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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 27, 2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention Group II in the reply filed on September 13, 2024 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 13, 2024.
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).
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.
Claims 13-17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,203,428. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions have the features of an aerial application system for an aircraft, comprising: a hydraulic system, navigation system, collector assembly, rotatable flow diverter comprising: an annular edge region having a central aperture therein and projection transitionable between a first location and a second location.
Claims 13-17 and 20 correspond to the following copending application claims:
Application Claims
U.S. Patent No. 11,203,428
13-17 and 20
1 and 5
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.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldrum (US 3,968,933) in view of Lopez (US 7255129) and further in view of Chowdhary et al. (US 2021/0158041. Chowdhary hereinafter).
With respect to claim 13, Waldrum discloses an aerial application system (Figs. 1-12 except the helicopter 24) for an aircraft (helicopter 24), comprising:
a hydraulic system (tanks and conduits of apparatus 20) having processing circuitry (at electrical control switches 162); and
a collector assembly (Fig. 3) having a body defining a chamber (defined by 44).
Waldrum fails to disclose a rotatable flow diverter, the flow diverter comprising: an annular edge region having a central aperture therein; and a projection transitionable between a first location and a second location different than the first location when the flow diverter is rotated, the projection extendable through the annular edge region along a first plane that is between 70 degrees and 110 degrees to a second plane of the annular edge region.
However, Lopez teaches a rotatable flow diverter (Figs. 1-5), the flow diverter comprising: an annular edge region (of 26 and 26a) having a central aperture (of 36) therein; and a projection (body of 30) transitionable between a first (closed) location (Fig. 2) and a second location (Fig. 3) different than the first location when the flow diverter is rotated (using 44), the projection extendable through (two ends of) the annular edge region along a first plane (vertical) that is between 70 degrees and 110 degrees to a second (horizontal) plane of the annular edge region and the flow diverter configured to engage a body (of 12 and 44) of the collector assembly (handle 44 and the upstream elements of the fluid system not shown).
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 rotatable flow diverter, as taught by Lopez, to Waldrum’s collector assembly, in order to divert the flow (Abstract and Figs. 2-4).
Waldrum fails to disclose a navigation system in communication with the hydraulic system.
However, Chowdhary teaches an agricultural management system (Figs. 1-45) for an aircraft (mobile vehicle. [0158]) having a navigation system ([0332]- [0334] and [0340]) in communication with a hydraulic system (“…crop-systems includes activities such as pruning, culling, weeding, sampling, harvesting, spraying…” [0022] and “…robotic chemical treatment system… The system can include mechanisms for spraying the liquid including one or more replaceable nozzle(s). The mechanism can include a pressurization system. The system can include an actuator system having one or more actuators for operating the mechanism for spraying (e.g., four), control the rate, duration, direction, and force of spray… [0399] ).
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 navigation system in communication with a hydraulic system, as taught by Chowdhary, to Waldrum’s system, in order to provide a fully automatic spraying system adjusting, in real-time, the changing conditions in the field ([0332]- [0334]).
With respect to claim 14, Waldrum’s system modified by Lopez’s flow diverter and Chowdhary’s navigation system, Lopez further teaches wherein the rotatable flow diverter includes:
at least one slit (four slits around 34) defined within the annular edge region and configured to (capable of) engage a body of the collector assembly (12 and 44 of Lopez installed onto the central feed tube 44 of Waldrum) such that the flow diverter may be rotated over a predetermined distance to transition the projection to the second location.
With respect to claim 15, Waldrum’s system modified by Lopez’s flow diverter and Chowdhary’s navigation system, Waldrum further discloses the aerial application system further including:
a tank (means 26) configured to (capable of) be inserted into a cabin of the aircraft; and
a first delivery conduit (left 214. Fig. 7) and a second delivery conduit (right 214), the first delivery conduit and the second delivery conduit being in communication with the tank.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldrum in view of Lopez and Chowdhary and further in view of Sellards (US 3,559,930).
With respect to claim 16, Waldrum’s system modified by Lopez’s flow diverter and Chowdhary’s navigation system, Waldrum, Lopez and Chowdhary fail to disclose the aerial application system further including a first auger within the first delivery conduit and a second auger within the second delivery conduit.
However, Sellards teaches first and second delivery conduits (distribution ducts 91. Fig. 9) of an aircraft (Fig. 8) wherein a first auger (displacement auger 97) within the first delivery conduit and a second auger within the second delivery conduit.
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 an auger within the delivery conduit, as taught by Sellards, to Waldrum’s delivery conduit, in order to accurately control the rate of distribution of the particulate material and this distribution rate can be maintained without depending on maintaining a constant airspeed (Col. 7, lines 14-25).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldrum in view of Lopez, Chowdhary and Sellardsand further in view of Fugere (US 8,701,946).
With respect to claim 17, Waldrum’s system modified by Lopez’s flow diverter, Chowdhary’s navigation system and Sellards’ auger, Waldrum, Lopez, Chowdhary and Sellards fail to disclose the aerial application system further including: a first rotary encoder in communication with the first auger and a second rotary encoder in communication with the second auger, the first rotary encoder and the second rotary encoder each being in communication with the hydraulic system.
However, Fugere teaches a fluid pumping/delivering system (Figs. 1-19B) using a rotary encoder (Col. 5, line 65 to Col. 6, line 19 and Col. 11, line 62 to Col. 12, line 6) in communication with an auger (auger screw) and the rotary encoder being in communication with the hydraulic system (pump systems).
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 rotary encoder in communication with the auger and the hydraulic system, as taught by Fugere, to Waldrum’s delivery conduit and Sellards’ auger, in order to automatically and accurately control the rate of distribution of the particulate material with precise control over the angular positioning of the motor during operation (Col. 5, line 65 to Col. 6, line 19 and Col. 11, line 62 to Col. 12, line 6).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez and Waldrum in in view of Sellards.
With respect to claim 20, Waldrum discloses an aerial application system (Figs. 1-12 except the helicopter 24) for an aircraft (helicopter 24), comprising:
a tank (means 26) configured to (capable of) be inserted into a cabin of the aircraft;
a first delivery conduit (left 214. Fig. 7) and a second delivery conduit (right 214), the first delivery conduit and the second delivery conduit being in communication with the tank;
a collector assembly (Fig. 3) having a body defining a chamber (defined by 44). each of the first delivery conduit and the second delivery conduit being in communication with the chamber.
Waldrum fails to disclose the collector assembly including a rotatable flow diverter, the flow diverter being a disk having an annular edge region having a central aperture therein, a projection transitionable between a first location and a second location different than the first location when the flow diverter is rotated, the projection extendable through the annular region along a first plane that is between 70 degrees and 110 degrees to a second plane of the annular edge region; and at least one slit defined within the annular edge region and configured to engage the body of the collector assembly such that the flow diverter may be rotated over a predetermined distance to transition the projection to the second location.
However, Lopez teaches a rotatable flow diverter (Figs. 1-5), the flow diverter being a disk (26a, 33 (curved disk) and 26) having an annular edge region (of 26 and 26a) having a central aperture (of 36) therein, a projection (body of 30) transitionable between a first (closed) location (Fig. 2) and a second location (Fig. 3) different than the first location when the flow diverter is rotated (using 44), the projection extendable through the annular region along a first plane (vertical) that is between 70 degrees and 110 degrees to a second (horizontal) plane of the annular edge region; and at least one slit (four slits around 34) defined within the annular edge region and configured to engage a body (of 12 and 44) of the collector assembly (handle 44 and the upstream elements of the fluid system not shown) such that the flow diverter may be rotated over a predetermined distance to transition the projection to the second location, a distribution assembly (outlet ports and the downstream elements) coupled to the collector assembly, the distribution assembly including a spinner (44) in communication with the chamber of the collector assembly.
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 rotatable flow diverter, as taught by Lopez, to Waldrum’s collector assembly, in order to divert the flow (Abstract and Figs. 2-4).
Waldrum fails to disclose a first auger within the first delivery conduit and a second auger within the second delivery conduit;
However, Sellards teaches first and second delivery conduits (distribution ducts 91. Fig. 9) of an aircraft (Fig. 8) wherein a first auger (displacement auger 97) within the first delivery conduit and a second auger within the second delivery conduit.
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 an auger within the delivery conduit, as taught by Sellards, to Waldrum’s delivery conduit, in order to accurately control the rate of distribution of the particulate material and this distribution rate can be maintained without depending on maintaining a constant airspeed (Col. 7, lines 14-25).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13-17 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference and/or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 February 26, 2026