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 November 26th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed August 26th, 2025.
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, 5, 9, 11, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mäenpää et al. (US 20200298261 A1) in view of Wakuta (US 20220142140 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Mäenpää discloses a tracked vehicle and system (10, 15, vehicle may be another support vehicle, Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0044, 0054) for spraying (Paragraph 0005) comprising:
a tank (16, Figs. 1-2) configured to hold a slurry (hopper includes a solid material receptacle and individual liquid storage tanks, and pre-wet spray nozzle 140 which is part of the hopper 16 and hopper assembly 12, serves to distribute slurry, Paragraphs 0070, 0072);
at least one spray nozzle (140, Fig. 2) configured to direct the slurry therethrough (pre-wet spray nozzle 140 pre-wets solid contents of receptacle 32 to create and distribute slurry, Paragraph 0070);
a spray pump system (92a, 92b, 113, Figs. 11, 16) configured to selectively draw the slurry from the tank (16, Figs. 1-2) and direct the slurry through the at least one spray nozzle (140, liquid from hopper is selectively directed to liquid pumps 90a and 90b which is then dispensed through pre-wet spray nozzle 140, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0065); and
an engine (not explicitly shown, but there is an energy source within the system connected to a drive motor 126 and gear box 128, Paragraph 0058) that provides power to the spray pump system (92a, 92b, 113, Figs. 11, 16) to selectively draw the slurry from the tank and direct the slurry through the at least one spray nozzle (140, liquid from hopper is selectively directed to liquid pumps 90a and 90b which is then dispensed through pre-wet spray nozzle 140, and may be electrically operated, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0065).
However, Mäenpää does not explicitly disclose a tracked vehicle, a plurality of tracks configured to propel the tracked vehicle, and an engine that provides power to both the plurality of tracks to propel the tracked vehicle as claimed. Wakuta teaches a tracked vehicle and system (1, Figs. 1-2) for spraying (Paragraph 0014) comprising:
a plurality of tracks (10, Fig. 1) configured to propel the tracked vehicle (1, crawler travel parts 10 rotate to allow agricultural work vehicle 1 to travel, Figs. 1-2, Paragraph 0033), and
an engine (31, Fig. 4) that provides power to both the plurality of tracks to propel the tracked vehicle (1, engine 31 provides power and drives the crawler travel parts 10, Paragraphs 0054, 0085).
Mäenpää and Wakuta are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural vehicles and 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 tracked vehicle, the plurality of tracks, and the engine taught in Wakuta’s vehicle and system to Mäenpää’s vehicle and system, to have a tracked vehicle, a plurality of tracks configured to propel the tracked vehicle, and an engine that provides power to both the plurality of tracks to propel the tracked vehicle as claimed. Doing so stabilizes the vehicle as it is traveling (Wakuta, Paragraph 0063).
With respect to claim 2, Mäenpää, as modified by Wakuta, discloses the tracked vehicle and system of claim 1. Mäenpää discloses the tracked vehicle and system 10, 15, vehicle may be another support vehicle, Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0044, 0054) further comprising a cab (cabin of pick-up truck 15, shown in Fig. 1) configured to be occupied by a vehicle operator and allow the vehicle operator to control propelling of the tracked vehicle (15, Fig. 1) and spraying of the slurry from withing the cab (cabin of pick-up truck 15, although not explicitly stated, pick-up trucks are widely known in the art to have an operator within the cabin of the pick-up truck to operate various functions of the vehicle, such as propelling the vehicle, and operator sends signals to discharge liquid materials to a ground surface, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0007, 0045).
Regarding claim 5, Mäenpää, as modified by Wakuta, discloses the tracked vehicle and system of claim 2. Mäenpää further discloses the at least one nozzle (140, Fig. 2) is a nozzle system (14, Fig. 2) mounted adjacent to a rear of the tracked vehicle (15, shown in Fig. 2), with the nozzle system including a plurality of spray nozzles (140, 142, 144, Figs. 2, 11), and wherein the cab (cabin of pick-up truck 15, shown in Fig. 1) is configured to allow the vehicle operator to control when each of the plurality of spray nozzles (140, 142, 144, Figs. 2, 11) discharges the slurry from within the cab (cabin of pickup truck 15, operator sends signals to discharge liquid materials to a ground surface, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0007, 0045).
With respect to claim 9. Mäenpää, as modified by Wakuta, discloses the tracked vehicle and system of claim 1. Mäenpää further discloses the tracked vehicle and system (10, 15, Fig. 1) including a transfer system (94, 120, Figs. 13A-13B) operatively engaging the spray pump system (92a, 92b, 113, Figs. 11, 16) to selectively cause slurry to be drawn from a hose (interpreting as the transfer system, 94, 120, Figs. 13A-13B) into the tank (16, liquid may be directed into the liquid chambers of hopper 16 through filling pipe 120 and liquid filling connector 94, and each module 18a-c within hopper 16 has individual fluid communication with the liquid pumps 92a and 92b to feed the liquid, Figs. 1-2, Paragraphs 0064-0065).
With respect to claim 11, Mäenpää, as modified by Wakuta, discloses the tracked vehicle and system of claim 9. Mäenpää discloses the tracked vehicle and system (10, 15, Fig. 1) further comprising:
a mixing platform (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a main frame (17, Fig. 1) including a plurality of decks (flat surfaces of bed 17, shown in Fig. 1) configured to support a mixing platform operator (12, shown in Fig. 1);
a blending tank (18a, 18b, 18c, Figs. 4A-4B, Paragraph 0060) mounted on the main frame (17, shown in Figs. 1-2) and including an auger (125, Fig. 3) mounted for selective rotation within the blending tank (18a, 18b, 18c, auger 125 is contained within bottom chute 124 and auger 125 is at least partially positioned within aperture 38 contained within the modules 18a-c, Figs. 4A-4B, 6A-6B, Paragraphs 0057-0058);
a tank outlet (outlet of tanks 18a, 18b, 18c that connects to fluid pipe 120, shown in Figs. 13A-13B) and a transfer connection (130a, 130b, 130c, Figs. 13A-13B) configured to receive the slurry from the blending tank (18a, 18b, 18c, Figs. 4A-4B) and direct the slurry into the transfer system (94, 120, fluid fittings 130a-c connect each fluid reservoir of module 18a-c to fluid pipe 120 to allow fluid communication with each other, Figs. 13A-13B, Paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 18, Mäenpää, as modified by Wakuta, discloses the tracked vehicle and system of claim 11. Mäenpää further discloses the mixing platform (10, Fig. 1) further comprises a pallet lift (interpreting as a lift, 54, 54 is a lifting and mounting assembly, Fig. 3, Paragraph 0053) located adjacent to a portion of the decks (flat surfaces of bed 17, shown in Fig. 1), a drive assembly (126, 128, “hydraulic or electrically driven mechanisms, Figs. 13A-13B, Paragraph 0069), and a lift platform (136, 124, Figs. 11, 13A-13B) configured to be raised and lowered by the drive assembly (126, 128, “hydraulic or electrically driven mechanisms, Figs. 13A-13B, Paragraph 0069) to lift at least one ingredient of the slurry to a height of the portion of the decks (flat surfaces of bed 17, shown in Fig. 1) adjacent to the pallet lift (54, vertical chute assembly 136 receives and transports solid material, and is pivotably connected to bottom chute 124 and controlled by driven mechanisms to be raised from or lowered to with respect to the bottom chute 124 so the solid material would be raised to a height of the portion of the flat surfaces of bed 17 that are adjacent to the lift 54, shown in Figs. 1, 3, 11, Paragraph 0069).
In regards to claim 19, Mäenpää, as modified by Wakuta, discloses the tracked vehicle and system of claim 11. Mäenpää further discloses the mixing platform (10, Fig. 1) further comprises a power supply (not explicitly shown, but auger 125 is driven by an auger drive motor 126 which is powered by any energy source, including electrical, hydraulic, or combustion engine, Paragraph 0058) operatively engaging the auger (125, Fig. 3) to selectively cause the auger to rotate (auger 125 is rotationally driven by an auger drive motor 126 which is powered by any energy source, including electrical, hydraulic, or combustion engine, Paragraphs 0057-0058).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mäenpää et al. (US 20200298261 A1) in view of Wakuta (US 20220142140 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Brooks et al. (US 20190022687 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Mäenpää, as modified by Wakuta, discloses the tracked vehicle and system of claim 2. Mäenpää further discloses the cab (cabin of pick-up truck 15, shown in Fig. 1) is configured to allow the vehicle operator to control when the slurry is discharged from the spray assembly (14, Fig. 2) from within the cab (cabin of pickup truck 15, operator sends signals to discharge liquid materials to a ground surface, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0007, 0045). However, Mäenpää and Wakuta do not teach the at least one nozzle is a front spray assembly that is pivotable and wherein the cab is configured to allow the vehicle operator to control the pivoting of the front spray nozzle and when the cab is configured to allow the vehicle operator to control when the slurry is discharged from the front spray assembly from within the cab. Brooks teaches a vehicle and system (15, Figs. 1-2) comprising the at least one nozzle (70, Figs. 1-2) is a front spray assembly (87, 89, shown in Figs. 1-2, Paragraph 0016) that is pivotable (boom arms 87 and 89 pivot horizontally and vertically through hinge 110 and hinge 125 respectively, Paragraph 0020) and wherein the cab (30, Figs. 1-2) is configured to allow the vehicle operator to control the pivoting of the front spray nozzle (an operator can control the direction of the boom through joystick 155 located within the cab 30, Paragraph 0023).
Mäenpää, Wakuta, and Brooks are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural vehicles and 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 front spray assembly taught in Brooks’ vehicle and system to Mäenpää’s vehicle and system, as modified by Wakuta, to have the at least one nozzle is a front spray assembly that is pivotable and wherein the cab is configured to allow the vehicle operator to control the pivoting of the front spray nozzle and when the cab is configured to allow the vehicle operator to control when the slurry is discharged from the front spray assembly from within the cab. Doing so ensures consistent rinse sequences (Brooks, Paragraph 0004).
With respect to claim 4, Mäenpää, as modified by Wakuta and Brooks, discloses the tracked vehicle and system of claim 3. Mäenpää further discloses the at least one nozzle (140, Fig. 2) is also a nozzle system (14, Fig. 2) mounted adjacent to a rear of the tracked vehicle (15, shown in Fig. 2), with the nozzle system including a plurality of spray nozzles (140, 142, 144, Figs. 2, 11), and wherein the cab (cabin of pick-up truck 15, shown in Fig. 1) is configured to allow the vehicle operator to control when each of the plurality of spray nozzles (140, 142, 144, Figs. 2, 11) discharges the slurry from within the cab (cabin of pickup truck 15, operator sends signals to discharge liquid materials to a ground surface, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0007, 0045).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mäenpää et al. (US 20200298261 A1) in view of Wakuta (US 20220142140 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brooks et al. (US 20190022687 A1) and Henderson et al. (US Patent 5,704,546).
In regards to claim 6, Mäenpää, as modified by Wakuta, discloses the tracked vehicle and system of claim 1. However, Mäenpää and Wakuta do not teach the at least one nozzle is a front spray assembly that is pivotable. Brooks teaches a vehicle and system (15, Figs. 1-2) comprising the at least one nozzle (70, Figs. 1-2) is a front spray assembly (87, 89, shown in Figs. 1-2, Paragraph 0016) that is pivotable (boom arms 87 and 89 pivot horizontally and vertically through hinge 110 and hinge 125 respectively, Paragraph 0020).
Mäenpää, Wakuta, and Brooks are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural vehicles and 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 front spray assembly taught in Brooks’ vehicle and system to Mäenpää’s vehicle and system, as modified by Wakuta, to have the at least one nozzle is a front spray assembly that is pivotable. Doing so ensures consistent rinse sequences (Brooks, Paragraph 0004).
However, Mäenpää, Wakuta, and Brooks do not teach wherein the spray pump system has a variable speed that can be adjusted to account for at least one of a viscosity of the slurry, an amount of slurry to be applied and a distance that the slurry is sprayed. Henderson teaches a vehicle and system (3, Fig. 1) comprising wherein the spray pump system (2, 19, Fig. 3) has a variable speed that can be adjusted to account for at least one of a viscosity of the slurry, an amount of slurry to be applied and a distance that the slurry is sprayed (pump 19 can be variable speed or displacement to control the output from the tank 8 to the main line 18, Col. 6, Ln. 54-61).
Mäenpää, Wakuta, Brooks, and Henderson are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural vehicles and 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 spray pump system taught in Henderson’s vehicle and system to Mäenpää’s vehicle and system, as modified by Wakuta and Brooks, to have wherein the spray pump system has a variable speed that can be adjusted to account for at least one of a viscosity of the slurry, an amount of slurry to be applied and a distance that the slurry is sprayed. Doing so prevents problems associated with overspray in agricultural spraying (Henderson, Col. 3, Ln. 54-55).
In regards to claim 7, Mäenpää, as modified by Wakuta, Brooks, and Henderson, discloses the tracked vehicle and system of claim 6. Mäenpää further discloses wherein the at least one nozzle (140, Fig. 2) is also a nozzle system (14, Fig. 2) mounted adjacent to a rear of the tracked vehicle (15, shown in Fig. 2), with the nozzle system including a plurality of spray nozzles (140, 142, 144, Figs. 2, 11). Henderson further teaches wherein the spray pump system (2, 19, Fig. 3) has a variable speed that can be adjusted to account for at least one of a viscosity of the slurry, an amount of slurry to be applied an amount of slurry to be applied and a how many of the plurality of spray nozzles are being employed for spraying the slurry (pump 19 can be variable speed or displacement to control the output from the tank 8 to the main line 18, Col. 6, Ln. 54-61).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mäenpää et al. (US 20200298261 A1) in view of Wakuta (US 20220142140 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Henderson et al. (US Patent 5,704,546).
Regarding claim 8, Mäenpää, as modified by Wakuta, discloses the tracked vehicle and system of claim 1. Mäenpää further discloses the at least one nozzle (140, Fig. 2) is a nozzle system (14, Fig. 2) mounted adjacent to a rear of the tracked vehicle (15, shown in Fig. 2), with the nozzle system including a plurality of spray nozzles (140, 142, 144, Figs. 2, 11). However, Mäenpää and Wakuta do not teach wherein the variable speed of the spray pump system can be adjusted to account for at least one of a viscosity of the slurry, an amount of slurry to be applied and a how many of the plurality of spray nozzles are being employed for spraying the slurry. Henderson teaches a vehicle and system (3, Fig. 1) comprising wherein the spray pump system (2, 19, Fig. 3) has a variable speed that can be adjusted to account for at least one of a viscosity of the slurry, an amount of slurry to be applied and a how many of the plurality of spray nozzles are being employed for spraying the slurry (pump 19 can be variable speed or displacement to control the output from the tank 8 to the main line 18, Col. 6, Ln. 54-61).
Mäenpää, Wakuta, and Henderson are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural vehicles and 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 spray pump system taught in Henderson’s vehicle and system to Mäenpää’s vehicle and system, as modified by Wakuta, to have wherein the variable speed of the spray pump system can be adjusted to account for at least one of a viscosity of the slurry, an amount of slurry to be applied and a how many of the plurality of spray nozzles are being employed for spraying the slurry. Doing so prevents problems associated with overspray in agricultural spraying (Henderson, Col. 3, Ln. 54-55).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mäenpää et al. (US 20200298261 A1) in view of Wakuta (US 20220142140 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Belden (US 20170049093 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Mäenpää, as modified by Wakuta, discloses the tracked vehicle and system of claim 9. However, Mäenpää and Wakuta do not teach the transfer system comprises a transfer hose as claimed. Belden teaches a system (entire structure, Figs. 2-3) comprising wherein the transfer system (“main water filling hose”, Paragraph 0013) comprises a transfer hose (“main water filling hose”, Paragraph 0013) operatively engaging the spray pump system (11, Fig. 3) to selectively cause slurry to be drawn from the hose (“main water filling hose”, Paragraph 0013) into the tank (12, when activated by the system flow switch, transfer pump 11 activates main water filling hose to fill into a tank 5, shown in Figs. 1-2, Paragraph 0013).
Mäenpää, Wakuta, and Belden are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural vehicles and 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 transfer system and transfer hose taught in Belden’s system to Mäenpää’s vehicle and system, as modified by Wakuta, to have wherein the transfer system comprises a transfer hose operatively engaging the spray pump system to selectively cause slurry to be drawn from the hose into the tank. Doing so allows the operator to have more control over amounts of each chemical to be added with proper combinations of valves, pumps, etc. to blend the selected amount of chemical into the batch (Belden, Paragraph 0010).
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mäenpää et al. (US 20200298261 A1) in view of Wakuta (US 20220142140 A1) as applied to claims 1, 9, 11, and 19 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 107006196 A).
With respect to claim 12, Mäenpää, as modified by Wakuta, discloses the tracked vehicle and system of claim 11. However, Mäenpää and Wakuta do not teach the mixing platform further comprises a mulch grinder assembly as claimed. Wu teaches a system (entire structure, Fig. 1) comprising wherein the mixing platform (7, 71, 72, Fig. 1) further comprises a mulch grinder assembly (interpreting as a grinder, 71, Fig. 1) configured to grind a material and direct the material into the blending tank (7, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0025).
Mäenpää, Wakuta, and Wu are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural vehicles and 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 mulch grinder assembly taught in Wu’s system to Mäenpää’s vehicle and system, as modified by Wakuta, to have wherein the mixing platform further comprises a mulch grinder assembly configured to grind a material and direct the material into the blending tank. Doing so grounds the material into different sizes, increasing the dissolution rate (Wu, Paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 20, Mäenpää, as modified by Wakuta, discloses the tracked vehicle and system of claim 19. However, Mäenpää and Wakuta do not teach the mixing platform further comprises a mulch grinder assembly as claimed. Wu teaches a system (entire structure, Fig. 1) comprising the mixing platform (7, 71, 72, Fig. 1) further comprises a mulch grinder assembly (interpreting as a grinder, 71, Fig. 1) configured to grind a material and direct the material into the blending tank (7, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0025), and wherein the power supply (not explicitly shown, but there is a motor 126 that is powered by a power supply to operate it, Paragraph 0029) operatively engages the mulch grinder (71, Fig. 1) to selectively actuate the mulch grinder (71, motor 126 drives system to operate to add or discharge nutrient solution or liquid pesticide within the system, as well as other operations within the system, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0029).
Mäenpää, Wakuta, and Wu are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural vehicles and 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 mulch grinder assembly taught in Wu’s system to Mäenpää’s vehicle and system, as modified by Wakuta, to have wherein the mixing platform further comprises a mulch grinder assembly configured to grind a material and direct the material into the blending tank, and wherein the power supply operatively engages the mulch grinder to selectively actuate the mulch grinder. Doing so grounds the material into different sizes, increasing the dissolution rate (Wu, Paragraph 0025).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mäenpää et al. (US 20200298261 A1) in view of Wakuta (US 20220142140 A1) as applied to claims 1, 9, and 11 above, further in view of Wu et al. (CN 107006196 A) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kubacak (US 20100175316 A1).
In regards to claim 13, Mäenpää, as modified by Wakuta and Wu, discloses the tracked vehicle and system of claim 12. However, Mäenpää, Wakuta, and Wu do not teach the mixing platform further comprises a hatch opening and bag cutter as claimed. Kubacak teaches a vehicle and system (456, Fig. 11a) comprising the mixing platform (428, Fig. 11a) further comprises a hatch opening (interpreting as an opening, top opening of tank 463, Fig. 11a) and a bag cutter (interpreting as a cutter, 457, vegetation engagement device 457 is a rotary cutter, Fig. 11a, Paragraph 0117) operatively engaging the blending tank (463, shown in Fig. 11a, Paragraph 0119) and configured to allow one or more ingredients of the slurry to pass through the hatch opening (top opening of tank 463, Fig. 11a) into the blending tank (463, Fig. 11a, Paragraph 0119), with the hatch opening (top opening of tank 463, Fig. 11a) adjacent to a portion of the decks (454, shown in Fig. 11c).
Mäenpää, Wakuta, Wu, and Kubacak are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural vehicles and 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 hatch opening and the bag cutter taught in Kubacak’s system to Mäenpää’s vehicle and system, as modified by Wakuta and Wu, to have the mixing platform further comprises a hatch opening and bag cutter operatively engaging the blending tank and configured to allow one or more ingredients of the slurry to pass through the hatch opening into the blending tank, with the hatch opening adjacent to a portion of the decks. Doing so produces a more accurate spray due to less variability in droplet size (Kubacak, Paragraph 0014).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mäenpää et al. (US 20200298261 A1) in view of Wakuta (US 20220142140 A1) as applied to claims 1, 9, and 11 above, further in view of Wu et al. (CN 107006196 A) as applied to claim 12 above, further in view of Kubacak (US 20100175316 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Bouten et al. (US 20160120118 A1).
In regards to claim 14, Mäenpää, as modified by Wakuta, Wu, and Kubacak, discloses the tracked vehicle and system of claim 13. However, Mäenpää, Wakuta, Wu, and Kubacak do not teach the mixing platform further comprises a chemical dispensing tank as claimed. Bouten teaches a system (10, Fig. 1) comprising the mixing platform (48, Fig. 1) further comprises a chemical dispensing tank (14, 16, 18, Fig. 1) positioned above and configured to selectively allow the one or more of the ingredients to enter the blending tank (26, injectors 15, 17, and 19 allow release of the substances 20, 22, and 24 from vessels 14, 16, and 18 to enter mixed solution tank 26, and is positioned downstream of chemical vessels 14, 16, and 18, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0051).
Mäenpää, Wakuta, Wu, Kubacak, and Bouten are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural vehicles and 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 chemical dispensing tank taught in Bouten’s system to Mäenpää’s vehicle and system, as modified by Wakuta, Wu, and Kubacak, to have the mixing platform further comprises a chemical dispensing tank positioned above and configured to selectively allow the one or more of the ingredients to enter the blending tank. Doing so provides for quantities and ratios of various substances to be changed during a spraying operation, to treat different needs of different portions of a field (Bouten, Paragraph 0048).
With respect to claim 15, Mäenpää, as modified by Wakuta, Wu, and Kubacak, discloses the tracked vehicle and system of claim 13. However, Mäenpää, Wakuta, Wu, and Kubacak do not teach the mixing platform further comprises a tote sack dispenser assembly as claimed. Bouten teaches a system (10, Fig. 1) comprising the mixing platform (48, Fig. 1) further comprises a tote sack dispenser assembly (interpreting as a dispenser assembly, 14, 16, 18, 15, 17, 19, Fig. 1) configured to selectively allow the one or more of the ingredients into the blending tank (26, injectors 15, 17, and 19 allow release of the substances 20, 22, and 24 from vessels 14, 16, and 18 to enter mixed solution tank 26, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0051).
Mäenpää, Wakuta, Wu, Kubacak, and Bouten are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural vehicles and 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 tote sack dispenser assembly taught in Bouten’s system to Mäenpää’s vehicle and system, as modified by Wakuta, Wu, and Kubacak, to have the mixing platform further comprises a tote sack dispenser assembly configured to selectively release the one or more of the ingredients into the blending tank. Doing so provides for quantities and ratios of various substances to be changed during a spraying operation, to treat different needs of different portions of a field (Bouten, Paragraph 0048).
With respect to claim 16, Mäenpää, as modified by Wakuta, Wu, and Kubacak, discloses the tracked vehicle and system of claim 15. However, Mäenpää, Wakuta, Wu, and Kubacak do not teach the mixing platform further comprises a chemical dispensing tank as claimed. Bouten teaches a system (10, Fig. 1) comprising the mixing platform (48, Fig. 1) further comprises a chemical dispensing tank (14, 16, 18, Fig. 1) positioned above and configured to selectively allow the one or more of the ingredients to enter the blending tank (26, injectors 15, 17, and 19 allow release of the substances 20, 22, and 24 from vessels 14, 16, and 18 to enter mixed solution tank 26, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0051).
Mäenpää, Wakuta, Wu, Kubacak, and Bouten are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural vehicles and 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 chemical dispensing tank taught in Bouten’s system to Mäenpää’s vehicle and system, as modified by Wakuta, Wu, and Kubacak, to have the mixing platform further comprises a chemical dispensing tank positioned above and configured to selectively allow the one or more of the ingredients to enter the blending tank. Doing so provides for quantities and ratios of various substances to be changed during a spraying operation, to treat different needs of different portions of a field (Bouten, Paragraph 0048).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mäenpää et al. (US 20200298261 A1) in view of Wakuta (US 20220142140 A1) as applied to claims 1, 9, and 11 above, and further in view of Kubacak (US 20100175316 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Mäenpää, as modified by Wakuta, discloses the tracked vehicle and system of claim 11. However, Mäenpää and Wakuta do not teach the mixing platform further comprises a hatch opening and bag cutter as claimed. Kubacak teaches a vehicle and system (456, Fig. 11a) comprising the mixing platform (428, Fig. 11a) further comprises a hatch opening (top opening of tank 463, Fig. 11a) and bag cutter (457, vegetation engagement device 457 is a rotary cutter, Fig. 11a, Paragraph 0117) operatively engaging the blending tank (463, shown in Fig. 11a, Paragraph 0119) and configured to allow one or more ingredients of the slurry to pass through the hatch opening (top opening of tank 463, Fig. 11a) into the blending tank (463, Fig. 11a, Paragraph 0119), with the hatch opening (top opening of tank 463, Fig. 11a) adjacent to a portion of the decks (454, shown in Fig. 11c).
Mäenpää, Wakuta, and Kubacak are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural vehicles and 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 hatch opening and the bag cutter taught in Kubacak’s system to Mäenpää’s vehicle and system, as modified by Wakuta, to have the mixing platform further comprises a hatch opening and bag cutter operatively engaging the blending tank and configured to allow one or more ingredients of the slurry to pass through the hatch opening into the blending tank, with the hatch opening adjacent to a portion of the decks. Doing so produces a more accurate spray due to less variability in droplet size (Kubacak, Paragraph 0014).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 26th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that it would not be obvious to power both the propulsion of Mäenpää and the spreader of Mäenpää with a single engine of Wakuta and it would reduce the versatility of the hopper of Mäenpää, see Remarks, pg. 7-8, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, see Remarks, pg. 7-8, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Wakuta suggests one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of the plurality of tracks and the engine taught in Wakuta’s tracked vehicle and system because doing so stabilizes the vehicle as it is traveling (Wakuta, Paragraph 0063).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 /ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752