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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/11/2025 has been entered.
Pending claims 1-9 are addressed below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder (“unit”, “device”) that is coupled with functional language (spraying, airflow generation, traveling, rotation drive) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a spraying unit” in claim 1 (disclosed in paragraph 62), “an airflow generation unit that generates an airflow” in claim 3 (disclosed in paragraph 79), “a traveling unit” in claim 5 (disclosed in paragraph 49-50), “a rotation drive device that generates a rotational force” in claim 6 (disclosed in paragraph 131), “a second spraying unit” in claim 9 (disclosed in paragraph 62).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamazaki (US 20210386049).
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki discloses a spraying machine (entire machine is shown fig. 1) comprising:
a machine body (at least item 1 in combination with items 5, 6, 14-16, 18 and 50);
a support frame (34, 36, and 33, which includes at least 42-46; par. 63-64) including a horizontal frame (36) having a length along a left-right direction (fig. 5), and a pair of vertical frames (34) each having a length along an up-down direction (see fig. 5) and protruding downward from both ends of the horizontal frame (36); and
a spraying unit (12) that is supported by the support frame, and sprays a spraying material (chemical from tank 11),
wherein the support frame (34, 36, 33, 42-46) is attached to and supported by a frame (5, 6, 14-16, 18 and 50) constituting a framework of the machine body (fig. 4 shows section 45, part of the cited support frame directly connected to item 50 of the cited frame; par. 65) to be rotatable around a rotation axis (axis P1 through shaft 52) passing through a fulcrum portion (at 53) provided on the horizontal frame (36) and extending along a front-back direction (along axis P1), while maintaining a relative positional relationship between the pair of vertical frames (34) and the horizontal frame (36; see figs. 2-3).
It is noted that the claim scope is open-ended, defined via recitation of “comprising”, therefore the claim limitation “machine body” does not exclude a combination of multiple sections. See citation of “machine body” and “frame” above.
Regarding claim 2, Yamazaki discloses the spraying machine according to claim 1, wherein the fulcrum portion (at 53/43/33; fig. 6) is disposed at an equidistant position (see figs. 2 and 6) of the horizontal frame from the pair of vertical frames (34).
Regarding claim 5, Yamazaki discloses the spraying machine according to claim 1, wherein the machine body includes a traveling unit (tractor 1, fig. 1), and the spraying unit is disposed at a position higher than a center of the traveling unit in the up-down direction (since positions of spraying unit 12 can be changed/lifted via attachment 38, unit 12 can be placed at a position higher than a center of tractor 1, see figs. 1, 4).
Regarding claim 6, Yamazaki discloses the spraying machine according to claim 1, further comprising a rotation drive device (55) that generates a rotational force for rotating the support frame around the rotational axis with respect to the machine body (par. 67).
Regarding claim 7, Yamazaki discloses the spraying machine according to claim 6, wherein the rotation drive device rotates the support frame according to a posture of the machine body (fig. 3; par. 67).
Regarding claim 8, Yamazaki discloses the spraying machine according to claim 1, wherein the support frame forms, between the pair of vertical frames, a space (see fig. 2) for passing an object (C) to be sprayed onto which the spraying material is sprayed (par. 37).
Regarding claim 9, Yamazaki discloses the spraying machine according to claim 1, further comprising a second spraying unit (another item 12 on 35, 37) that is disposed to be aligned in the front- back direction (see figs. 1, 5) with respect to a first spraying unit being the spraying unit (12), and sprays the spraying material (par. 37).
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 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 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US 20210386049) in view of Hulls (US 5897057).
Regarding claims 3-4, Yamazaki discloses the spraying machine according to claim 1, but fails to teach an airflow generation unit that generates an airflow for conveying the spraying material to be discharged from the spraying unit (claim 3), and wherein the airflow generation unit includes a duct that forms a channel through which air flows along the up- down direction, and a blower that causes the air to flow into the duct, and the air blowing out through a blowout hole formed in the duct forms the airflow.
Hull discloses a comparable spraying machine (figs. 1-3) having an airflow generation unit (blower 16; fig. 2) that generates an airflow for conveying the spraying material to be discharged from the spraying unit (claim 3), and wherein the airflow generation unit includes a duct (12, 20, 21) that forms a channel through which air flows along the up- down direction (fig. 3, ducts 12 are vertical), and a blower (16) that causes the air to flow into the duct, and the air blowing out through a blowout hole (in 21 or opening in 20) formed in the duct forms the airflow.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamazaki to incorporate the teachings of Hulls to provide an airflow generation unit that generates an airflow for conveying the spraying material to be discharged from the spraying unit (claim 3), and wherein the airflow generation unit includes a duct that forms a channel through which air flows along the up- down direction, and a blower that causes the air to flow into the duct, and the air blowing out through a blowout hole formed in the duct forms the airflow. Doing so would decrease the operation costs of applying agents by maximizing the actual deposition of agents to the crops (col. 3, ln 24-26).
Claims 1-3, 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiu (US 20120085836) in view of Bauer (US 20210307313).
Regarding claim 1, Tiu discloses a spraying machine (fig. 9) comprising:
a machine body (16, 19, 20);
a support frame (14) including a horizontal frame (top horizontal frame) having a length along a left-right direction (see fig. 9), and a pair of vertical frames (vertical frames on left/right ends of the top horizontal frame) each having a length along an up-down direction and protruding downward from both ends of the horizontal frame (fig. 9); and
a spraying unit (nozzle 40 at each fan 12; par. 85) that is supported by the support frame, and sprays a spraying material (par. 85-86, fig. 9),
PNG
media_image1.png
602
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Figure 1 (Tiu)
Tiu does not teach the support frame attached to and supported by a frame constituting a framework of the machine body to be rotatable around a rotation axis passing through a fulcrum portion provided on the horizontal frame and extending along a front-back direction, while maintaining a relative positional relationship between the pair of vertical frames and the horizontal frame.
Bauer discloses a comparable spraying machine including a support frame with a horizontal frame (horizontal frame directly connected to pivot portion at 16), attached to and supported by a frame 12 constituting a framework of the machine body (fig. 1; par. 41) to be rotatable around a rotation axis (at 16; par. 42, 56) through a fulcrum portion (16) provided on the horizontal frame and extending along a front-back direction (par. 42: “a horizontal pivot axis 16” understood to extend in front-back direction through the illustrated dot shown in fig. 1), while maintaining a relative positional relationship between the pair of vertical frames and the horizontal frame (positions shown in fig. 1 or pivoted in directions 108 and 110; par. 57, 58).
PNG
media_image2.png
446
710
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Figure 2 (Bauer)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tiu to incorporate the teachings of Bauer to provide the support frame attached to and supported by a frame constituting a framework of the machine body to be rotatable (via extension and retraction of hydraulic cylinder 41/42) around a rotation axis passing through a fulcrum portion provided on the horizontal frame and extending along a front-back direction, while maintaining a relative positional relationship between the pair of vertical frames and the horizontal frame. Doing so would allow the support frame to assume horizontal or inclined positions to be able to apply material in as constant a distance as possible to the surface to be treated, as suggested by Bauer in paragraph 3.
Regarding claim 2, Tiu, as modified above, teaches the spraying machine according to claim 1, wherein the fulcrum portion (Bauer, at 16, see fig. 1) is disposed at an equidistant position of the horizontal frame from the pair of vertical frames (Tiu as modified in view of Bauer to include fulcrum portion 16 would be disposed at an n equidistant position of the top horizontal frame from the pair of vertical frames; see Tiu’s annotated figure 9 above).
Regarding claim 3, Tiu, as modified above, teaches the spraying machine according to claim1, further comprising an airflow generation unit (fan unit 12 at each nozzle; par. 85) that generates an airflow for conveying the spraying material to be discharged from the spraying unit.
Regarding claim 5, Tiu, as modified above, teaches the spraying machine according to claim 1, wherein the machine body includes a traveling unit (19; par. 77), and the spraying unit (see examiner’s annotated figure 1 above) is disposed at a position higher than a center of the traveling unit in the up-down direction.
Regarding claim 6, Tiu, as modified above, teaches the spraying machine according to claim 1, further comprising a rotation drive device (Bauer cylinder 41/42; par. 43) that generates a rotational force for rotating the support frame around the rotational axis with respect to the machine body (Bauer, par. 43-44 and 56-57).
Regarding claim 7, Tiu, as modified above, teaches the spraying machine according to claim 6, wherein the rotation drive device (Bauer, cylinder 41/42) rotates the support frame according to a posture of the machine body (Bauer, par. 43-44 and 56-57).
Regarding claim 8, Tiu, as modified above, teaches the spraying machine according to claim 1, wherein the support frame forms, between the pair of vertical frames, a space for passing an object to be sprayed onto which the spraying material is sprayed (Tiu, figure 9: some space between left and right vertical frames; see examiner’s annotated figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 9, Tiu, as modified above, teaches the spraying machine according to claim 1, further comprising a second spraying unit that is disposed to be aligned in the front- back direction with respect to a first spraying unit being the spraying unit, and sprays the spraying material (Tiu’s cited embodiment shown in figure 9 does not have a second spraying unit aligned in the front-back direction with respect to the first spraying unit).
However, in a different embodiment shown in figure 8, Tiu includes additional spraying units positioned in front of a set of four other spraying units trailing behind.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tiu to incorporate the teachings of a different spray configuration in figure 8 to provide additional/second spraying unit aligned in the front- back direction with respect to a first spraying unit being the spraying unit, and sprays the spraying material, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Further, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this case, providing additional/second spraying unit in the claim configuration would increase deposition of the spraying material on the spray targets as the machine move along the path.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiu (US 20120085836) in view of Bauer (US 20210307313), further in view of Hulls (US 5897057).
Regarding claim 4, Tiu, as modified above, teaches the spraying machine according to claim 3, but fails to teach the airflow generation unit includes a duct that forms a channel through which air flows along the up- down direction, and a blower that causes the air to flow into the duct, and the air blowing out through a blowout hole formed in the duct forms the airflow.
Hull discloses a comparable spraying machine (figs. 1-3) having an airflow generation unit (blower 16; fig. 2) that generates an airflow for conveying the spraying material to be discharged from the spraying unit (claim 3), and wherein the airflow generation unit includes a duct (12, 20, 21) that forms a channel through which air flows along the up- down direction (fig. 3, ducts 12 are vertical), and a blower (16) that causes the air to flow into the duct, and the air blowing out through a blowout hole (in 21 or opening in 20) formed in the duct forms the airflow.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tiu to incorporate the teachings of Hulls to provide the airflow generation unit includes a duct that forms a channel through which air flows along the up- down direction, and a blower that causes the air to flow into the duct, and the air blowing out through a blowout hole formed in the duct forms the airflow. Doing so would decrease the operation costs of applying agents by maximizing the actual deposition of agents to the crops (col. 3, ln 24-26).
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiu (US 20120085836) in view of Bauer (US 20210307313), further in view of Yamazaki (US 20210386049).
Regarding claim 9, Tiu, as modified above, teaches the spraying machine according to claim 1, further comprising a second spraying unit that is disposed to be aligned in the front- back direction with respect to a first spraying unit being the spraying unit, and sprays the spraying material (Tiu’s cited embodiment shown in figure 9 does not have a second spraying unit aligned in the front-back direction with respect to the first spraying unit).
Yamazaki discloses a comparable spraying machine that includes a first spraying unit (item 12 on frame 34, 36) and a second spraying unit (another item 12 on 35, 37) that is disposed to be aligned in the front- back direction (see figs. 1, 5) with respect to a first spraying unit being the spraying unit (12), and sprays the spraying material.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tiu to incorporate the teachings of Yamazaki to provide a second spraying unit that is disposed to be aligned in the front- back direction with respect to a first spraying unit being the spraying unit, and sprays the spraying material, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Further, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this case, providing additional/second spraying unit in the claim configuration would increase deposition of the spraying material on the spray targets as the machine move along the path.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are found not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1:
Remarks page 5-6: applicant argues that the Yamazaki’s “support frame” is not attached to and supported by a frame constituting a framework of the machine body.
This is found not persuasive. It is noted that the claim scope is open-ended, defined via recitation of “comprising”, therefore the claim limitation “machine body” does not exclude a combination of multiple sections. See citation of “machine body” and “frame” teaching from Yamazaki reference above. With this interpretation of the claim language, a machine body includes at least item 1 in combination with items 5, 6, 14-16, 18 and 50; and a support frame includes at least 34, 36, and 33, which includes at least 42-46 (par. 63-64) in the new ground of rejection above, which meet the scope of the amended claim.
The limitation at issue is also addressed via Tiu reference in view of Bauer. See above.
Remarks page 6-7: applicant argues that Yamazaki also fails to disclose “the support frame is attached to and supported by a frame constituting a framework of the machine body to be rotatable …while maintaining a relative positional relationship between the pair of vertical frames and the horizontal frame”, showing hanging and tiled vertical frames positioning in figs. 2 and 3.
This is found not persuasive. The current claim language does not indicate which specific configuration is maintained between the vertical frames and horizontal frame. In this case, “a relative positional relationship” is interpreted to include fixed connection at top of vertical frames 34 and horizontal frame 36. As can be seen in Yamazaki’s figures 2-3, top end of the vertical frames 34 remain directly fixed to horizontal frame 36, before and after rotation.
The same reasoning applies to applicant’s argument against the combination of Tiu reference in view of Bauer.
In light of the responses above, the prior art rejections presented above shall be maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUONGMINH NGUYEN PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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 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.
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752