container (page 5, lines 12-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of granular material dispensers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kjellsson to include at least one dampener arranged between the container and the vehicle assembly, the at least one dampener adapted to dampen vibrations from the container, as taught by the damping structure of Barbieri. This would dampen the vibrations from the container, which would improve the overall stability of the device. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjellsson (WO 2004004441 A1) in view of Barbieri (WO 2018158721 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Krull et al. (WO 2019245695 A2), hereinafter Krull.
Regarding claim 6, Kjellsson in view of Barbieri discloses the device of claim 1, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the granular material comprises a mixture of vermiculite and insects.
Krull is in the field of granular material dispensers and teaches wherein the granular material comprises a mixture of vermiculite and insects (page 1, lines 27 and 28, “The beneficial arthropods may be packaged in containers with a prescribed number of beneficial insects per volume of carrier such as bran or vermiculite”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of granular material dispensers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kjellsson in view of Barbieri such that the granular material comprises a mixture of vermiculite and insects, as taught by the insect and vermiculite distribution of Krull. The use of insects and vermiculite as the granular material would expand the use case of the device, which would improve overall commercial appeal. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjellsson (WO 2004004441 A1) in view of Barbieri (WO 2018158721 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 8, and further in view of Hamilton (US 20220322600 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kjellsson in view of Barbieri discloses the device of claim 8, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose further comprising a network adapter, wherein the at least one processor is configured to communicate with a remote system via the network adapter to control the vibration motor and/or the dispensing arrangement.
Hamilton is in the field of granular material dispensers and teaches further comprising a network adapter, wherein the at least one processor is configured to communicate with a remote system via the network adapter to control the vibration motor and/or the dispensing arrangement (¶ 0025, lines 10-21, “In some embodiments, the control system 62 may be distributed among the implement 10, a towing machine, and a remote computing device [e.g., using a communications gateway, including a cellular and/or wireless modem], or in some embodiments, be distributed among the implement 10 and a remote computing device. The control system 62 comprises a controller 64 [e.g., electronic control unit or ECU], the controller 64 communicatively coupled via a data bus or data busses 66 [e.g., controller area network [CAN] system] to a sub-system 68 that may include one or more sensors 70, a user interface 72, and implement controls 74”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of granular material dispensers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kjellsson in view of Barbieri to include a network adapter, wherein the at least one processor is configured to communicate with a remote system via the network adapter to control the vibration motor and/or the dispensing arrangement, as taught by the network and processing structure of Hamilton. This would facilitate communication between components and a remote device, which would improve overall control over the system. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Kjellsson in view of Barbieri discloses the device of claim 1, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose further comprising at least one sensor configured to detect if the granular material is being dispensed by the dispensing arrangement. Hamilton teaches further comprising at least one sensor configured to detect if the granular material is being dispensed by the dispensing arrangement (¶ 0027, lines 16-47, “In one embodiment, the seed filling control software 88 receives input from one or more sensors 70 that detect seed presence within or proximal to the receptacle 34, and based on the sensor signals, triggers the implement controls 74 to engage or activate the metering assembly 38. For instance, the implement controls 74 may comprise a solenoid that is coupled to a valve that, when triggered by a signal from the seed filling control software 88, allows the flow of hydraulic fluid to flow through the hydraulic motor 42. Pressure differentials or porting through various chambers actuates the hydraulic motor 42, which in turn engages or turns on the blower 44. The blower 44 in turn forces air through the manifold 36 and carries the deposited seed for distribution to the storage containers 30 as described above. The blower 44 may shut off when there is no ability of further air flow [e.g., when vents 60 of the respective storage containers 30 have been blocked by the seed]. In some embodiments, seed fill may be terminated based on further signaling from the one or more sensors 70. For instance, sensors 70 that detect when the predetermined seed volume has been reached at each of the storage containers 30 may signal to the implement controls 74, which in turn shuts the flow of hydraulic fluid causing the disengagement or shut off of the hydraulic motor 42 and blower 44. As indicated above, the sensors 70 may be located within each of the storage containers 30, proximal to the storage containers 30, in the conduit 40, or at the manifold outlets 52, and may include load sensors, capacitive sensors, optical sensors, acoustic sensors, among other types. The seed filling control software 88 also triggers the seed meter and associated seed meter blower to engage or activate for the dispensing of seed”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of granular material dispensers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kjellsson in view of Barbieri to include at least one sensor configured to detect if the granular material is being dispensed by the dispensing arrangement, as taught by the sensing system of Hamilton. This would allow for the user to monitor the dispensing of granular material, which would improve visibility over the system. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjellsson (WO 2004004441 A1) as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Krull et al. (WO 2019245695 A2), hereinafter Krull.
Regarding claim 17, Kjellsson discloses the device of claim 11, however, Kjellsson fails to specifically disclose wherein the granular material comprises a mixture of vermiculite and insects.
Krull teaches wherein the granular material comprises a mixture of vermiculite and insects (page 1, lines 27 and 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of granular material dispensers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kjellsson such that the granular material comprises a mixture of vermiculite and insects, as taught by the insect and vermiculite distribution of Krull. The use of insects and vermiculite as the granular material would expand the use case of the device, which would improve overall commercial appeal. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjellsson (WO 2004004441 A1) as applied to claim 18, and further in view of Hamilton (US 20220322600 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Kjellsson discloses the device of claim 18, however, Kjellsson fails to specifically disclose further comprising a network adapter, wherein the at least one processor is configured to communicate with a remote system via the network adapter to control the vibration motor and/or the dispensing arrangement.
Hamilton teaches further comprising a network adapter, wherein the at least one processor is configured to communicate with a remote system via the network adapter to control the vibration motor and/or the dispensing arrangement (¶ 0025, lines 10-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of granular material dispensers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kjellsson to include a network adapter, wherein the at least one processor is configured to communicate with a remote system via the network adapter to control the vibration motor and/or the dispensing arrangement, as taught by the network and processing structure of Hamilton. This would facilitate communication between components and a remote device, which would improve overall control over the system. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjellsson (WO 2004004441 A1) as applied to claim 20, and further in view of Massaro et al. (US 20200107520 A1), hereinafter Massaro.
Regarding claim 21, Kjellsson discloses the device of claim 20, however, Kjellsson fails to specifically disclose wherein the granular material comprises a first type of insect and the additional granular material comprises a second type of insect different than the first type of insect.
Massaro is in the field of granular material dispensers and teaches wherein the granular material comprises a first type of insect and the additional granular material comprises a second type of insect different than the first type of insect (¶ 0022, lines 1-14, “Examples are described herein in the context of insect storage and dispensing systems for use in storing and dispensing of adult mosquitoes such as populations of Aedes aegypti or Aedes albopictus mosquitos. Those of ordinary skill in the art will realize that the following description is illustrative only and is not intended to be in any way limiting. For example, the insect storage and dispensing systems described herein can be used to store and dispense other species of mosquitoes [e.g., Anopheles] along with other insects such as, for example, screw-worm fly, Mexican fruit fly, Tsetse fly, Mediterranean fruit fly, Caribbean fruit fly, Queensland fruit fly, codling moth, pink bollworm, false codling moth, cactus moth, melon fly, onion fly, painted apple moth, and any other suitable insect”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of granular material dispensers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kjellsson such that the granular material comprises a first type of insect and the additional granular material comprises a second type of insect different than the first type of insect, as taught by the dispensed insect types of Massaro. This would expand the use case of the device to applications suitable for multiple insects, which would improve overall commercial appeal. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Flamme et al., US 6070539 A, discusses a variable rate agricultural product application implement with multiple inputs and feedback.
Corelli et al., US 20200329629 A1, discusses planters for planting seeds in fields, and related methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER THOMAS CALLAWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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.
/S.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights