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 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 7 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome the rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action dated 20 December 2024; however, upon further consideration new rejections are set forth as explained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 12 are rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear what is required by the limitation “the first pair of lengthwise edges of the plates are each fastened to one of the curved connecting members”. Firstly, more than one first pair is positively recited; therefore, it is unclear to which of these the limitation refers. Secondly, the limitation appears to require both edges of the first pair to be fastened the same curved connecting member, which appears to be inconsistent with the invention disclosed by the Specification and Drawings.
Claims 2-9 and 19 are rejected for depending from indefinite claim 1. Claim 11 is rejected for depending from indefinite claim 10. Claim 13-18 and 20 are rejected for depending from indefinite claim 12.
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 1-7, 12-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wissler et al. (US 2017/0000103).
Regarding claim 1, Wissler teaches a boom (1), comprising: a tubular structure defining a rounded triangular section (fig. 2) that extends from a first boom end (2) to a second boom end (3, see figs. 3, 4), the tubular structure comprising three plates (fig. 1 – two of the plates are comprised of braces 9, which are flat as shown in figs. 2 and 3 and described as having a “uniform thickness” in par. 54, the third plate is comprised of element 12), each plate having a first pair of lengthwise edges and a second pair of lengthwise edges (see annotated figure), the first pair of lengthwise edges being longer than the second pair of lengthwise edges (see annotated figure); and three curved connecting members (8, see figs. 1, 2); wherein the first pair of lengthwise edges of the plates are each fastened to one of the curved connecting members (figs. 6, 7); and wherein the plates comprise a first material and the curved members comprise a second material different from the first material (par. 50).
PNG
media_image1.png
342
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Wissler teaches the boom described regarding claim 1 and further wherein the first material comprises carbon fiber (par. 59).
Regarding claim 3, Wissler teaches the boom described regarding claim 1 and further wherein the second material comprises aluminum (portion 17, see par. 56, 59).
Regarding claim 4, Wissler teaches the boom described regarding claim 1 and further wherein at least one of the three plates defines a plurality of cut-outs formed therein (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Wissler teaches the boom described regarding claim 1 and further wherein at least one of the three connecting members is fastened between a respective two of the three plates (figs. 1, 2) by fasteners selected from the group consisting of bolts and rivets (par. 7).
Regarding claim 6, Wissler teaches the boom described regarding claim 1 and further wherein at least one of the three connecting members is fastened between a respective two of the three plates (figs. 1, 2) by adhesive (par. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Wissler teaches the boom described regarding claim 1 and further comprising dispensing nozzles mounted to the boom and configured to dispense liquid (par. 52).
Regarding claim 12, Wissler teaches a method of manufacturing a crop sprayer boom (1), the method comprising: fastening three plates (fig. 1 – two of the plates are comprised of braces 9, which are flat as shown in figs. 2 and 3 and described as having a “uniform thickness” in par. 54, the third plate is comprised of element 12) together with three curved connecting members (8, see figs. 1, 2) to form a tubular structure with a rounded triangular section (fig. 2) that extends from a first boom end (2) to a second boom end (3, see figs. 3, 4), wherein each plate has a first pair of lengthwise edges and a second pair of lengthwise edges (see annotated figure), the first pair of lengthwise edges are longer than the second pair of lengthwise edges (see annotated figure), the first pair of lengthwise edges of the plates are each fastened to one of the curved connecting members (figs. 6, 7), and the plates are formed from a first material and the curved members are formed from a second material different from the first material (par. 50).
Regarding claim 13, Wissler teaches the method described regarding claim 12, and further wherein fastening three plates together with three curved connecting members comprises fastening each of the three connecting members to a respective pair of the three plates (figs. 1, 2) with a fastener selected from the group consisting of bolts and rivets (par. 7).
Regarding claim 14, Wissler teaches the method described regarding claim 12, and further wherein fastening three plates together with three curved connecting members comprises gluing (par. 7) each of the three connecting members to respective adjacent pairs of the three plates (figs. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 19, Wissler teaches the boom described regarding claim 1, and further wherein this boom is part of an agricultural crop sprayer comprising a chassis (par. 2) and a fluid storage tank (par. 47).
Regarding claim 20, Wissler teaches the agricultural crop sprayer described regarding claim 19, and wherein the boom comprises a plurality of boom sections (5/6/7) configured to pivot relative to one another (par. 56; figs. 3, 4).
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.
Claims 8-11 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wissler in view of Klemp et al. (US 2017/0216871).
Regarding claim 8, Wissler discloses the boom described regarding claim 1, but not further comprising an end element disposed inside the tubular structure at the first boom end, wherein the end element is mated to the three plates by one selected from the group consisting of bolts, rivets, and adhesive.
Klemp teaches a boom (410) comprising a tubular structure defining a rounded triangular section that extends from a first boom end to a second boom end (fig. 16), the tubular structure comprising three plates (430/450/470) and having an end element (660) disposed inside the tubular structure at the first boom end (par. 83; figs. 22-24), wherein the end element is mated to the three plates by one selected from the group consisting of bolts, rivets, and adhesive (par. 83).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the boom of Wissler to further comprise an end element disposed inside the tubular structure at the first boom end, wherein the end element is mated to the three plates by one selected from the group consisting of bolts, rivets, and adhesive, as taught by Klemp. Such a modification was known to prevent twisting of the end of the boom section and also eliminates stress on the rivet (or bolt) holes (Klemp – par. 83).
Regarding claim 9, Wissler in view of Klemp discloses the boom described regarding claim 8, and Klemp further teaches wherein the end element exhibits an external profile that matches a profile of the triangular section (fig. 22).
Regarding claim 10, Wissler in view of Klemp discloses the boom section described regarding claim 8, and further that this is a first boom section (6) that is part of a multi-section boom arrangement (fig. 1 – element 1), and a second boom section (5) is hingedly attached to the end element (par. 56; figs. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 11, Wissler in view of Klemp discloses the multi-section boom arrangement described regarding claim 10, and further wherein this arrangement is part of an agricultural crop sprayer comprising a chassis (par. 2) and a fluid storage tank (par. 47).
Regarding claim 15, Wissler discloses the method described regarding claim 12, and Wissler in view of Klemp further discloses fastening an end element inside the tubular structure, as described regarding claim 8.
Regarding claim 16, Wissler in view of Klemp discloses the method described regarding claim 15, and further wherein fastening an end element inside the tubular structure comprises fastening the end element to the three plates by one selected from the group consisting of bots, rivets, and adhesive, as also described regarding claim 8.
Regarding claim 17, Wissler in view of Klemp discloses the method described regarding claim 15, and further comprising hingedly attaching a second tubular structure to the end element, as described regarding claim 10.
Regarding claim 18, Wissler discloses the method described regarding claim 12, but not explicitly comprising securing a plurality of nozzles to the tubular structure. Klemp teaches the boom described regarding claim 8, and further comprising securing a plurality of nozzles (200) to the tubular structure (par. 60; figs. 1-3). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wissler to further include securing a plurality of nozzles to the tubular structure, as taught by Klemp, since this was known to provide a means for dispersing the fluid material along the length of the boom (Klemp – par. 60).
Claims 1-7, 12-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wissler in view of Freeman et al. (US 4,909,011).
Regarding claim 1, Wissler, in an alternative interpretation, discloses a boom (1), comprising: a tubular structure defining a rounded triangular section (fig. 2) that extends from a first boom end (2) to a second boom end (3, see figs. 3, 4), the tubular structure comprising three plates (fig. 1 – two of the plates are comprised of braces 9, which are flat as shown in figs. 2 and 3 and described as having a “uniform thickness” in par. 54, the third plate is comprised of element 12); and three curved connecting members (8, see figs. 1, 2); and wherein the plates comprise a first material and the curved members comprise a second material different from the first material (par. 50).
Wissler, in the alternative interpretation, discloses that one of the three plates (12) has a first pair of lengthwise edges (fig. 1 – interpreted to be the edges extending along the axial length of the boom) and a second pair of lengthwise edges (fig. 1 – interpreted to be the edges extending along the ends of the boom), the first pair of lengthwise edges being longer than the second pair of lengthwise edges (fig. 1); wherein the first pair of lengthwise edges of the plates are each fastened to one of the curved connecting members (fig. 1). But, Wissler does not disclose both of the other two plates having a first pair of lengthwise edges and a second pair of lengthwise edges, the first pair of lengthwise edges being longer than the second pair of lengthwise edges wherein the first pair of lengthwise edges of the plates are each fastened to one of the curved connecting members.
Freeman teaches a tubular structure (10) defining a rounded triangular section (fig. 2) that extends from a first end to a second boom end (fig. 1), the tubular structure comprising three plates (11, see fig. 3), each plate having a first pair of lengthwise edges (fig. 1 – interpreted to be the upper and lower edges of 11) and a second pair of lengthwise edges (fig. 1 – interpreted to be the left and right edges of 11), the first pair of lengthwise edges being longer than the second pair of lengthwise edges (fig. 1); and three curved connecting members (12, see fig. 2); and wherein the first pair of lengthwise edges of the plates are each fastened to one of the curved connecting members (figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the other two plates of the boom of Wissler such that each plate has a first pair of lengthwise edges and a second pair of lengthwise edges, wherein the first pair of lengthwise edges are longer than the second pair of lengthwise edges and wherein the first pair of lengthwise edges of the plates are each fastened to one of the curved connecting members, as taught by Freeman. Such a modification would completely enclose the interior of the boom which would provide additional protection for the critical parts (e.g., electrical components, fluid conduits) contained therein.
Regarding claim 2, Wissler, in the alternative interpretation, in view of Freeman discloses the boom described regarding claim 1 and further wherein the first material comprises carbon fiber (par. 59).
Regarding claim 3, Wissler, in the alternative interpretation, in view of Freeman discloses the boom described regarding claim 1 and further wherein the second material comprises aluminum (portion 17, see par. 56, 59).
Regarding claim 4, Wissler, in the alternative interpretation, in view of Freeman discloses the boom described regarding claim 1 and further wherein at least one of the three plates (12) defines a plurality of cut-outs (13) formed therein (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Wissler, in the alternative interpretation, in view of Freeman discloses the boom described regarding claim 1 and further wherein at least one of the three connecting members is fastened between a respective two of the three plates (figs. 1, 2) by fasteners selected from the group consisting of bolts and rivets (par. 7).
Regarding claim 6, Wissler, in the alternative interpretation, in view of Freeman discloses the boom described regarding claim 1 and further wherein at least one of the three connecting members is fastened between a respective two of the three plates (figs. 1, 2) by adhesive (par. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Wissler, in the alternative interpretation, in view of Freeman discloses the boom described regarding claim 1 and further comprising dispensing nozzles mounted to the boom and configured to dispense liquid (par. 52).
Regarding claim 12, Wissler, in the alternative interpretation, discloses a method of manufacturing a crop sprayer boom (1), the method comprising: fastening three plates (fig. 1 – two of the plates are comprised of braces 9, which are flat as shown in figs. 2 and 3 and described as having a “uniform thickness” in par. 54, the third plate is comprised of element 12) together with three curved connecting members (8, see figs. 1, 2) to form a tubular structure with a rounded triangular section (fig. 2) that extends from a first boom end (2) to a second boom end (3, see figs. 3, 4), and the plates are formed from a first material and the curved members are formed from a second material different from the first material (par. 50).
Wissler, in the alternative interpretation, discloses that one of the three plates (12) has a first pair of lengthwise edges (fig. 1 – interpreted to be the edges extending along the axial length of the boom) and a second pair of lengthwise edges (fig. 1 – interpreted to be the edges extending along the ends of the boom), the first pair of lengthwise edges being longer than the second pair of lengthwise edges (fig. 1); wherein the first pair of lengthwise edges of the plates are each fastened to one of the curved connecting members (fig. 1). But, Wissler does not disclose both of the other two plates having a first pair of lengthwise edges and a second pair of lengthwise edges, the first pair of lengthwise edges being longer than the second pair of lengthwise edges wherein the first pair of lengthwise edges of the plates are each fastened to one of the curved connecting members.
Freeman teaches a tubular structure (10) defining a rounded triangular section (fig. 2) that extends from a first end to a second boom end (fig. 1), the tubular structure comprising three plates (11, see fig. 3), each plate having a first pair of lengthwise edges (fig. 1 – interpreted to be the upper and lower edges of 11) and a second pair of lengthwise edges (fig. 1 – interpreted to be the left and right edges of 11), the first pair of lengthwise edges being longer than the second pair of lengthwise edges (fig. 1); and three curved connecting members (12, see fig. 2); and wherein the first pair of lengthwise edges of the plates are each fastened to one of the curved connecting members (figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the other two plates of the boom of Wissler such that each plate has a first pair of lengthwise edges and a second pair of lengthwise edges, wherein the first pair of lengthwise edges are longer than the second pair of lengthwise edges and wherein the first pair of lengthwise edges of the plates are each fastened to one of the curved connecting members, as taught by Freeman. Such a modification would completely enclose the interior of the boom which would provide additional protection for the critical parts (e.g., electrical components, fluid conduits) contained therein.
Regarding claim 13, Wissler, in the alternative interpretation, in view of Freeman discloses the method described regarding claim 12, and further wherein fastening three plates together with three curved connecting members comprises fastening each of the three connecting members to a respective pair of the three plates (figs. 1, 2) with a fastener selected from the group consisting of bolts and rivets (par. 7).
Regarding claim 14, Wissler, in the alternative interpretation, in view of Freeman discloses the method described regarding claim 12, and further wherein fastening three plates together with three curved connecting members comprises gluing (par. 7) each of the three connecting members to respective adjacent pairs of the three plates (figs. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 19, Wissler, in the alternative interpretation, in view of Freeman discloses the boom described regarding claim 1, and further wherein this boom is part of an agricultural crop sprayer comprising a chassis (par. 2) and a fluid storage tank (par. 47).
Regarding claim 20, Wissler, in the alternative interpretation, in view of Freeman discloses the agricultural crop sprayer described regarding claim 19, and wherein the boom comprises a plurality of boom sections (5/6/7) configured to pivot relative to one another (par. 56; figs. 3, 4).
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.
Claims 8-11 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wissler, in view of Freeman, and further in view of Klemp et al. (US 2017/0216871).
Regarding claim 8, Wissler, in view of Freeman, discloses the boom described regarding claim 1, in the alternative interpretation, but not further comprising an end element disposed inside the tubular structure at the first boom end, wherein the end element is mated to the three plates by one selected from the group consisting of bolts, rivets, and adhesive.
Klemp teaches a boom (410) comprising a tubular structure defining a rounded triangular section that extends from a first boom end to a second boom end (fig. 16), the tubular structure comprising three plates (430/450/470) and having an end element (660) disposed inside the tubular structure at the first boom end (par. 83; figs. 22-24), wherein the end element is mated to the three plates by one selected from the group consisting of bolts, rivets, and adhesive (par. 83).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the boom of Wissler, in view of Freeman, to further comprise an end element disposed inside the tubular structure at the first boom end, wherein the end element is mated to the three plates by one selected from the group consisting of bolts, rivets, and adhesive, as taught by Klemp. Such a modification was known to prevent twisting of the end of the boom section and also eliminates stress on the rivet (or bolt) holes (Klemp – par. 83).
Regarding claim 9, Wissler in view of Freeman and Klemp discloses the boom described regarding claim 8, and Klemp further teaches wherein the end element exhibits an external profile that matches a profile of the triangular section (fig. 22).
Regarding claim 10, Wissler in view of Freeman and Klemp discloses the boom section described regarding claim 8, and further that this is a first boom section (6) that is part of a multi-section boom arrangement (fig. 1 – element 1), and a second boom section (5) is hingedly attached to the end element (par. 56; figs. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 11, Wissler in view of Freeman and Klemp discloses the multi-section boom arrangement described regarding claim 10, and further wherein this arrangement is part of an agricultural crop sprayer comprising a chassis (par. 2) and a fluid storage tank (par. 47).
Regarding claim 15, Wissler, in view of Freeman, discloses the method described regarding claim 12, and Wissler in view of Freeman and Klemp further discloses fastening an end element inside the tubular structure, as described regarding claim 8.
Regarding claim 16, Wissler in view of Freeman and Klemp discloses the method described regarding claim 15, and further wherein fastening an end element inside the tubular structure comprises fastening the end element to the three plates by one selected from the group consisting of bots, rivets, and adhesive, as also described regarding claim 8.
Regarding claim 17, Wissler in view of Freeman and Klemp discloses the method described regarding claim 15, and further comprising hingedly attaching a second tubular structure to the end element, as described regarding claim 10.
Regarding claim 18, Wissler, in view of Freeman, discloses the method described regarding claim 12, but not explicitly comprising securing a plurality of nozzles to the tubular structure. Klemp teaches the boom described regarding claim 8, and further comprising securing a plurality of nozzles (200) to the tubular structure (par. 60; figs. 1-3). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wissler, in view of Freeman, to further include securing a plurality of nozzles to the tubular structure, as taught by Klemp, since this was known to provide a means for dispersing the fluid material along the length of the boom (Klemp – par. 60).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the interpretation of Wissler being used in the current rejection. Therefore, Wissler is interpreted to teach the newly added limitations, as explained in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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 Hall can be reached at (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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights