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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on October 20, 2025. Claims 1, 7, 8, 15, 17, and 18 have been amended. Claim 11 has been canceled. Claim 19 has been added.
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 1-5, 7-9, 13, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wood et al. (US 8,187,391).
With regard to claim 1, Wood discloses a spray unit (3000), comprising: an axle (822); a disc (3040) having an upper surface and a continuous outer edge (3050/3056) extending around the upper surface (Fig. 17), the outer edge arranged in a horizontal plane (Fig. 17); a liquid applicator (3100); and a spray direction assembly (3015); wherein, the disc (3040) is configured to spin about the axle (222) centered on a center of the disc (3040) relative to the spray direction assembly (Fig. 15); wherein, the liquid applicator (3110) is configured to apply liquid to the upper surface of the disc (3040); and wherein the spray direction assembly (3015) partially surrounds the disc (3040) and wherein an interior surface (Fig. 17) of the spray direction assembly is configured to modify a trajectory of all liquid that leaves the disc along the outer edge of the disc (Fig. 17).
With regard to claim 2, the device of Wood discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Wood further discloses that the spray direction assembly (3015) has a semi-spherical shape with opposing depending sidewalls (nesting area 3065 exhibits a semi-spherical shape with opposing sidewalls seen in Fig. 15) and an aperture at a top region (Fig. 15) and an aperture at a bottom region (Fig. 15).
With regard to claim 3, the device of Wood discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2 above. Wood further discloses that the axle (222) extends vertically through a central position of the aperture at the top region of the spray direction assembly (Fig. 15).
With regard to claim 4, the device of Wood discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2 above. Wood further discloses that a diameter of the aperture of the spray direction assembly (3015) at the bottom region is larger than a diameter of the aperture at the top region of the spray direction assembly (Fig. 15).
With regard to claim 5, the device of Wood discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Wood further discloses that the edge of the disc (3040) is located proximate to the interior surface of the spray direction assembly (3015) and proximate to a top region of the spray direction assembly (Fig. 15).
With regard to claim 7, the device of Wood discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Wood further discloses that the interior surface (Fig. 15) is in proximity to an aperture at a bottom region of the spray direction assembly (Fig. 15) through which the liquid leaves the spray direction assembly and wherein the interior surface is disposed at an angle relative to a plane of the upper surface of the disc (Fig. 15).
With regard to claims 8 and 18, the device of Wood discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Wood further discloses that wherein an interior surface (Fig. 17) of the spray direction assembly is configured to modify a trajectory of all liquid that leaves the disc around the outer edge of the disc (Fig. 17) and the interior surface of the spray direction assembly comprises a plurality of walls (left sidewall and right sidewall 3025 shown in Fig. 16), wherein a direction of the plurality of walls extends in a plane at an angle of between fifty degrees and one-hundred thirty degrees relative to a lateral side of the disc and further wherein the plurality of walls are oriented at an angle of between sixty degrees and one- hundred twenty degrees relative to a plane of the upper surface of the disc (formed in a 90 degree perpendicular to the horizonal plane as shown in annotated figure).
PNG
media_image1.png
670
869
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 9, the device of Wood discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 8 above. Wood further discloses that the walls are located radially around the disc (Fig. 17).
With regard to claim 16, the device of Wood discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 9 above. Wood further discloses that the walls are located at equal distances around the disc (Fig. 17).
With regard to claim 17, Wood discloses a spray unit comprising: an axle (222); a flat or cone-shaped disc (3040); a liquid applicator (3100); and a spray direction assembly (3015); wherein, the disc (3040) is configured to spin about the axle centered on a center of the disc relative to the spray direction assembly (3015); wherein, the liquid applicator (3100) is configured to apply liquid to a surface of the disc (Fig. 16); and wherein the spray direction assembly partially surrounds the disc and wherein an interior surface of the spray direction assembly is configured to modify a trajectory of all liquid that leaves the disc around an outer edge of the disc (Fig. 16).
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.
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood in view of Bassett (US 2019/0216018 A1).
With regard to claim 10, the device of Wood discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Wood further discloses that the spray direction assembly has a circular aperture at a top region (Fig. 17), except an oval shaped aperture at a bottom region.
Bassett teaches a spray unit in the same field of endeavor for the application of pesticides to crops as the claimed invention that comprises a spray direction assembly (110) has a circular aperture at a top region (Fig. 1) and an oval shaped aperture at a bottom region (Fig. 1 shows the aperture at the bottom region is in the form of oval shape).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wood, by forming the bottom region in oval shape as taught by Bassett, doing that would change the scope of spraying that configured to target the rows of planted matter (Para. [0055]).
With regard to claim 14, the device of Wood discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Wood does not disclose that a spray vehicle.
Bassett teaches a spraying unit comprising a spray vehicle (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Wood, by incorporating the spray vehicle as taught by Bassett, for the benefit of providing mobility.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al.
With regard to claim 6, the device of Wood discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Wood does not disclose that a shortest distance between the edge of the disc and the interior surface of the spray direction assembly is between 100 microns and 1 mm.
It is noted by the Examiner, the specification, paragraph does not provide any criticality associated to the shortest distance between the edge of the disc and the interior surface of the spray direction assembly is between 100 microns and 1 mm. The difference between the claimed invention and the disclosure to Wood is only relative dimensions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wood to having the shortest distance between the edge of the disc and the interior surface of the spray direction assembly is between 100 microns and 1 mm. Furthermore, In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV. A).
With regard to claim 12, the device of Wood discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Wood does not disclose that a ratio between a diameter of the disc relative to a greatest diameter of an aperture of the spray direction assembly at a bottom region is between 1:2 and 1:20.
It is noted by the Examiner, the specification, paragraph does not provide any criticality associated to the ratio between a diameter of the disc relative to a greatest diameter of an aperture of the spray direction assembly at a bottom region is between 1:2 and 1:20. The difference between the claimed invention and the disclosure to Wood is only relative dimensions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wood to having a ratio between a diameter of the disc relative to a greatest diameter of an aperture of the spray direction assembly at a bottom region is between 1:2 and 1:20. Furthermore, In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV. A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 19 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 17, and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference 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 JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752