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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed March 2nd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 8, 10-11, and 18-28 remain pending in the application.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 that is coupled with functional language 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: an operator input device in claim 21, ln. 17.
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. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that an operator input device is a switch control.
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 § 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.
Claim 27 is 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.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “an auxiliary pump” in ln. 5. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the applicant is referring to the auxiliary pump previously introduced in claim 21, or if the applicant is introducing a new feature. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant is referring to the auxiliary pump previously introduced in claim 21.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ringer et al. (US Patent 6,776,355) in view of Moore et al. (US 20230292732 A1) and Sporrer et al. (US 20170013822 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Ringer discloses an agricultural sprayer (10, Fig. 1), comprising:
a frame (12, Fig. 1);
a plurality of wheels (14, 16, Fig. 1) coupled to the frame (12, shown in Fig. 1);
a boom assembly (22, Fig. 1) supported on the frame (12, shown in Fig. 1), the boom assembly (22, Fig. 1) extending in a lateral direction between a first end and a second end (shown in Fig. 1);
a plurality of nozzles (40, Fig. 1) supported on the boom assembly (22, shown in Fig. 1) and spaced apart from each other along the lateral direction (shown in Fig. 1), the plurality of nozzles (40, Fig. 1) configured to dispense an agricultural fluid onto underlying plants or soil (Col. 3, Ln. 9-11);
an agricultural fluid supply system (44, Fig. 2) configured to supply the agricultural fluid to the plurality of nozzles (Col. 3, Ln. 9-26), the agricultural fluid supply system (44, Fig. 2) including a plurality of supply valves (50, 51, 52, 53, 54, Fig. 2);
an operator input device (66, 68, interpreting as a switch control, Figs. 2-3b) that receives an input indicative of halting auxiliary operation of the agricultural sprayer (switches 66 have a disable position to shut spray valves 50-54, Col. 3, Ln. 14-34); and
a computing system (60, Fig. 2) communicatively coupled to the operator input device (66, 68, shown in Fig. 2, Col. 3, Ln. 14-19, Col. 4, Ln. 28-47), the computing system (60, Fig. 2) configured to:
receive the input from the operator input device (controller 60 is connected to individual section control switches 66 and master boom control switch 68, Col. 3, Ln. 14-26, Col. 4, Ln. 28-47).
However, Ringer does not disclose a hydrostatic pump configured to rotationally drive at least some of the plurality of wheels, the agricultural fluid supply system including a supply pump, and the computing system, upon receipt of the input, controls an operation of the hydrostatic pump, the agricultural fluid supply system, and the auxiliary pump such that the supply pump is halted, the plurality of supply valves is closed, the auxiliary pump is halted, and the hydrostatic pump remains operating.
Moore teaches an agricultural sprayer (100, Fig. 1) comprising a hydrostatic pump (“hydrostatic pump”, not explicitly shown in the drawings, but each drive wheel 106 has its own hydrostatic pump, Paragraph 0029) configured to rotationally drive at least some of the plurality of wheels (106a, 106b, each drive wheel 106 may be powered by its own hydraulic motor that receives power from its own hydrostatic pump, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0029);
an agricultural fluid supply system (120, Fig. 1) configured to supply the agricultural fluid (124, Fig. 1) to a nozzle (125, Figs. 6-7, Paragraph 0041), the agricultural fluid supply system (120, Fig. 1) including a supply pump (130, Fig. 6) and a plurality of supply valves (not explicitly shown, but treatment manifold 128 may have one or more valves corresponding to one or more liquid dispense conduits 125, Paragraph 0040); and
a computing system (110, Fig. 1) communicatively coupled to the operator input device (113, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0032), the computing system (110, Fig. 1) configured to:
upon receipt of the input, control an operation of the hydrostatic pump (operator controls permit independent control of the speed and direction of each drive wheel 106 by controlling the hydrostatic pump and hydraulic motor that powers each drive wheel 106, Paragraphs 0029-0030) and the agricultural fluid supply system such that the supply pump is halted, the plurality of supply valves is closed (treatment material delivery system 120 may have a treatment material control 134 configured to control the treating material delivery system 120, and the treatment material control 134 has two settings that including treating material to be transferred to the ground surface or the treatment delivery system 120 to be disabled, which would halt the treatment pump 130 and close the one or more valves of the treatment manifold 138, Paragraphs 0040, 0043, 0047), and the hydrostatic pump remains operating (operator controls permit independent control of the speed and direction of each drive wheel 106 by controlling the hydrostatic pump and hydraulic motor that powers each drive wheel 106 and these controls are independent of the treatment material control 134, which would allow the hydrostatic pump and motor to remain operating while the treatment delivery system 120 is disabled, Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0040, 0043, 0047).
Ringer and Moore are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the hydrostatic pump and the supply pump taught in Moore’s agricultural sprayer to Ringer’s agricultural sprayer, to have the motivation to provide power to propel the vehicle relative to the ground surface and also provides independent control speed and direction of each drive wheel and provides the user more control over when treatment liquid is applied to the field (Moore, Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0040, 0043, 0047).
However, Ringer and Moore do not teach an auxiliary actuator configured to move a first portion of the boom assembly relative to a second portion of the boom assembly, an auxiliary pump configured to supply hydraulic fluid to the auxiliary actuator, and the computing system, upon receipt of the input, controls an operation of the hydrostatic pump, the agricultural fluid supply system, and the auxiliary pump such that the supply pump is halted, the plurality of supply valves is closed, the auxiliary pump is halted, and the hydrostatic pump remains operating.
Sporrer teaches an agricultural sprayer (entire structure, Fig. 1) comprising:
an auxiliary actuator (70, Fig. 3) configured to move a first portion (54, Figs. 1, 3) of the boom assembly (32, Fig. 1) relative to a second portion (36, Figs. 1, 3) of the boom assembly (32, retraction of hydraulic cylinder 70 extends wing 54, and extension of hydraulic cylinder 70 pivots folding wing 54 into a folded position, Figs. 1, 3, Paragraph 0018);
an auxiliary pump (16, Fig. 4) configured to supply hydraulic fluid to the auxiliary actuator (70, hydraulic fluid is directed from hydraulic pump 16 to hydraulic cylinder 70, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0021); and
the computing system (48, Fig. 2):
upon receipt of the input, controls an operation of the auxiliary pump (16, Fig. 4) such that the auxiliary pump (16, Fig. 4) is halted (control panel 48 is used to direct hydraulic fluid from the hydraulic pump 16 to the hydraulic cylinder 70 to cause retraction or extension of the cylinder 70 until a desired position is obtained, and when the retraction or extension of the cylinder 70 is maintained for a desired position, no hydraulic fluid is required to be directed into the cylinder 70, so it can be understood that hydraulic pump 16 can be controlled to halt hydraulic fluid traveling from hydraulic pump 16 to hydraulic cylinder 70 to avoid further movement of the cylinder 70, Paragraph 0021).
Ringer, Moore, and Sporrer are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the auxiliary actuator, the auxiliary pump, and the computing system taught in Sporrer’s agricultural sprayer to Ringer’s agricultural sprayer, as modified by Moore, to have the motivation that adding an auxiliary actuator and an auxiliary pump facilitates more effective movement of the boom sections in desired positions, including the boom to be folded into a transport position or be partially folded to work around obstacles in fields or non-uniform field boundaries (Sporrer, Paragraph 0002).
With respect to claim 27, Ringer, as modified by Moore and Sporrer, discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 21. Sporrer teaches the auxiliary actuator (70, Fig. 3) corresponds to a first auxiliary actuator (70, Fig. 3), the agricultural sprayer (entire structure, Fig. 1) further comprising:
a second auxiliary actuator (46, Fig. 1) configured to move a third portion (38, Fig. 1) of the boom assembly (32, Fig. 1) relative to a fourth portion (34, Fig. 1) of the boom assembly (32, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0017),
wherein an auxiliary pump (16, Fig. 4) configured to supply hydraulic fluid to the second auxiliary actuator (46, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 28, Ringer, as modified by Moore and Sporrer, discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 21. Ringer further teaches a cab (35, Fig. 1) supported on the frame (12, shown in Fig. 1),
wherein the operator input device (66, 68, Figs. 2-3b) is positioned within the cab (35, operator station includes control console 36 where individual section control switches 66 and master boom control switch structure 68 are located, Figs. 1, 3a-3b, Col. 3, Ln. 1-8).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ringer et al. (US Patent 6,776,355) in view of Moore et al. (US 20230292732 A1) and Sporrer et al. (US 20170013822 A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Curran, Jr. et al. (US Patent 4,723,709).
With respect to claim 22, Ringer, as modified by Moore and Sporrer, discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 21. However, Ringer, Moore, and Sporrer do not teach a purge valve. Curran teaches an agricultural sprayer (1, Fig. 3) comprising:
a purge valve (22, 22’, drain valves 22, 22’ are operated to purge air when they are open, Fig. 9, Col. 7, Ln. 22-56) configured to control a flow of purge air to the plurality of nozzles (10, 10’, Col. 7, Ln. 22-56),
wherein, upon receipt of the input, the computing system (48, Fig. 9) is configured to control the operation of the purge valve (22, 22’, Fig. 9) such that the purge valve (22, 22’, Fig. 9) is closed (programmable logic controller and manual sequence switches may be supplied to allow valve sequence control, which determines when the valve 22, 22’ close, Col. 5, Ln. 44-52, Col. 6, Ln. 45-56, Col. 7, Ln. 22-56).
Ringer, Moore, Sporrer, and Curran are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the purge valve taught in Curran’s agricultural sprayer to Ringer’s agricultural sprayer, as modified by Moore and Sporrer, to have a purge valve configured to control a flow of purge air to the plurality of nozzles, and upon receipt of the input, the computing system is configured to control the operation of the purge valve such that the purge valve is closed. Doing so allows the system to be cleaned (Curran, Col. 7, Ln. 22-56).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ringer et al. (US Patent 6,776,355) in view of Moore et al. (US 20230292732 A1) and Sporrer et al. (US 20170013822 A1) as applied to claim 21 above, further in view of Curran, Jr. et al. (US Patent 4,723,709) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Cook et al. (US 20220142043 A1).
In regards to claim 23, Ringer, as modified by Moore, Sporrer, and Curran discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 22. However, Ringer, Moore, Sporrer, and Curran do not teach a purge air pump. Cook teaches an agricultural sprayer (entire structure, Fig. 8) comprising a purge air pump (“spray pump”, Paragraph 0074) configured to generate flow of purge air (spray pump sprays pressurized material to purge and clear spray lines, Paragraph 0074),
wherein, upon receipt of the input, the computing system (1, Fig. 1) is configured to control the operation of the purge air pump such that the purge air pump is halted (spray button 4 of control interface 1 is pushed to turn on the pump to spray material to purge or clear the spray lines, and turns off when the button is off, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0074).
Ringer, Moore, Sporrer, Curran, and Cook are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the purge air pump taught in Cook’s agricultural sprayer to Ringer’s agricultural sprayer, as modified by Moore, Sporrer, and Curran, to have a purge air pump configured to generate a flow of pressurized purge air, and upon receipt of the input, the computing system is configured to control the operation of the purge air pump such that the purge air pump is halted. Doing so provides a desired pressure for the user to control to clear the spray lines (Cook, Paragraph 0074).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ringer et al. (US Patent 6,776,355) in view of Moore et al. (US 20230292732 A1) and Sporrer et al. (US 20170013822 A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Dunkel et al. (US 20200047206 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Ringer, as modified by Moore and Sporrer, discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 21. However, Ringer, Moore, and Sporrer do not teach a rinse valve. Dunkel teaches an agricultural sprayer (100, Fig. 1) comprising a rinse valve (256, valve(s) 256 controls the rinse substance 266, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0023) configured to control a flow of rinse liquid (266, Fig. 2) to the plurality of nozzles (126, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0023),
wherein, upon receipt of the input, the computing system (210, Fig. 2) is configured to control the operation of the rinse valve (256, Fig. 2) such that the rinse valve (256, Fig. 2) is closed (a control signal from a control system 210 through a user input is received to close valve(s) 256, Paragraphs 0017, 0019).
Ringer, Moore, Sporrer, and Dunkel are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the rinse valve taught in Dunkel’s agricultural sprayer to Ringer’s agricultural sprayer, as modified by Moore and Sporrer, to have a rinse valve configured to control a flow of rinse liquid to the plurality of nozzles, and upon receipt of the input, the computing system is configured to control the operation of the rinse valve such that the rinse valve is closed. Doing so provides control over when a rinse substance can be pumped into the system (Dunkel, Paragraph 0023).
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ringer et al. (US Patent 6,776,355) in view of Moore et al. (US 20230292732 A1) and Sporrer et al. (US 20170013822 A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Ringer et al. (US 20120267916 A1, herein referenced to as Ringer 2).
Regarding claim 25, Ringer, as modified by Moore and Sporrer, discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 21. However, Ringer, Moore, and Sporrer do not explicitly teach a hydraulic reservoir fluidly coupled to the hydrostatic pump and the auxiliary pump. Ringer 2 teaches an agricultural sprayer (10, Fig. 1) comprising a hydraulic reservoir (70, Fig. 6) fluidly coupled to the hydrostatic pump (not explicitly shown, but the front axle assembly 32 has a hydraulic steering mechanism that provides mechanical assistance to steer the front wheels 36 and control direction of travel, and is fluidly coupled to receive pressurized hydraulic fluid from the hydraulic drive system 54, Paragraph 0078) and the auxiliary pump (52, shown in Fig. 6).
Ringer, Moore, Sporrer, and Ringer 2 are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the hydraulic reservoir taught in Ringer 2’s agricultural sprayer to Ringer’s agricultural sprayer, as modified by Moore and Sporrer, to have the motivation to supply a specified amount of hydraulic fluid to the various hydraulic systems and components within an agricultural sprayer (Ringer 2, Paragraphs 0078, 0080).
In regards to claim 26, Ringer, as modified by Moore, Sporrer, and Ringer 2, discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 25. Sporrer further teaches a main valve (114, Fig. 8) fluidly coupled to the auxiliary pump (16, Fig. 4),
wherein upon receipt of the input, the computing system (48, Fig. 2) controls an operation of the main valve (114, Fig. 8) such that the main valve (114, Fig. 8) is open (control panel 48 is used to direct hydraulic fluid from the hydraulic pump 16 to the hydraulic cylinder 70 to retract it and causes the folding wing 54 to pivot and swing and activate valve 114 to open, Paragraph 0021).
Ringer, modified by Moore, Sporrer, and Ringer 2 above, would incorporate the valve 114 taught in Sporrer to have a main valve fluidly coupled to the hydraulic reservoir, the hydrostatic pump, and the auxiliary pump, and wherein upon receipt of the input, the computing system controls an operation of the main valve such that the main valve is open and the hydrostatic pump remains operating.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 8, 10-11, 18-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, Ringer et al. (US Patent 6,776,355), fail to teach, disclose, or suggest an agricultural sprayer comprising a hydrostatic pump configured to rotationally drive at least some of the plurality of wheels, an auxiliary actuator configured to move a first portion of the boom assembly relative to a second portion of the boom assembly, an auxiliary pump configured to supply hydraulic fluid to the auxiliary actuator, a purge valve configured to control a flow of purge air to the plurality of nozzles, a purge air pump configured to generate the flow of purge air, a rinse valve configured to control a flow of rinse liquid to the plurality of nozzles, a rinse pump configured to generate the flow of the rinse liquid, and a computing system communicatively coupled to the switch, wherein the computing system receives the input from the switch, and upon receipt of the input, controls an operation of the hydrostatic pump, the agricultural fluid supply system, the auxiliary pump, the purge valve, the purge air pump, the rinse valve, and the rinse pump such that the supply pump is halted, the plurality of supply valves is closed, the auxiliary pump is halted, the purge valve is closed, the purge air pump is halted, the rinse valve is closed, the rinse pump is halted, and the hydrostatic pump is operating, in combination with other limitations recited in the claims.
Other related art do teach the above features but it would destroy the operation of Ringer’s invention and be considered hindsight reasoning to combine these features to Ringer. Moore et al. (US 20230292732 A1) teaches a hydrostatic pump configured to rotationally drive at least some of the plurality of wheels. Sporrer et al. (US 20170013822 A1) teaches an auxiliary actuator configured to move a first portion of the boom assembly relative to a second portion of the boom assembly, and an auxiliary pump configured to supply hydraulic fluid to the auxiliary actuator. Curran, Jr. et al. (US Patent 4,723,709) teaches a purge valve configured to control a flow of purge air to the plurality of nozzles. Cook et al. (US 20220142043 A1) teaches a purge air pump configured to generate the flow of purge air. Dunkel et al. (US 20200047206 A1) teaches a rinse valve configured to control a flow of rinse liquid to the plurality of nozzles, and a rinse pump configured to generate the flow of the rinse liquid. The structures of Ringer, Moore, Sporrer, Curran, Jr., Cook, and Dunkel are all different structures. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably combine all of these features together to Ringer without referring to the present invention, which would be hindsight rationale.
Additionally, adding all of these features together to Ringer would defeat the intended use of Ringer’s agricultural sprayer. Ringer’s hydrostatic drive system and agricultural fluid supply system would not structurally support the hydrostatic pump taught in Moore, the auxiliary actuator and the auxiliary pump taught in Sporrer, the purge valve in Curran, Jr., the purge air pump in Cook, and the rinse valve and the rinse pump in Dunkel. Adding these features would prevent the hydraulic fluid from traveling within Ringer’s hydrostatic drive system properly which prevents Ringer’s front and ground wheels 14 from being powered. This modification would also prevent agricultural fluid from being dispensed from the plurality of nozzles as disclosed in Ringer. It is noted that Ringer, Moore, Sporrer, Curran, Jr., Cook, and Dunkel are considered to be the best prior art of record to the present invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-28 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
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 Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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 O 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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights