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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of invention Group I in the reply filed on July 22, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Applicant believes all three distinct inventions can reasonably be examined on the merits in one application without a serious burden on the Examiner. Applicant attempts to support this position by stating that since each of the distinct inventions includes one or more common features, the inventions could be expeditiously searched without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because in order to give full consideration of all the limitations of the recognized divergent subject matter between the identified distinct inventions, the Examiner would be required to perform an unduly burdensome search. Applicant also argues that the restriction requirement is improper because Applicant essentially asserts that the Office action mailed May 22, 2025 fails to provide sufficient examples which demonstrate patentable distinctions between the identified invention groups. This is not found persuasive because such is simply untrue, as clearly articulated in paragraph 2 of the aforementioned Office action. It should also be noted that dependent claim 3 of the elected invention Group I is an “evidence” claim which, at least in part, clearly demonstrates the patentable distinctions discussed in the aforementioned Office action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 22, 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on July 26, 2022 is hereby acknowledged and has been placed of record. Please find attached a signed copy of the IDS.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “20” has been used to designate both the “field” in Fig. 1 (consistent with the specification) and the “cab” in Fig. 2 (not consistent with the specification).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are also objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “114” has been used to designate both the “first end portion” of “second actuation assembly 78” in Figs. 7-9 (consistent with the specification) and the “second end portion” of “second actuation assembly 78” in Fig. 7 (not consistent with the specification).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “116” has been used to designate both the “second end portion” of “second actuation assembly 78” in Fig. 7 (consistent with the specification) and what appears to be an incorrect location on “link 90” in Fig. 7 (not consistent with the specification).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “132” has been used to designate both the retraction “direction” of “first actuation assembly 76” in Fig. 8 (consistent with the specification) and the extension “direction” of “second actuation assembly 78” in Fig. 8 (not consistent with the specification).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference number “68” (at least 4 locations in Fig. 3) is not found in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 3-5 and 9 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.
Regarding claim 3, on lines 5-6, the recitation, “the control flow valve” lacks clear antecedent basis. Claim 3 introduces “a flow valve” and “a control valve”. Thus, it is somewhat unclear as to which valve “the control flow valve” is referring. As understood, the indefinite recitation is referring to the “control valve” introduced on line 5 of the claim. Is this correct?
Regarding claim 4, on line 1, the recitation, “the actuatable flow valve” lacks clear antecedent basis. Is this recitation referring to the “flow valve” introduced on line 2 of claim 3?
Regarding claim 9, on line 5, the recitation, “the position indicators” is somewhat unclear. Line 5 of the claim introduces “one or more position indicators”, however such has not necessarily been limited to a plurality thereof, so as to provide proper antecedent basis to “the position indicators”.
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 1, 2, 6, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastin et al., USPN 6,119,963, in view of Klemann et al., EP-3501252-B1 (see English language translation provided herewith for specific locations referenced below in the corresponding specification – Note: page numbers referenced below correspond the 1st through 16th pages of the provided English translation).
As to claim 1, Bastin (see Figs. 1-7) shows a boom assembly (12) for an agricultural applicator (10), the boom assembly comprising: a frame (24) supporting a boom arm (26) pivotably coupled to the frame (see Figs. 2-6) and rotatable about a first axis (46); a first actuation assembly (56) having a first end portion (66) pivotably coupled to the frame and a second end portion (68) pivotably coupled to the boom arm at a first pivot point (70) for rotation about a second axis (72) on a first side of the first axis (see Fig. 2); a second actuation assembly (58) having a first end portion (86) pivotably coupled to the frame and a second end portion (88) pivotably coupled to the boom arm at a second pivot point (98) for rotation about a third axis (100) on a second side of the first axis (see Fig. 2); a sensor (150 or 152, depending on whether the aforementioned elements addressed above are located on the “left” or “right” side of the “boom assembly”) configured to detect data indicative of a relative position of the boom arm relative to the frame (see Fig. 7; and see column 8, lines 40-56). However, while the system of Bastin includes a control circuit (144) which is configured to activate at least one of the first actuation assembly or the second actuation assembly (see column 8, lines 30-39), the “control circuit” of Bastin is not reasonably a computing system which activates at least one of the actuation assemblies in response to determining that the boom arm has deviated from a predefined angular range.
Klemann (see Figs. 1-6) shows and describes a boom assembly (5) for an agricultural applicator (1) having a similar design, function and effect as compared to that of Bastin, with the Klemann system also including a frame (7) supporting a boom arm (at portion 9i) pivotably coupled to the frame; at least one actuation assembly (“adjusting devices” – not shown; see the 2nd and 6th paragraphs on page 11) pivotably coupled between the frame and the boom arm; a sensor (“detection means”/”sensors” – not shown; see the 5th through 8th paragraphs on page 3; and the 4th and 5th paragraphs on page 11) configured to detect data indicative of a relative position of the boom arm relative to the frame. Klemann also discloses inclusion of a computing system (“control and/or regulating system” discussed throughout the disclosure, which includes a “data processing unit” / “computer”) configured to activate the at least one actuation assembly in response to determining that the boom arm has deviated from a predefined angular range (the 2nd paragraph on page 11 clearly discloses hydraulic adjusting devices/actuators operatively associated with the control system and the sensor(s) detecting boom alignment deviations, as discussed in the 4th through 6th paragraphs on page 11), thus allowing the boom arm to reliably and automatically return to a position which is not deviated from the predefined angular range (see the 7th paragraph on page 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bastin, so as to include a computing system, as taught by Klemann, which is configured to activate at least one of the first actuation assembly or the second actuation assembly of the Bastin system, in response to determining that the boom arm has deviated from a predefined angular range, as taught by Klemann, thus allowing the boom arm to reliably and automatically return to a desired position of the boom arm relative to the frame within a predefined angular range.
As to claim 2, modified Bastin shows the boom assembly of claim 1, and wherein the first and second actuation assemblies are fluidly coupled with a hydraulic circuit (see Fig. 7 of Bastin).
As to claim 6, modified Bastin shows the boom assembly of claim 1. However, while Bastin expressly discloses that “any well known angular position sensors may be employed” (see column 8, lines 52-53) for the disclosed “sensor(s)”, Bastin does not expressly state that the system further includes a detector assembly optically coupled with the sensor(s).
The “detection means” disclosed by Klemann is optionally stated so as to be that of an “optical and/or imaging” type detection means (see the 7th paragraph on page 3), which implicitly means inclusion of a detector assembly optically coupled with a sensor. Therefore, since Bastin is expressly open to using any known angular position sensor, and Klemann expressly discloses the option of using an “optical” detection means (which implicitly includes a detector assembly optically coupled with a sensor) for an angular position sensor arrangement, which is essentially designed to perform the same function as the sensor(s) disclosed by Bastin (i.e., detecting data indicative of a position of the boom arm relative to the frame), then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a detector assembly optically coupled with a sensor, as taught by Klemann, for the sensor(s) disclosed by Bastin, thus providing essentially the same sensing function in an alternative, but at least equally-effective manner.
As to claim 10, modified Bastin shows the boom assembly of claim 1, and wherein the first actuation assembly and the second actuation assembly are each configured as dual-acting piston-cylinder assemblies (see column 6, lines 48-52 of Bastin).
As to claim 11, modified Bastin shows the boom assembly of claim 1, and wherein the agricultural applicator includes a drive assembly (see column 8, lines 57-64), and wherein the sensor is activated when the drive assembly is in a drive position (see column 8, line 29, through column 9, line 26).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 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.
Claims 3-5 and 9 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patents to Harden et al., Dudley, Sobolik and Ferguson; and US Patent Application Publications to Leeb, Leeb et al., Schaider et al., Grotelueschen et al., Parling, Smith, Oberheide et al. and Anderson, are cited as of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752