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 June 23rd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6 and 9-15 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Action sent out on March 25th, 2026.
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 1-2, 4, 9-10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bittner et al. (US 20200298260 A1) in view of Ledebuhr et al. (US 20210321601 A1) and Adams et al. (US Patent 10,813,278).
Regarding claim 1, Bittner discloses a liquid fertilizer drawback system (35, Fig. 1) for use with an agricultural implement (15, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0020) comprising:
a pump (36, Fig. 2) to transport liquid fertilizer from a system source (55, pump 36 can be controlled to pump product from the tank 55 to a given product line 104, shown in Fig. 2, Paragraph 0023);
a conduit system (annotated in Fig. 2) between the pump (36, Fig. 2) and a portion of the agricultural implement where the liquid fertilizer may be eradicated from the system (104a, 104b, 102, product from product line 104a, 104b is supplied to a nozzle system 102 for spraying, shown in Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0021, 0023);
wherein the pump (36, Fig. 2) is operable to move liquid fertilizer in the conduit system (annotated in Fig. 2) from the system source (55, Fig. 2) and towards the portion of the agricultural implement where the liquid fertilizer may be eradicated from the system (104a, 104b, 102, pump 36 can be controlled to pump product from the tank 55 to a given product line 104 and product from product line 104a, 104b is supplied to a nozzle system 102 for spraying, shown in Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0021, 0023);
wherein the agricultural implement (15, Fig. 1) is configured to be supported via a plurality of wheels (18, Fig. 1) on a ground (shown in Fig. 1) to be towed behind a vehicle (not explicitly shown, but sprayer 15 shown in Fig. 1 is shown as an exemplary front-mounted boom self-propelled sprayer, but there can be various other forms of the sprayer 15, including a detachable sprayer which may be towed behind a vehicle, Paragraph 0019).
PNG
media_image1.png
597
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bittner discloses all aspects of the present invention except for a two-way, reversible pump to transport liquid fertilizer from a system source or toward the system source, wherein the pump is in communication with a motor to transport the liquid fertilizer, wherein the two way, reversible pump is operable to both move liquid fertilizer in the conduit system towards and from the system source and towards and from the portion of the agricultural implement where the liquid fertilizer may be eradicated from the system, and explicitly disclosing wherein the agricultural implement is configured to be supported via a plurality of wheels on a ground to be towed behind a vehicle.
Ledebuhr teaches a liquid fertilizer drawback system (10, 14, Figs. 1-4) comprising a two-way, reversible pump (28, pump 28 is propelled by motor 29 to provide flow from tank 22 to nozzle 20 and pump 28 may be driven by a reversible motor 29 to deliver liquid back to tank 22, Fig. 4, Paragraphs 0018, 0020) to transport liquid fertilizer from a system source (22, Fig. 4) or toward the system source (22, pump 28 is propelled by motor 29 to provide flow from tank 22 to nozzle 20 and pump 28 may be driven by a reversible motor 29 to deliver liquid back to tank 22, Fig. 4, Paragraphs 0018, 0020), wherein the pump (28, Fig. 4) is in communication with a motor (29, Fig. 4) to transport the liquid fertilizer (Paragraphs 0018, 0020);
wherein the two way, reversible pump (28, Fig. 4) is operable to both move liquid fertilizer in the conduit system towards and from the system source (22, Fig. 4) and towards and from the portion of the agricultural implement where the liquid fertilizer may be eradicated from the system (20, pump 28 is propelled by motor 29 to provide flow from tank 22 to nozzle 20 and pump 28 may be driven by a reversible motor 29 to deliver liquid back to tank 22, Fig. 4, Paragraphs 0018, 0020).
Bittner and Ledebuhr are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of liquid fertilizer drawback systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of the two way, reversible pump and the additional motor taught in Ledebuhr’s system to Bittner’s system, to have a two-way, reversible pump to transport liquid fertilizer from a system source or toward the system source, wherein the pump is in communication with a motor to transport the liquid fertilizer. Doing so allows spraying to be terminated to preserve liquid (Ledebuhr, Paragraph 0020).
Bittner, as modified by Ledebuhr, discloses all aspects of the present invention except for explicitly disclosing wherein the agricultural implement is configured to be supported via a plurality of wheels on a ground to be towed behind a vehicle.
Adams teaches a liquid fertilizer drawback system (10, Fig. 1) comprising wherein the agricultural implement (14, 16, Fig. 1) is configured to be supported via a plurality of wheels on a ground (shown in Fig. 1) to be towed behind a vehicle (12, shown in Fig. 1).
Bittner, Ledebuhr, and Adams are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of liquid fertilizer drawback systems Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the teaching of the agricultural implement taught in Bittner’s system, as modified by Ledebuhr above, for the agricultural implement taught in Adams’ system, to have wherein the agricultural implement is configured to be supported via a plurality of wheels on a ground to be towed behind a vehicle. There is a motivation to substitute the agricultural implement taught in Adams’ system to Bittner’s system, as modified by Ledebuhr, because doing so leaves the soil in an optimal state due to optimum performance of the implement (Adams, Col. 2, Ln. 1-4, 45-50). Bittner also suggests there can be various other forms of the sprayer 15, including a detachable sprayer which may be towed behind a vehicle (Paragraph 0019), so there is a reasonable motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the agricultural implement disclosed in Bittner for the agricultural implement taught in Adams’ system.
In regards to claim 2, Bittner, as modified by Ledebuhr and Adams, discloses the system of claim 1. Bittner discloses the system (35, Fig. 1) further comprising a flow meter (104a, 105b, Fig. 2) to display the flow of the liquid fertilizer (flow meters 105a, 105b are used to measure liquid product flow in the control system, Paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 4, Bittner, as modified by Ledebuhr and Adams, discloses the system of claim 1. Bittner further discloses the system source (55, Fig. 2) is a tank (shown in Fig. 2, Paragraph 0020).
In regards to claim 9, Bittner discloses a liquid fertilizer drawback system (35, Fig. 1) for use with an agricultural implement (15, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0020) comprising:
a pump (36, Fig. 2) to transport liquid fertilizer from or toward a system source (55, pump 36 can be controlled to pump product from the tank 55 to a given product line 104 to supply product to nozzle system 102 for spraying, shown in Fig. 2, Paragraph 0023); and
a plurality of valves (108a, 108b, Fig. 2) in communication with the pump (36, shown in Fig. 2) to facilitate the flow of the liquid fertilizer (first valve 108a controls flow between the first product line 104a, pump 36, and tank 55, and second valve 108b controls flow between the second product line 104b, pump 36, and tank 55, Paragraph 0022);
wherein a conduit system (annotated in Fig. 2) includes a first path (path between pump 36 and valves 108a, 108b, Fig. 2) based upon the plurality of valves (108a, 108b, Fig. 2) in which the liquid fertilizer moves towards the portion of the agricultural implement where the liquid fertilizer may be eradicated from the system (104a, 104b, 102, valves 108 can be controlled to pump product from the tank 55 to a given product line 104 to supply product to nozzle system 102 for spraying, shown in Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0022-0023) and a second path (path between valves 108a, 108b and tank 55, shown in Fig. 2) based upon the plurality of valves (108a, 108b, Fig. 2) in which the liquid fertilizer moves towards the system source (55, valves 108 can be controlled to return product from product line 104 back to tank 55, shown in Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0022-0023);
wherein the agricultural implement (15, Fig. 1) is configured to be supported via a plurality of wheels (18, Fig. 1) on a ground (shown in Fig. 1) to be towed behind a vehicle (not explicitly shown, but sprayer 15 shown in Fig. 1 is shown as an exemplary front-mounted boom self-propelled sprayer, but there can be various other forms of the sprayer 15, including a detachable sprayer which may be towed behind a vehicle, Paragraph 0019).
Bittner discloses all aspects of the present invention except for a positive displacement pump to transport liquid fertilizer from or toward a system source and from and toward a portion of the agricultural implement where the liquid fertilizer may be eradicated from the system, wherein the pump is in communication with a motor to transport the liquid fertilizer, and explicitly disclosing wherein the agricultural implement is configured to be supported via a plurality of wheels on a ground to be towed behind a vehicle.
Ledebuhr teaches a liquid fertilizer drawback system (10, 14, Figs. 1-4) comprising a positive displacement pump (28, pump 28 may be a gear pump, Paragraph 0006) to transport liquid fertilizer from or toward a system source (22, Fig. 4) and from and toward a portion of the agricultural implement (20, Fig. 4) where the liquid fertilizer may be eradicated from the system (pump 28 is propelled by motor 29 to provide flow from tank 22 to nozzle 20 and pump 28 may be driven by a reversible motor 29 to deliver liquid back to tank 22, Fig. 4, Paragraphs 0018, 0020), wherein the pump (28, Fig. 4) is in communication with a motor (29, Fig. 4) to transport the liquid fertilizer (Paragraphs 0018, 0020).
Bittner and Ledebuhr are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of liquid fertilizer drawback systems Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of the two way, reversible pump and the additional motor taught in Ledebuhr’s system to Bittner’s system, to have a two-way, reversible pump to transport liquid fertilizer from a system source or toward the system source, wherein the pump is in communication with a motor to transport the liquid fertilizer. Doing so allows spraying to be terminated to preserve liquid (Ledebuhr, Paragraph 0020).
Bittner, as modified by Ledebuhr, discloses all aspects of the present invention except for explicitly disclosing wherein the agricultural implement is configured to be supported via a plurality of wheels on a ground to be towed behind a vehicle.
Adams teaches a liquid fertilizer drawback system (10, Fig. 1) comprising wherein the agricultural implement (14, 16, Fig. 1) is configured to be supported via a plurality of wheels on a ground (shown in Fig. 1) to be towed behind a vehicle (12, shown in Fig. 1).
Bittner, Ledebuhr, and Adams are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of liquid fertilizer drawback systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the teaching of the agricultural implement taught in Bittner’s system, as modified by Ledebuhr above, for the agricultural implement taught in Adams’ system, to have wherein the agricultural implement is configured to be supported via a plurality of wheels on a ground to be towed behind a vehicle. There is a motivation to substitute the agricultural implement taught in Adams’ system to Bittner’s system, as modified by Ledebuhr, because doing so leaves the soil in an optimal state due to optimum performance of the implement (Adams, Col. 2, Ln. 1-4, 45-50). Bittner also suggests there can be various other forms of the sprayer 15, including a detachable sprayer which may be towed behind a vehicle (Paragraph 0019), so there is a reasonable motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the agricultural implement disclosed in Bittner for the agricultural implement taught in Adams’ system.
Regarding claim 10, Bittner, as modified by Ledebuhr and Adams, discloses the system of claim 9. Bittner discloses the system (35, Fig. 1) further comprising a flow meter (104a, 105b, Fig. 2) to display the flow of the liquid fertilizer (flow meters 105a, 105b are used to measure liquid product flow in the control system, Paragraph 0021).
With respect to claim 12, Bittner, as modified by Ledebuhr and Adams, discloses the system of claim 9. Bittner further discloses the system source (55, Fig. 2) is a tank (shown in Fig. 2, Paragraph 0020).
Regarding claim 14, Bittner, as modified by Ledebuhr and Adams, discloses the system of claim 9. Bittner further discloses the plurality of valves (108a, 108b, Fig. 2) can be manipulated to reverse the flow of the liquid fertilizer either from a system source or toward a system source (55, valves 108 can be controlled to pump product from the tank 55 to a given product line 104 and valves 108 can be controlled to return product from product line 104 back to tank 55, shown in Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0022-0023).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bittner et al. (US 20200298260 A1) in view of Ledebuhr et al. (US 20210321601 A1) and Adams et al. (US Patent 10,813,278) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brechon (US 20180139895 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Bittner, as modified by Ledebuhr and Adams, discloses the system of claim 1. However, Bittner, Ledebuhr, and Adams do not teach the pump is a vane pump. Brechon teaches a liquid fertilizer drawback system (10, Fig. 1) comprising the pump (185, Fig. 2) is a vane pump (Paragraph 0097).
Bittner, Ledebuhr, Adams, and Brechon are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of liquid fertilizer drawback systems 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 teaching of the pump taught in Brechon’s system to Bittner’s system, as modified by Ledebuhr and Adams, to have the pump is a vane pump. Doing so produces a desired flow rate (Brechon, Paragraphs 0097-0098, 0106).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bittner et al. (US 20200298260 A1) in view of Ledebuhr et al. (US 20210321601 A1) and Adams et al. (US Patent 10,813,278) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Pitaud (US 20230019528 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Bittner, as modified by Ledebuhr and Adams, discloses the system of claim 1. However, Bittner, Ledebuhr, and Adams do not teach one or more pressure sensors. Pitaud teaches the system (100, Fig. 1) further comprising one or more pressure sensors (24b, Fig. 1) to measure the pressure of the liquid fertilizer (Paragraph 0066).
Bittner, Ledebuhr, Adams, and Pitaud are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of liquid fertilizer drawback systems 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 teaching of the one or more pressure sensors taught in Pitaud’s system to Bittner’s system, as modified by Ledebuhr and Adams, to have one or more pressure sensors. Doing so ensures pressure in the system is greater than or equal to a threshold pressure (Pitaud, Paragraph 0066).
With respect to claim 13, Bittner, as modified by Ledebuhr and Adams, discloses the system of claim 9. However, Bittner, Ledebuhr, and Adams do not teach one or more pressure sensors. Pitaud teaches the system (100, Fig. 1) further comprising one or more pressure sensors (24b, Fig. 1) to measure the pressure of the liquid fertilizer (Paragraph 0066).
Bittner, Ledebuhr, Adams, and Pitaud are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of liquid fertilizer drawback systems 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 teaching of the one or more pressure sensors taught in Pitaud’s system to Bittner’s system, as modified by Ledebuhr and Adams, to have one or more pressure sensors. Doing so ensures pressure in the system is greater than or equal to a threshold pressure (Pitaud, Paragraph 0066).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bittner et al. (US 20200298260 A1) in view of Ledebuhr et al. (US 20210321601 A1) and Adams et al. (US Patent 10,813,278) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Long et al. (US 20230090714 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Bittner, as modified by Ledebuhr and Adams, discloses the system of claim 1. Bittner further discloses wherein the implement control system (114, Fig. 2) can sense, measure, monitor, and/or control aspects of the system of claim 1 (electronic control system 114 can control states or modes of operation within the system, and be used to sense, measure, or monitor flow in the system, Paragraphs 0021, 0023).
However, Bittner, Ledebuhr, and Adams do not teach the system further comprising an implement control system comprising zero or more intelligent planter routers, zero or more intelligent planter nodes, zero or more intelligent planter positionings, and zero or more displays, wherein the implement control system can sense, measure, monitor, and/or control aspects of the system of claim 1.
Long teaches a liquid fertilizer drawback system (102, Fig. 4) comprising an implement control system (106, Fig. 4) comprising zero or more IPRs (interpreting as a router, 308, cloud-based applications 308 can be a router, Fig. 6, Paragraph 0093), zero or more IPNs (interpreting as a node, 302, network/cloud can be a node, Fig. 6, Paragraph 0094), zero or more IPPs (interpreting as positioning device, 112, Fig. 4), and zero or more displays (142, 142A, Fig. 4).
Bittner, Ledebuhr, Adams, and Long are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of liquid fertilizer drawback systems Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the teaching of the implement control system taught in Long’s system to Bittner’s system, as modified by Ledebuhr and Adams, to have the system further comprising an implement control system comprising zero or more IPRs, zero or more IPNs, zero or more IPPs, and zero or more displays, wherein the implement control system can sense, measure, monitor, and/or control aspects of the system of claim 1. Doing so improves spray operations of the system by communicating to the user various information of an object being sprayed (Long, Paragraphs 0004, 0036-0037).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bittner et al. (US 20200298260 A1) in view of Ledebuhr et al. (US 20210321601 A1) and Adams et al. (US Patent 10,813,278) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Michael et al. (US 20140252111 A1).
In regards to claim 11, Bittner, as modified by Ledebuhr and Adams, discloses the system of claim 9. However, Bittner, Ledebuhr, and Adams do not disclose the pump is a diaphragm pump. Michael teaches a liquid fertilizer drawback system (105, Fig. 1) comprising the pump is a diaphragm pump (340, pump device can be a diaphragm pump device, Fig. 3, Paragraph 0027).
Bittner, Ledebuhr, Adams, and Michael are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of liquid fertilizer drawback systems 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 teaching of the pump taught in Michael’s system to Bittner’s system, as modified by Ledebuhr and Adams, to have the pump is a diaphragm pump. Doing so improves provides more control of the flow stream (Michael, Paragraphs 0017, 0027).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bittner et al. (US 20200298260 A1) in view of Ledebuhr et al. (US 20210321601 A1) and Adams et al. (US Patent 10,813,278) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Long et al. (US 20230090714 A1).
In regards to claim 15, Bittner, as modified by Ledebuhr and Adams, discloses the system of claim 9. Bittner further discloses wherein the implement control system (114, Fig. 2) can sense, measure, monitor, and/or control aspects of the system of claim 1 (electronic control system 114 can control states or modes of operation within the system, and be used to sense, measure, or monitor flow in the system, Paragraphs 0021 0023).
However, Bittner, Ledebuhr, and Adams do not teach the system further comprising an implement control system comprising zero or more IPRs, zero or more IPNs, zero or more IPPs, and zero or more displays.
Long teaches a liquid fertilizer drawback system (102, Fig. 4) comprising an implement control system (106, Fig. 4) comprising zero or more intelligent planter routers (interpreting as a router, 308, cloud-based applications 308 can be a router, Fig. 6, Paragraph 0093), zero or more intelligent planter nodes (interpreting as a node, 302, network/cloud can be a node, Fig. 6, Paragraph 0094), zero or more intelligent planter positionings (interpreting as positioning device, 112, Fig. 4), and zero or more displays (142, 142A, Fig. 4).
Bittner, Ledebuhr, Adams, and Long are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of liquid fertilizer drawback systems Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the teaching of the implement control system taught in Long’s system to Bittner’s system, as modified by Ledebuhr and Adams, to have the system further comprising an implement control system comprising zero or more IPRs, zero or more IPNs, zero or more IPPs, and zero or more displays. Doing so improves spray operations of the system by communicating to the user various information of an object being sprayed (Long, Paragraphs 0004, 0036-0037).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 9-15 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
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights