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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 28th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 29th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-6 and 9-15 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a plurality of” should be added before “wheels” in ln. 10.
“a” should be added before “ground” in ln. 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a plurality of” should be added before “wheels” in ln. 10.
“a” should be added before “ground” in ln. 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-5, 9-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bittner et al. (US 20200298260 A1) in view of Pitaud (US 20230019528 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 two-way, reversible pump (36, Fig. 2) to transport liquid fertilizer from a system source or toward the system source (55, pump 36 can be controlled to pump product from the tank 55 to a given product line 104 or return product from product line 104 back to tank 55, shown in Fig. 2, Paragraph 0023);
a conduit system (annotated in Fig. 2) between the two-way, reversible pump (36, Fig. 2) and an end use location (104a, 104b, shown in Fig. 2) for the liquid fertilizer (product from product line 104a, 104b is supplied to a nozzle system 102 for spraying, Paragraphs 0021, 0023);
wherein the two way, reversible pump (36, Fig. 2) is operable to both move liquid fertilizer in the conduit system towards and from the end use location (104a, 104b, Fig. 2) and the system source (55, pump 36 can be controlled to pump product from the tank 55 to a given product line 104 or return product from product line 104 back to tank 55, shown in Fig. 2, Paragraph 0023),
wherein the agricultural implement (15, Fig. 1) is configured to be supported via wheels (18, Fig. 1) on 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 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 wheels on ground to be towed behind a vehicle. Pitaud teaches a liquid fertilizer drawback system (100, Fig. 1) comprising a two-way, reversible pump (17a, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0057) to transport liquid fertilizer from a system source (14, Fig. 1) or toward the system source (14, pump 17a can be rotated to direct product in a first direction to discharge the product to suction 13, or a second direction to discharge product back to the drum 14, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0057), wherein the pump (17a, Fig. 1) is in communication with a motor to transport the liquid fertilizer (not explicitly shown, but pump 17a transfers liquid through driven rotation by a motor, Paragraph 0043).
Bittner 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 motor taught in Pitaud’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. The motor taught in Pitaud’s system would be added to the pump disclosed in Bittner’s system. Doing so allows the pump to deliver a defined volume and quantity of the liquid product (Pitaud, Paragraph 0043).
Bittner, as modified by Pitaud, discloses all aspects of the present invention except for explicitly disclosing wherein the agricultural implement is configured to be supported via wheels on 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 wheels on ground (shown in Fig. 1) to be towed behind a vehicle (12, shown in Fig. 1).
Bittner, Pitaud, 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 Pitaud above, for the agricultural implement taught in Adams’ system, to have wherein the agricultural implement is configured to be supported via wheels on 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 Pitaud, 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 Pitaud 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 Pitaud 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).
With respect to claim 5, Bittner, as modified by Pitaud and Adams, discloses the system of claim 1. 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).
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 a system source or toward the system source (55, pump 36 can be controlled to pump product from the tank 55 to a given product line 104 or return product from product line 104 back to tank 55, 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 an end use (104a, 104b, valves 108 can be controlled to pump product from the tank 55 to a given product line 104, 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 wheels (18, Fig. 1) on 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, and 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 wheels on ground to be towed behind a vehicle. Pitaud teaches a liquid fertilizer drawback system (100, Fig. 1) comprising a positive displacement pump (17a, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0043) to transport liquid fertilizer from a system source (14, Fig. 1) or toward the system source (14, pump 17a can be rotated to direct product in a first direction to discharge the product to suction 13, or a second direction to discharge product back to the drum 14, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0057), wherein the pump (17a, Fig. 1) is in communication with a motor to transport the liquid fertilizer (not explicitly shown, but pump 17a transfers liquid through driven rotation by a motor, Paragraph 0043).
Bittner 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 positive displacement pump and the motor taught in Pitaud’s system to Bittner’s system, to have a positive displacement pump to transport liquid fertilizer from a system source or toward a system source, wherein the pump is in communication with a motor to transport the liquid fertilizer. The positive displacement pump and the motor taught in Pitaud’s system would be added to the pump disclosed in Bittner’s system. Doing so allows the pump to deliver a defined volume and quantity of the liquid product (Pitaud, Paragraph 0043).
Bittner, as modified by Pitaud, discloses all aspects of the present invention except for explicitly disclosing wherein the agricultural implement is configured to be supported via wheels on 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 wheels on ground (shown in Fig. 1) to be towed behind a vehicle (12, shown in Fig. 1).
Bittner, as modified by Pitaud, discloses all aspects of the present invention except for explicitly disclosing wherein the agricultural implement is configured to be supported via wheels on 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 wheels on ground (shown in Fig. 1) to be towed behind a vehicle (12, shown in Fig. 1).
Bittner, Pitaud, 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 Pitaud above, for the agricultural implement taught in Adams’ system, to have wherein the agricultural implement is configured to be supported via wheels on 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 Pitaud, 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 Pitaud 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 Pitaud 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).
With respect to claim 13, Bittner, as modified by Pitaud and Adams, discloses the system of claim 9. 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).
Regarding claim 14, Bittner, as modified by Pitaud 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 Pitaud (US 20230019528 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 Pitaud and Adams, discloses the system of claim 1. However, Bittner, Pitaud, 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, Pitaud, 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 Pitaud and Adams, to have the pump is a vane pump. Doing so produces a desired flow rate (Brechon, Paragraphs 0097-0098, 0106).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bittner et al. (US 20200298260 A1) in view of Pitaud (US 20230019528 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 Pitaud 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, Pitaud, 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, Pitaud, 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 Pitaud 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 Pitaud (US 20230019528 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 Pitaud and Adams, discloses the system of claim 9. However, Bittner, Pitaud, 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, Pitaud, 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 Pitaud 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 Pitaud (US 20230019528 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 Pitaud 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, Pitaud, 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, Pitaud, 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 Pitaud 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
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
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752