Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/027,649

USE OF DISPENSING DEVICES IN AGRICULTURAL APPLICATIONS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Mar 22, 2023
Examiner
ELLIS, CHRISTOPHER P
Art Unit
3644
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
BASF Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
621 granted / 757 resolved
+30.0% vs TC avg
Minimal -0% lift
Without
With
+-0.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
769
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
33.5%
-6.5% vs TC avg
§102
36.4%
-3.6% vs TC avg
§112
15.2%
-24.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 757 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Specification The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use. Arrangement of the Specification As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading: (a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION. (b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS. (c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT. (d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. (e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM. (f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. (g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION. (1) Field of the Invention. (2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. (h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION. (i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S). (j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION. (k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet). (l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet). (m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system. 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 1-19 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. “Device D” used throughout the claims is confusing in that there is no reference letter D in the drawings. In claim 1, line 6, “device” lacks antecedent basis; line 7, “comprising” should be -comprises-; claim 4, lines 2-3, “from the order of” is unclear language; the listing of ingredients throughout the claims is repetitive and extensive resulting in confusing claim language. These are just a few examples of indefiniteness and it is recommended that the claims be completely revised and rewritten. 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) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al. CA 3103359. Perez discloses a method of dispensing a vapor having an active ingredient for agricultural applications structured as in the claimed invention. The method utilizes a device comprising an aeration system having a pipe 2; distributor 8 having a porous body, fig. 4; storage container 5 and electric heater member 11. Inasmuch as the list of ingredients disclosed within Perez does not match that of the claimed invention, it remains that the choosing of ingredients used would obviously be made in accordance with the particular application at that time. Further, the features recited in applicant’s claims 2-19 are extremely well known and could have been designed within the device of Perez and/or implemented at the time of use. Therefore, the Examiner takes Official Notice and these features do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P ELLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6914. The examiner can normally be reached normal business hours. 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, Tim Collins can be reached at 571.272.6886. 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. /CHRISTOPHER P ELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 22, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595063
Seat Central Control Arm with Tensioning
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595075
Controller Area Network Distribution System for Aircraft
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12569583
ARRANGEMENT STRUCTURE FOR PUMP-TYPE BOTTLE IN AIRCRAFT CABIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12559235
CALIBRATION FOR WIRELESS CARGO DEVICE RELATIVE ORIENTATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12559266
FISHING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (-0.3%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 757 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month