,
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Submission
The claim amendments filed on October 1, 2025 have been entered.
Restriction Requirement
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Patent claims 1-18, drawn to a system/unit/implement with a seed disk, seed belt and vision system for orienting and delivering seed, classified in A01C 7/20.
II. Reissue claims 19-22, drawn to an agricultural vehicle with a seed sensor, seed detector and (computer-implemented) control system for generating a planting characteristic signal and a control signal, classified in A01B79/005 or G05D 2105/15.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because Inventions I and II are related as subcombination and combination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because claim 19-22 do not recite the vision system required by claims 1-6 and 13-18 or the singulator or orienter required by claims 7-12. The subcombination has separate utility such as in a planting implement that does not include the seed sensor, seed detector and (computer-implemented) control system required by claims 19-22.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Should applicant traverse this restriction requirement on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Constructive Election
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.176, the subject matter of original patent claims 1-18 is held to be constructively elected since a disclaimer of all the patent claims has not been filed in the instant reissue application.
Accordingly, new reissue claims 19-22 are constructively non-elected and withdrawn from examination in this reissue application because these claims are drawn to a new independent and distinct invention.
As explained in MPEP 1450, applicant is advised that:
The claims to the original patented invention will continue to be examined in the instant reissue application and the non-elected claims will be held in abeyance in a withdrawn status.
A divisional reissue application directed to the constructively non-elected invention may be filed.
The non-elected claims will only be examined if filed in a divisional reissue application.
If the original patent claims are found allowable in the instant reissue application and no error (other than the failure to present the non-elected claims) is being corrected in this application, and if a divisional application has been filed for the non-elected claims, further action in the instant reissue application will be suspended pending resolution of the divisional application.
Claims Subject to Examination
Original patent claims 1-18 are subject to examination. New reissue claims 19-22 are withdrawn for the reasons given above.
Application Data Sheet
The Application Data Sheet (ADS) filed on October 1, 2025 is defective because it sets forth improper and inaccurate Domestic Benefit Information for the following reasons:
The ADS improperly identifies the instant application as a Continuation of Application No. 16/316,600. This application cannot be a Continuation of Application No. 16/316,600 because this application was never copending with Application No. 16/316,600. Rather, copendency must be traced back through prior Application No. 17/660,588.
The ADS improperly identifies the instant application as a national phase (371 filing) of International Application No. PCT/US17/42008. However, this application was not filed under 35 USC 371. Rather, prior Application No. 16/316,600 was the national phase of International Application No. PCT/US2017/042008.
The ADS inaccurately identifies International Application No. PCT/US2017/042008 as International Application No. PCT/US17/42008.
The ADS inaccurately identifies International Application No. PCT/US2017/042008 as having an issue date of 05/24/2022.
A corrected ADS is required. The items on page 4 of the ADS should be corrected as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
508
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Correction of Filing Receipt
Due to the errors in the ADS explained above, the Updated Filing Receipt mailed on November 5, 2025 fails to identify proper and accurate domestic benefit data. As explained in section II of MPEP 601.05(a), a corrected ADS should be filed with a request for a corrected filing receipt. Accordingly, the applicant should file a request for a corrected filing receipt in order to have the Domestic Benefit Information corrected by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
92
684
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Establishing Right of Assignee to Act
This application is objected to under 37 CFR 1.172(a) as the assignee has not properly established its ownership interest in the patent for which reissue is being requested. An assignee must establish its ownership interest in order to support the consent to a reissue application required by 37 CFR 1.172(a). The assignee’s ownership interest is established by: (a) filing in the reissue application evidence of a chain of title from the original owner to the assignee, or (b) specifying in the record of the reissue application where such evidence is recorded in the Office (e.g., reel and frame number, etc.). The submission with respect to (a) and (b) to establish ownership must be signed by a party authorized to act on behalf of the assignee. See MPEP 1410.01.
The Statement under 37 CFR 3.73(c) filed on October 1, 2025 is defective because:
It fails to identify the Patent No. and Issue Date of the patent for which reissue is being requested (US Patent No. 12,089,527 B2). Note that the fields for Patent No. and Issue Date have been left blank.
It identifies an assignment recorded at Reel 047991, Frame 0879. However, USPTO assignment records do not include an assignment for US Patent No. 12,089,527 B2 at Reel 047991, Frame 0879. In fact, USPTO assignment records do not show any assignment for US Patent No. 12,089,527 B2.
An appropriate paper satisfying the requirements of 37 CFR 3.73 must be submitted in reply to this Office action.
Claim Construction
During examination, the pending claims are normally interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (hereinafter, the “BRI standard”). That is, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111 et seq.
An exception to the BRI standard occurs when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer. For this exception to apply, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. See MPEP 2111.01, subsection IV.
Another exception or special case occurs when a claim recites a means-plus-function limitation that must be interpreted in accordance with 35 USC 112 ¶ 6, or 35 USC 112(f). See MPEP 2181. According to the guidance provided by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), 35 USC 112 ¶ 6 applies when the claim term fails to recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, and/or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
The following claim limitations are construed by the examiner to aid in examination:
Claim Limitation:
vision system (claims 1, 4, 9, 11, 13 and 16)
Examiner’s Construction:
a device the uses machine vision or lidar technology to (i) capture seed image data, and (ii) determine seed orientation data based on the captured image data, and art-recognized equivalents thereof
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “system” is a generic placeholder for structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claims do not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked.
The specification:
Describes a first vision system that (i) is positioned in proximity to a seed disk, (ii) is an image capturing device, (iii) functions to capture image data, and (iv) functions to determine seed orientation data for seed on the seed disk (based on the captured image data).
Describes a second vision system that (i) is positioned in proximity to a seed belt, (ii) is an image capturing device, (iii) functions to capture/determine seed orientation data of seed at the seed belt, and (iv) functions to provide feedback for a correct orientation of the seeds.
Identifies machine vision and lidar (light detection and ranging) as examples of the technology used for the vision systems.
Aside from the general references to an image capturing device (“device” also being a generic placeholder for structure) and the use of machine vision or lidar, the specification fails to identify the structure (i.e., the specific structural components and their interrelationships) that constitutes the “vision system”.
Reissue Oath/Declaration
OBJECTION 1: The Reissue Application Declaration By The Assignee (Form PTO/AIA /06) filed on October 1, 2025 is defective because it fails to identify an original patent claim that the instant broadening reissue application seeks to broaden. See 37 CFR 1.175(b) and MPEP 1414-1414.01. As required by 37 CFR 1.175(b), for an application that seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent, the reissue oath or declaration must identify a claim that the application seeks to broaden. A general statement, e.g., that all claims are broadened, is not sufficient to satisfy this requirement.
OBJECTION 2: The Reissue Application Declaration By The Assignee (Form PTO/AIA /06) filed on October 1, 2025 is defective because it fails to properly and specifically identify at least one error which can be relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP 1414-1414.01.
As required by 37 CFR 1.175(a), the reissue oath/declaration must specifically identify at least one error pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 251 being relied upon as the basis for reissue. In identifying the error, it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid. It is not sufficient to merely state that applicant seeks to broaden or narrow the scope of a patent claim. Further, a statement in the reissue oath/declaration of “…failure to include a claim directed to…” and then reciting all the limitations of a newly added claim would not be considered a sufficient error statement because applicant has not pointed out what the other claims lacked that the newly added claim has, or vice versa.
In the present case, the declaration’s error statement reads as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
34
610
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This statement fails to properly identify an error which can be relied upon to support this reissue application for the following reasons:
It does not specifically identify any error in the patent, e.g., it does not identify a word phrase, or expression in the patent claims, or how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.
As explained above, the subject matter of original patent claims 1-18 is held to be constructively elected, and new reissue claims 19-22 are constructively non-elected and withdrawn from examination in this reissue application. Accordingly, the addition of new claims 19-22 does not constitute the correction of an error in the patent via the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 251:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
PNG
media_image4.png
18
19
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.—The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
PNG
media_image4.png
18
19
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.—The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
PNG
media_image4.png
18
19
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS. No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
GROUND 1: Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon a defective reissue oath/declaration. See 37 CFR 1.175. See the explanation above.
GROUND 2: Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 because there is no “error” in the original patent that is corrected by the instant reissue application. As explained above, new reissue claims 19-22 are constructively non-elected. Thus, for the purposes of this reissue application, claims 19-22 do not serve to correct an error in the patent. Further, no other error in the patent is currently corrected by this reissue application.
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.
GROUND 3: Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. These claims contain 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 inventors or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
The written description requirement serves both to satisfy applicant’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could theoretically construct his/her own version of the claimed invention. Rather, applicant bears the burden of setting forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Thus, the written description requirement requires applicant to go beyond a discussion of mere concepts and suggestions. It is not sufficient to merely outline desired results that the claimed invention is expected to achieve. Rather, the specification must explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. While subject matter that is conventional or well known in the art need not be described in detail, the specification must provide a complete description of each of the essential features recited in the claims which cause the claimed invention to achieve the desired results.
Claim 1 recites “a vision system in proximity to a seed disk, the vision system configured to determine seed orientation data for seed on the seed disk” (ll. 2-3). Claim 9 recites “a vision system in proximity to the seed disk, the vision system configured to determine seed orientation data for seed on the seed disk” (ll. 2-3). Claim 13 recites “a vision system in proximity to a seed disk and configured to determine seed orientation data for seed on the seed disk” (ll. 4-5). As explained in the Claim Construction above, aside from the general references to an image capturing device (“device” also being a generic placeholder for structure) and the use of machine vision or lidar, the specification fails to identify the structure (i.e., the specific structural components and their interrelationships) that constitutes the “vision system”. In addition, the specification fails to provide any explanation of (i) the structure relied upon to position the claimed vision system “in proximity to a seed disk”, (ii) how the claimed “seed orientation data” is defined or constituted, or (iii) how the claimed “seed orientation data” is determined by the vision system. Absent a complete description of each of the essential features recited in the claims, the specification fails to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed.
Claims 1 and 13 both recite “a seed belt configured to…orient the seed in a preselected orientation” (claim 1, ll. 4-5; claim 13, ll. 6-7). Claims 5 and 17 both recite “the seed belt is configured to orient the seeds from a random orientation on the seed disk to the preselected seed orientation”. Claims 6 and 18 both recite “the seed belt is configured to orient the seeds relative to a first seed axis and a second seed axis”. Claim 7 recites “a seed belt comprising a plurality of receptacles configured to receive seed from the seed disk, maintain the preselected seed orientation of the seed upon receiving the seed from the seed disk, orient the seeds in another preselected orientation relative to a second seed axis, and position embryos of the seeds in a desired seed orientation within a furrow” (ll. 4-7). The specification describes:
One example in which the seeds have a random orientation on the seed disk and the receptacles of the seed belt orient the seed in first and second seed axes in a uniform manner for a desired orientation. However, no explanation is given as to either (i) the structure of the seed belt’s receptacles that enable such receptacles to orient the seed in first and second seed axes in a uniform manner for a desired orientation, or (ii) the manner in which the seed belt’s receptacles function to orient the seed in first and second seed axes in a uniform manner for a desired orientation. Thus, the specification merely outlines the desired results that the claimed invention is expected to achieve without explaining how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results.
Another example in which at least one singulator or orienter of the seed disk provides a uniform seed orientation for a first seed axis, and the seed belt maintains the orientation provided by the seed disk and then provides a uniform seed orientation for a second seed axis to correctly position embryos of the seeds while the seeds are positioned within the receptacles. While a fairly complete explanation is given concerning the structure and function of the singulator, no explanation is given as to either (i) the structure of the seed belt’s receptacles that enable such receptacles to maintain the orientation provided by the seed disk and then provide a uniform seed orientation for a second seed axis to correctly position embryos of the seeds, or (ii) the manner in which the seed belt’s receptacles function to maintain the orientation provided by the seed disk and then provide a uniform seed orientation for a second seed axis. Thus, the specification merely outlines the desired results that the claimed invention is expected to achieve without explaining how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results.
Claims 3 and 15 both recite “an actuator in proximity to the seed belt and configured to force seed near a bottom of the seed belt into the furrow” (ll. 2-3). Claim 9 recites “an actuator in proximity to the seed belt, the actuator configured to force seed near a bottom of the seed belt into the furrow during planting” (ll. 4-5). Claim 10 recites “the actuator is configured to force the seed into the furrow while preserving the desired seed orientation” (ll. 2-3). While the specification makes a general reference to the use of such an actuator, the actuator is only shown in a schematic fashion in Fig. 4A. Further, the specification fails to describe (i) the specific structure of the claimed actuator, (ii) how the actuator is structurally interrelated with the seed belt, or (iii) the specific manner in which the actuator functions in order to force seed into the furrow while preserving the desired seed orientation. Absent a complete description of each of the essential features recited in the claims, the specification fails to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed.
Claims 4 and 16 both recite “a vision system in proximity to the seed belt and configured to determine seed orientation data for seed on the seed belt” (ll. 2-3). Claim 11 recites “a vision system in proximity to the seed belt, the vision system configured to determine seed orientation data for seed on the seed belt.” (ll. 2-3). As explained in the Claim Construction above, aside from the general references to an image capturing device (“device” also being a generic placeholder for structure) and the use of machine vision or lidar, the specification fails to identify the structure (i.e., the specific structural components and their interrelationships) that constitutes the “vision system”. In addition, the specification fails to provide any explanation of (i) the structure relied upon to position the claimed vision system “in proximity to the seed belt”, (ii) how the claimed “seed orientation data” is defined or constituted, or (iii) how the claimed “seed orientation data” is determined by the vision system. Absent a complete description of each of the essential features recited in the claims, the specification fails to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed.
Claim 10 recites “the seed belt has a rotational speed that is slower than a ground speed of the row unit” (ll. 1-2). Claim 12 recites “the seed belt is configured to have a rotational speed that is similar to a ground speed of the row unit” (ll. 1-2). Again, the specification merely outlines the desired results that the claimed invention is expected to achieve without explaining how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. No explanation is given as to the structure that controls the speed of the seed belt, or the manner in which such structure operates in order to control the speed of the seed belt.
Claim 12 recites “the seed belt is configured…to use the receptacles or an actuator integrated with the receptacles to push seeds into the furrow”. Again, the specification merely outlines the desired results that the claimed invention is expected to achieve without explaining how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. No explanation is given as to (i) the specific structure of the receptacles that enables them to push seeds into the furrow, (ii) the specific structure of the claimed actuator, (iii) how the actuator is structurally interrelated (integrated) with the receptacles, or (iv) the specific manner in which the receptacles and/or actuator function in order to push seed into the furrow.
Claim 13 recites “a frame; and a plurality of row units coupled to the frame” (ll. 2-3). Again, the specification merely outlines the desired results that the claimed invention is expected to achieve without explaining how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. No explanation is given as to (i) the specific structure of the claimed frame, or (ii) how the row units are structurally interrelated (coupled) with the frame.
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.
GROUND 4: Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a vision system in proximity to a seed disk, the vision system configured to determine seed orientation data for seed on the seed disk” (ll. 2-3). Claim 9 recites “a vision system in proximity to the seed disk, the vision system configured to determine seed orientation data for seed on the seed disk” (ll. 2-3). Claim 13 recites “a vision system in proximity to a seed disk and configured to determine seed orientation data for seed on the seed disk” (ll. 4-5). As explained in the Claim Construction above, aside from the general references to an image capturing device (“device” also being a generic placeholder for structure) and the use of machine vision or lidar, the specification fails to identify the structure (i.e., the specific structural components and their interrelationships) that constitutes the “vision system”. The specification’s failure to identify the corresponding structure for claim terms invoking 35 USC 112(f) renders the claims indefinite.
Claims 4 and 16 both recite “a vision system in proximity to the seed belt and configured to determine seed orientation data for seed on the seed belt” (ll. 2-3). Claim 11 recites “a vision system in proximity to the seed belt, the vision system configured to determine seed orientation data for seed on the seed belt.” (ll. 2-3). As explained in the Claim Construction above, aside from the general references to an image capturing device (“device” also being a generic placeholder for structure) and the use of machine vision or lidar, the specification fails to identify the structure (i.e., the specific structural components and their interrelationships) that constitutes the “vision system”. The specification’s failure to identify the corresponding structure for claim terms invoking 35 USC 112(f) renders the claims indefinite.
In both claims 5 and 6, the term “the seeds” (l. 1) lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “seed”.
Claim 7 recites “a preselected orientation…” (ll. 2-3), requires that the receptacles “maintain the preselected seed orientation” (l. 5), then recites “another preselected orientation…” (l. 6), and goes onto recite “a desired orientation…” (l. 7). This subject matter is indefinite because it fails to accurately define the invention as disclosed in the specification. The seed is not disclosed as being placed in three orientations, as claimed. It does not assume a first orientation that is later maintained while subsequently assuming a second orientation and then assuming a third orientation.
In claim 8, the term “the plurality” (l. 2) is indefinite because it is open-ended and could refer to any number of plural elements. The examiner suggests amending this to read “the plurality of receptacles”.
In both claim 18, the term “the seeds” (l. 1) lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 13 recites “seed”.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference used for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Becker et al.”
US Publication No. 2010/0143906 A1
“Koch et al. ‘362”
US Patent No. 11,337,362 B2
“Noer”
WO Publication No. 2017/117638 A1 (with translation)
“Radtke et al.”
US Publication No. 2014/0230705 A1
“Riewerts et al.”
US Publication No. 2007/0266917 A1
“Yoon”
KR Publication No. 10-2012-0129402 A (with translation)
AIA – First to File
The present reissue application contains claims to a claimed invention having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, this application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions.
Claim Rejections - Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
GROUND 5: Claims 7-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of Koch et al. ‘362 (U.S. Patent No. 11,337,362 B2).
Claims 7-11 of the instant application are directed to essentially the same row unit as claims 1-4 of Koch et al. ‘362. While some limitations are arranged differently in claims 7-11 of the instant application compared to that of claims 1-4 of Koch et al. ‘362, a modification involving a mere rearrangement of limitations is recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, while claims 1-4 of Koch et al. ‘362 may be narrower in some respects than the claims of the instant application, a modification involving the mere elimination of an element with the consequent loss of its function recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Overcoming Double Patenting Rejection
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is not relied upon to reject any claim but is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Riewerts et al. discloses a seed disk 40 having seed apertures 56 and a singulator assembly 80 (singulator 84), a seed detector assembly 102 in proximity to the seek disk 40, and a seed detector 110 in proximity to a seed delivery tube 62. See Figs. 2-3. In the embodiment of Fig. 5, the seed detector assembly is in the form of a vision system including a video camera 124. A processor 104 (see Fig. 1) performs digital video processing for analyzing pixel areas of video frames captured by the camera 124 in order to determine when multiple seeds are in the seed apertures 56 or seeds are missing.
Radtke et al. discloses a seed disk 50 having seed apertures 52, a seed belt 140 having flights 142 between which individual seeds 62 are received, and a guide 110 having (i) an upper angled portion 112 for guiding individual seeds 62 from the seed apertures 52 into the spaces between the flights 142 and (ii) a lower angled portion 114 for guiding the seeds 62 as they exit the belt 140 and are deposited into a furrow 60. See Figs. 2A-2C. Due to the function of the lower angled portion 114, the seeds 62 experience less fore-aft roll as they exit the seed belt 140 and land in the furrow 60, resulting in more uniform seed placement.
In the embodiments of Figs. 4A-4C and 7A-7B, the seed belt 340 has roughness elements 344 instead of flights, and the upper angled portion of a guide 310 or an angled surface 312’ of a guide 310’ guides individual seeds 62 from the seed apertures 52 into a space between the guide 310 or 310’ and the seed belt 340.
In the embodiments of Figs. 5A-5C and 7A-7B, an optical seed sensor 500, 550 or 900 is located in one or more zones A-C in proximity to the seed belt.
In the embodiment of Fig. 6A, the seed disk 50 has a singulator 22.
In the embodiments of Figs. 6A-6C, an optical seed sensor 600 or 700 is located in proximity to the seed disk 50.
In the embodiment of Figs. 12A-12M, loading wheels 1202, 1204 and associated guide surfaces 1281, 1283 guide individual seeds 62 from the seed apertures 52 into the spaces between the flights of the seed belt 240.
Noer teaches a seed disk 30 having a singulator 24, a seed belt 40 having flights 41 between which individual seeds are received, and a feeding/guiding belt 18 for feeding/guiding individual seeds from the seed disk 30 into the spaces between the flights 41. The flights 41 are spaced a distance 42 and have a height 43. The seed belt 40 and the feeding/guiding belt 18 cooperate to render the flow of seed more uniform when seed enters the spaces between the flights 41 such that seeds are arranged at equal distances from each other and with exact spacing when deposited in soil.
Yoon teaches a seed belt 12 having receptacles 13 for receiving individual seeds 4, and an actuator 15 in proximity to the seed belt 12 for forcing the seeds 4 out of the receptacles 13 and into a seed delivery unit 40.
Becker et al. teaches a singulating seed disk 304 having seed gates 308, a seed belt 310 on which individual seeds 301 are received, a vision system 314 for capturing images of the seeds 301, and a sorting device 315 for sorting the seed based upon the captured images. See Fig. 5. In the embodiment of Fig. 8, the vision system includes a light source 54a and a camera 54c in proximity to the seed belt.
Specification
The specification is objected to under 37 CFR 1.57(d) because col. 8, ll. 1-4 incorporates material by reference to WO Publication No. 2016/077651 A1. This is improper for essential material per 37 CFR 1.57(d). The incorporated material is considered to be essential for a complete written description of the invention defined by claims 7-12.
The specification is objected to because:
Reference number 240 is used for both sensors (col. 4, l. 46) and a seed belt (col. 4, l. 62). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4), the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
At col. 5, l. 54, “the drive 315” should read “each drive” because (i) reference number 315 does not appear in the drawings, (ii) the sentence describes an alternative embodiment not shown in the drawings, and (iii) there are plural drives according to col. 5, ll. 50-53.
In col. 6, a parenthetical statement is opened by “(e.g., a” at l. 29, but the parenthetical statement is not closed by a second parenthesis.
At col. 7, l. 25, “detachable mechanism” should read “detachment mechanism” because (i) the mechanism itself is not detachable, and (ii) its is referred to as “detachment mechanism” later in the paragraph (see col. 7, l. 36, for example).
At col. 7, ll. 28-29, “mechanism 496 (e.g., 496a, 496b)” is inconsistent with the later description that “mechanism 496 includes brake pads 484 and 495 and biasing mechanisms 492-493 (col. 7, ll. 36-37). Further, the specification never identifies the specific structure that corresponds to reference numbers 496a, 496b.
At col. 7, l. 30, “speed belt” should read “seed belt”.
At col. 7, l. 41, “when 496a and 496b contact” is incomplete because it fails to identify the structure that corresponds to reference numbers 496a, 496b.
At col. 7, ll. 42-44, “which causes the biasing mechanism 492-493 to bias the brake pads 484 and 495 in a detached position” is inconsistent with and contradicted by the later description “which causes the biasing mechanism 492-493 to bias the brake pads 484 and 495 in an attached position” (col. 7, ll. 48-50). Springs (see col. 7, l. 38) are not capable of biasing the brake pads to opposite positions (in opposite directions). Springs bias in one direction and are moved against their bias in the other direction.
At col. 7, l. 48, “when 496a and 496b are separated” is incomplete because it fails to identify the structure that corresponds to reference numbers 496a, 496b.
At col. 7, l. 60, “seed belt 480” should read “seed belt 490”.
Reference number 1372 is used for both seed apertures (col. 8, ll. 13, 26, 31, 34, 49 and 50) and a vision system (col. 9, l. 27 and 32). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4), the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
At col. 8, l. 29, “inner lobes…1386” is inconsistent with and contradicted by the later description of the “inner seed orienting guide 1386” (see col. 8, ll. 41-47 and 61-62).
At col. 8, l. 59, “383” should read “1383”.
At col. 8, l. 60, “382c” should read “1382c”.
At col. 8, l. 61, “386” should read “1386”.
At col. 8, l. 61, “384b” should read “1384b”.
At col. 8, l. 62, “386” should read “1386”.
At col. 11, l. 54, “links 1230-1236” should read “links 1231-1236”. Note that reference number 1230 corresponds to a display device.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for failing to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Specifically, the drawings fail to show:
“the seed belt is configured…to use the receptacles or an actuator integrated with the receptacles to push seeds into the furrow” (claim 12). While Fig. 4A provide a schematic illustration of an actuator, the integrated actuator of claim 12 is an alternative embodiment that is not shown in the drawings.
“a frame; and a plurality of row units coupled to the frame” (claim 13, ll. 2-3). While Fig. 2 shows a schematic line as representing a frame, no actual frame is shown. Nor do the drawings show a coupling of the row units to the frame.
These claimed features must be shown in the drawings or canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because:
Reference number 200 mentioned at col. 1, l. 58, col. 3, l. 34, col. 4, l. 29, col. 4, l. 31 and col. 4, l. 52 does not appear in the drawings. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5), reference characters mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings.
Reference number 500 mentioned at col. 2, l. 16 and col. 9, l. 47 does not appear in the drawings. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5), reference characters mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings.
Reference number 496 mentioned at col. 7, l. 29, col. 7, l. 36 and col. 7, l. 40 does not appear in the drawings. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5), reference characters mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings.
Reference numbers 1382 and 1384 mentioned at col. 8, l. 37 do not appear in the drawings. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5), reference characters mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings.
Reference number 240 is used for both sensors (Fig. 2; col. 4, l. 46) and a seed belt (Fig. 2; col. 4, l. 62). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4), the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
In Fig. 2, black boxes 240-247 should contain descriptive text. No useful information can be gleaned from generic black boxes lacking descriptive text.
In Fig. 3, black boxes 330-1, 330-2, 332-1, 332-2, 334-1, 334-2, 336-1, 336-2, 340-1, 340-2, 342-1 and 342-2 should contain descriptive text. No useful information can be gleaned from generic black boxes lacking descriptive text.
In Fig. 4B, reference number 460 should be changed to 480. See Fig. 4A; col. 6, ll. 48-50.
In Fig. 4C, the lead lines for reference numbers 1320 and 1330 are not properly directed to the same structure labeled by these reference numbers in Fig. 4D and described at col. 9, ll. 5-7 and 15-17.
Reference number 1372 is used for both seed apertures (Fig. 4D; col. 8, ll. 13, 26, 31, 34, 49 and 50) and a vision system (Fig. 4C; col. 9, l. 27 and 32). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4), the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
Reference number 485 appears in Fig. 4E, but it is not mentioned in the specification. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5), reference characters not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings. It appears that reference number 485 should be changed to 489.
Reference number 476 appears in Fig. 6 (within black box 604), but it is not mentioned in the specification. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5), reference characters not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings. It appears that reference number 476 should be changed to 471.
Reference number 1208 appears in Fig. 7, but it is not mentioned in the specification. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5), reference characters not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings.
In Fig. 7, black box 1270 should contain descriptive text. No useful information can be gleaned from generic black boxes lacking descriptive text.
The objections to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response Period
A shortened statutory period for reply is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Amendments in Reissue Applications
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification, claims or drawings must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
Failure to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g) will generally result in a notification to applicant that an amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive. Such an amendment after final rejection will not be entered.
PNG
media_image4.png
18
19
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Disclosure Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the patent for which reissue is sought is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this reissue application should be directed:
By Patent Center1: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail2 to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928
/PETER C ENGLISH/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 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).
2 Mail Stop REISSUE should only be used for the initial filing of reissue applications, and should not be used for any subsequently filed correspondence in reissue applications. See MPEP 1410.
Prosecution Insights