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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed on April 16, 2026 is acknowledged. Four pages specification was received on April 16, 2026. The specification is acceptable to correct the obvious scrivener’s errors in the original disclosure.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doherty et al. (US 5,904,296. Doherty hereinafter).
With respect to claim 1, Doherty discloses a turf spreader and sprayer machine (40. Figs. 1-12 and Col. 4, line 16), comprising:
a frame (of 40);
a hopper (48) mounted to the frame to hold a spreadable material (44), wherein the hopper further includes a spreader motor (Col 4, line 37) and spreader disk (46), and one or more electronically controlled gates (50, 46, 142, 144 and 148) moveable between an open (operating) position and a closed (non-operating) position to turn material flow on or off (Figs. 6a-7c);
a tank (54) mounted to the frame to hold a liquid product;
one or more electronically controlled spray tips (64) capable of turning on and off (Figs. 6a-7c);
a spray pump (136, 138 and 140) disposed between the tank and the one or more electronically controlled (Figs. 8-10) spray tips;
an operator control interface (control box. Figs. 3-5) to receive input from an operator,
an electronic control (elements on control box) (electrically) coupled to the operator control interface, the one or more electronically controlled gates, and the one or more electronically controlled spray tips,
Limitations from lines 20-21 and 24-30 of claim 1 further defines non-positively recited limitations/elements (the input) of the claim. The term “to” in line 14 of claim 1 clearly indicated that the input is not a positively recited limitations/elements.
Alternatively, Doherty discloses wherein the input includes a mode selection to select a spray mode (104, 108, 112 in Fig. 4 and 122, 124, 126 in Fig. 5), spread mode (106, 102, 110 in Fig. 4 and 124 in Fig. 5), or a combination thereof (130 in Fig. 5);
wherein the electronic control:
receives a mode selection input (from control box in Figs. 4 and 5), from the operator control interface to activate the mode selection; and
receives, based on a single (one switch or one time period) user activation on the operator control interface, a signal (via electrical lines above control box. Fig. 8) to automatically (…apparatus and system for automated coordinated application of a plurality of materials to a surface as well as automated component control such as blade blocking plate control based on sensed current surface condition information and current accurate location information as well as past operating history and predicted near term weather conditions. Abstract) start or stop flow of the spreadable material, the liquid product, or a combination thereof based on the mode selection.
With respect to claim 2, Doherty discloses the turf spreader and sprayer machine of claim 1, wherein the operator control interface further includes a pattern selection (control elements on control box. Figs. 3-5), and the electronic control, in response to a singular user activation, adjusts an application pattern based on the pattern selection and mode selection (Figs. 3-8).
With respect to claim 6, Doherty discloses the of claim 1, wherein the operator control interface further includes a calibration selection (via knobs 86 (liquid can alternatively also be spread by means of a rotating disk. Col. 5, lines 57-58), 88, 90, 93, 95, 96, 98, 100 and 116) and wherein the electronic control is further configured to (capable of) alter a speed (On or OFF) of an impeller (50 and 46) based on the spreader calibration selection input (Figs. 3-7c and via master control switch 130 in Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 9, Doherty discloses the turf spreader and sprayer machine of claim 1, wherein a speed of the spray pump varies (On or OFF).
With respect to claim 22, Doherty discloses the turf spreader and sprayer machine of claim 1, wherein the signal to automatically (…apparatus and system for automated coordinated application of a plurality of materials to a surface as well as automated component control such as blade blocking plate control based on sensed current surface condition information and current accurate location information as well as past operating history and predicted near term weather conditions. Abstract) start or stop flow of the spreadable material, the liquid product, or a combination thereof based on the mode selection includes a signal to automatically open or close the one or more electronically controlled gates, turn on and off the spray tips, or a simultaneous combination thereof at a calibrated rate (via knobs 86 (liquid can alternatively also be spread by means of a rotating disk. Col. 5, lines 57-58) 88, 90, 93, 95, 96, 98, 100 and 116).
With respect to claim 23, Doherty discloses the turf spreader and sprayer machine of claim 2, further comprises a spot spray mode (Figs. 6a-7c, where Fig. 6a spray narrower spot, Fig. 6c spray weider spot and Fig. 7a spray left and middle spots) on the user control interface; wherein when the spot spray mode is selected, the electronic control, based on the single actuation by a user, will dispense the liquid product according to the pattern mode selected (Figs. 6a-7c).
With respect to claim 24, Doherty discloses the turf spreader and sprayer machine of claim 23, wherein the single (one switch or one time period) actuation by the user is a continuous engagement (until the switches or knob are readjusted).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doherty in view of Kaiser (US 4,770,344).
With respect to claim 11, Doherty discloses the machine as in claim 1 except for wherein the control is further configured to (capable of): activate an agitation mode based on operator input to the operator control; wherein when the one or more electronically controlled spray tips are inactive, a three-way valve switches to a large nozzle returning flow of the liquid product back to the tank; and wherein when the one or more spray tips are active, the three-way valve switches flow of the liquid product to the one or more spray tips.
However, Kaiser teaches an applicator system (Fig. 1) with a control (80) wherein the control is configured to (capable of): activate an agitation mode (by turning on 24) based on operator input (presetting or designated operation) to the operator control; wherein when the one or more electronically controlled spray tips (of 52 and 64) are inactive (not spraying), a three-way valve (82) switches to a large (annular orifice in 64 appear larger) nozzle (58 of 64) returning flow of the liquid product back to the tank; and wherein when the one or more spray tips are active (spraying), the three-way valve is switches flow of the liquid product to the one or more spray tips.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a three-way valve to recirculate the liquid product, as taught by Kaiser, to Doherty’s machine, in order to recirculation the powder source (Abstract, lines 1-20 and Fig. 1).
Claims 12-14, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doherty in view of Smith (US 12097850).
With respect to claims 12-14, Doherty discloses the machine as in claims 1 and 16 except for wherein the electronic control receives input speed data and is further configured to alter the flow of both the liquid product or the flow of the spreadable material based on speed data in order to regulate material flow based on machine speed (claim 12), wherein the electronic control will stop or prevent material flow based below a minimum speed (claim 13) and wherein the electronic control is further configured to (capable of):
determine, based on the speed data, a turn rate of the whether the applicator machine is turning;
determine, based on the speed data, a direction and a magnitude of the turn; and
adjust, without additional user input, the flow of the liquid product or the flow of the spreadable material based on the direction and magnitude of the turn (claim 14).
However, Smith teaches an applicator machine (Figs. 1-6), comprising: a frame (12); a tank (22) mounted to the frame and configured to (capable of) hold and dispense liquid product (pesticide (e.g., a herbicide, an insecticide, a rodenticide, and/or the like), a fertilizer, or a nutrient), wherein the applicator machine further comprising an electronic control (Fig. 3) wherein the electronic control receives input speed data (from 108) and is further configured to (capable of) alter the flow of the liquid product based on speed data in order to regulate material flow based on machine speed (Abstract), wherein the electronic control will stop or prevent material flow based below a minimum speed and wherein the electronic control is further configured to (capable of):
determine, based on the speed data, a turn rate (from 106) of the whether the applicator machine is turning;
determine, based on the speed data, a direction and a magnitude of the turn; and
adjust, without additional user input, the flow of the liquid product based on the direction and magnitude of the turn (by adjusting the ground speed of the sprayer 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of metering the spray based on the speed of the vehicle, as taught by Smith, to Doherty’s machine, in order to meter the spray and/or the spread based on the speed of the vehicle in order to provide even coverage according to the target application rate (Col. 1, lines 25-34).
With respect to claim 25, Doherty discloses a turf spreader and sprayer machine (40. Figs. 1-12 and Col. 4, line 16), comprising:
a frame (of 40);
one or more drive wheels (Fig. 1) attached to the frame;
a hopper (48) mounted to the frame to hold a spreadable material (44), wherein the hopper further includes a spreader motor (Col 4, line 37) and spreader disk (46), and one or more electronically controlled gates (50, 46, 142, 144 and 148) moveable between an open (operating) position and a closed (non-operating) position to turn material flow on or off (Figs. 6a-7c);
a tank (54) mounted to the frame to hold a liquid product;
one or more electronically controlled spray tips (64) capable of turning on and off (Figs. 6a-7c);
a spray pump (136, 138 and 140) disposed between the tank and the one or more electronically controlled (Figs. 8-10) spray tips;
an operator control interface (control box. Figs. 3-5) to receive input from an operator, wherein the input includes a mode selection to select a spray mode, spread mode, or a combination thereof;
Limitations from lines 13-14 of claim 1 further defines non-positively recited limitations/elements (the input) of the claim. The term “to” in line 13 of claim 1 clearly indicated that the input is not a positively recited limitations/elements.
Alternatively, Doherty discloses wherein the input includes a mode selection to select a spray mode (104, 108, 112 in Fig. 4 and 122, 124, 126 in Fig. 5), spread mode (106, 102, 110 in Fig. 4 and 124 in Fig. 5), or a combination thereof (130 in Fig. 5);
an electronic control (elements on control box) (electrically) coupled to the operator control interface, the one or more electronically controlled gates, and the one or more electronically controlled spray tips, wherein the electronic control:
receives a mode selection (from control box in Figs. 4 and 5) from the operator control interface to activate the mode selection;
receives, based on a single (one switch or one time period) user activation on the operator control interface, a signal (via electrical lines above control box. Fig. 8) to automatically start or stop flow of the spreadable material, the liquid product, or a combination thereof based on the mode selection.
Doherty fails to disclose one or more wheel speed sensors disposed on the one or more drive wheels; the electronic control coupled to the one or more wheel speed sensors, wherein the electronic control adjust, without additional user input, a flow of the liquid product or a flow of the spreadable material based on speed data obtained by the one or more wheel speed sensors.
However, Smith teaches an applicator machine (Figs. 1-6), comprising: a frame (12); one or more drive wheels (14 and 16) attached to the frame; a tank (22) mounted to the frame and configured to (capable of) hold and dispense liquid product (pesticide (e.g., a herbicide, an insecticide, a rodenticide, and/or the like), a fertilizer, or a nutrient), wherein the applicator machine further comprising an electronic control (Fig. 3), one or more wheel speed sensors (108) disposed on the one or more drive wheels; the electronic control (electrically) coupled to the one or more wheel speed sensors (Fig. 3), wherein the electronic control receives input speed data (from 108) and is further configured to (capable of) alter the flow of the liquid product based on speed data in order to regulate material flow based on machine speed (Abstract), wherein the electronic control will stop or prevent material flow based below a minimum speed and wherein the electronic control is further configured to (capable of):
determine, based on the speed data, a turn rate (from 106) of the whether the applicator machine is turning;
determine, based on the speed data, a direction and a magnitude of the turn; and
adjust, without additional user input, a flow of the liquid product or a flow of the spreadable material based on speed data obtained by the one or more wheel speed sensors (by adjusting the ground speed of the sprayer 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of metering the spray based on the speed of the vehicle, as taught by Smith, to Doherty’s machine, in order to meter the spray and/or the spread based on the speed of the vehicle using speed sensors in order to provide even coverage according to the target application rate (Col. 1, lines 25-34).
With respect to claim 26, Doherty’s turf spreader and sprayer machine modified by Smith’s speed sensors, Smith further teaches wherein the electronic control further regulates a spray rate (target application rate), based on the speed data (Abstract), to match a ground speed through spraying a pulse of liquid (via diaphragm pressure sensor(s), a piston pressure sensor(s), a strain gauge-based pressure sensor(s), an electromagnetic pressure sensor(s), and/or the like. Col. 5, lines 60-63) when the machine covers a fixed (designated) distance.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doherty in view of Altin et al. (US 2017/0173610. Altin hereinafter).
With respect to claim 15, Doherty discloses the machine as in claim 1 except for wherein hopper further includes a material vibrator coupled to the electronic control, wherein when the one or more electronically controlled gates are open (in operation) the electronic control is further configured to activate the material vibrator; and wherein when the one or more electronically controlled gates are closed (not in operation) the material vibrator is inactive.
However, Altin teaches an applicator system (Figs. 1-18) with a hopper supply (102) to a spray applicator (20), wherein the hopper further includes a material vibrator (156) coupled to a control (39), wherein the control is further configured to (capable of) activate the material vibrator when the one or more electronically controlled gates (in 160) are open (paragraph [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a hopper’s material vibrator, as taught by Altin, to Doherty’s hopper, in order to assist in urging the material towards the lower corner of the hopper (paragraph [0055]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on April 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Doherty fails to teach an electronic control. Nor does Doherty teach "a mode selection to select a spray mode, spread mode, or a combination thereof' or "automatically start[ing] or stop[ping] flow of the spreadable material, the liquid product, or a combination thereof based on the mode selection." The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The elements on control boxes shown in Figs. 4 and 5 are the electronic control, and in the Abstract, third embodiment of the Doherty’s invention is a vehicle mounted apparatus and system for automated coordinated application of a plurality of materials to a surface as well as automated component control such as blade blocking plate control based on sensed current surface condition information and current accurate location information as well as past operating history and predicted near term weather conditions. Therefore, it is clear that Doherty discloses the limitation argued by the Applicant.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, Applicant raises no new issue. Applicant's arguments directed to claims rejected under the 35 U.S.C. 103 have been addressed in the section above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached on (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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 June 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights