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 .
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.
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (USP 9,510,525) in view of Warner (USP 3,147,922) in view of Miller et al. (USP 10,271,474).
With respect to claim 14, Schmidt disclose a method of distributing liquid fertilizer in an agricultural implement, the method comprising: providing, from a system source (10), liquid fertilizer through a conduit (12); pumping, with a positive displacement pump (20) operated by a motor (see column 4 line 43), the liquid fertilizer through an adjustable relief valve (30), said adjustable relief valve regulating the pressure of the liquid fertilizer in the system (see column 13 lines 10-19); monitoring, with a flowmeter (42), the flow of the liquid fertilizer after is has passed through the positive displacement pump (see column 6 lines 22-26); and distributing the liquid fertilizer at one or more row units of the agricultural implement (see figure 1). Schmidt disclose orifice outlets (see column 5 lines 24-36) positioned downstream the flowmeter (see figure 2), with respect to a direction of transport for the liquid fertilizer (see figure 2), for spraying the liquid fertilizer onto a field (see column 5 lines 34-44); wherein all orifice outlets for spraying the liquid fertilizer onto a field are in parallel with one another (see figure 2).
Schmidt discloses a variable degree of throttling but does not disclose that the adjustable relief valve is modulated with a spring. Warner disclose a valve modulated with a spring to represent pressure means which exerts a closing pressure on a ball (see column 3 lines 2-13). As both Schmidt and Warner disclose relief valves, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the valve in Schmidt with the valve having a spring as taught by Warner in order to allow control of the valve to remain open during normal operating pressure and close when a closing pressure is reached and provide controlled throttling between the opened and closed positions.
Schmidt in view of Warner does not disclose confirming, via a flow switch, the presence of the liquid fertilizer in the conduit. Miller et al. teaches using a flow switch to ensure water (which includes fertilizers) is flowing (see column 18 lines 9-37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to have modified the method of distributing fertilizer as taught by Schmidt by including a flow switch as taught by Miller et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure that liquid is flowing in the system.
With respect to claim 15, Schmidt disclose further comprising controlling the liquid fertilizer from the system source with an electric ball valve (14, wherein Schmidt is silent as to the type of valve, however, it would have been obvious to have used the same type of valve for 14 as 30 for the purpose of saving time and money by using the same valve, which is an electric ball valve as modified by Warner) upstream of the positive displacement pump (see figure 1).
With respect to claim 16, Schimdt discloses further comprising filtering (13) the liquid fertilizer before and/or after pumping with the positive displacement pump (see figure 1).
With respect to claim 17, Schimdt disclose further comprising monitoring, with one or more pressure gauges (41), the pressure of the liquid fertilizer downstream of the positive displacement pump (see figure 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-13, and 18-20 are allowed. As noted in the nonfinal rejection mailed 11/6/25, the prior art does not disclose a flow switch between the filter and positive displacement pump to confirm the presence of the liquid fertilizer in the conduit in combination with the other limitations of the amended independent claims 1 and 18.
Response to Arguments
With respect to claim 14, Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 2/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As noted above, Miller et al. teaches that flow switches are known in the art to confirm the presence of liquid in a conduit.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE A COY whose telephone number is (571)272-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-3:30pm.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672