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 January 21st, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 21 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 6th, 2025. Examiner further acknowledges applicant’s clarification of the 112(f) limitation found in claim 1 in the Remarks section on pg. 7-10.
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 1-4, 6-10, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pitaud et al. (EP 4056034 A1) in view of Michael (US 20220104427 A1), evidenced by NPL Basement Sump and Pump Co and Nusite Contractors Ltd.
With respect to claim 1, Pitaud discloses a multi-tank spray system (entire system, 101, 102, Fig. 1) comprising:
a first tank (13, Figs. 1-2);
a second tank (17, Figs. 1-2);
a first pump (19, Fig. 1);
a plurality of valves (24, 31, 32, 45, 46, 47, 48, 58, 106, 107, Figs. 1-2) including a first valve (24, Figs. 1-2), a second valve (45, Fig. 1), and an equalizing valve (interpreting as a device that is operated to equalize the pressure across a valve, SLB Energy Glossary, 32, 32 is a Venturi effect device that draws process liquid from the second main tank 17 and pumps the drawn-up process liquid back to the first valve 24 through an injector 35, which equalizes the pressure of the liquid between the two main tanks, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0056), wherein a first end (left end of valve 24, shown in Figs. 1-2) of the first valve (24, Figs. 1-2) is in fluid communication with the first tank (13, shown in Figs. 1-2), a second end (right end of valve 24, shown in Figs. 1-2) of the first valve (24, Figs. 1-2) is in fluid communication with (i) a first end (left end of device 32, shown in Fig. 1) of the equalizing valve (32, Fig. 1) and (ii) an inlet (20, Fig. 1) of the first pump (19, shown in Figs. 1-2), such that when the first valve (24, Figs. 1-2) is open a first fluid in the first tank (13, Figs. 1-2) is permitted to flow from the first tank (13, Figs. 1-2) to the inlet (20, shown in Figs. 1-2) of the first pump (19, Figs. 1-2) via the first valve (24, when first valve 24 is open, pumping assembly 14 is designed to connect one or more of the suction lines 15a-15c via the first valve 24 with the inlet 20 of the first pump 19, Figs. 1-2, Paragraph 0040), a first end (left end of valve 45, shown in Fig. 1) of the second valve (45, Fig. 1) is in fluid communication with the second tank (17, shown in Fig. 1), and a second end (downstream end of valve 45, shown in Fig. 1) of the second valve (45, Fig. 1) is in fluid communication with a second end (right end of device 32, shown in Fig. 1) of the equalizing valve (32, Fig. 1);
a plurality of sensors (52, 53, “pressure sensor”, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0098); and
a tank module (interpreting as a controller or a circuit, 51, Fig. 1) configured to:
receive a spray mode (through an input interface and a user interface, the control unit 51 can receive instructions to change the configuration of the pumps or the valves, Paragraph 0095);
receive a measurement from at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors (first and second level detectors 52 and 53 are connected to control unit 51 through the input interface and provide information to the control unit about the liquid level in the first tank 13 and the second tank 17, and the liquid pressure, Paragraphs 0097-0098); and
control operation of the plurality of valves and the first pump based on (i) the received spray mode and (ii) the received measurement (control unit 51 commands the first and/or second pumping assembly 14, 36, which includes the first pump 19, to change configuration or the valves 24, 45 to change position based on instructions, Paragraphs 0095-0098).
Pitaud discloses all aspects of the present invention except for a first sump valve and a second sump valve.
Michael teaches a multi-tank spray system (100, Fig. 2A) comprising a plurality of valves including a first sump valve (interpreting a sump valve as a check valve for a sump pump, as evidenced by NPL Basement Sump and Pump Co, Third Paragraph, 208, Fig. 2B) and a second sump valve (208, valves 208 are check valves connected to an injector pump 203, which performs the same tasks as a sump pump, as evidenced by NPL Nusite Contractors Ltd, Fifth Paragraph, annotated and shown in Figs. 2A-2B, Paragraphs 0036-0038).
PNG
media_image1.png
627
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
611
782
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Pitaud and Michael are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of multi-tank spray systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the first sump valve and the second sump valve taught in Michael’s spray system to Pitaud’s spray system, to have the motivation to minimize lag time and latency between injection of a fluid and application by implementing a check valve to prevent back flow in the system (Michael, Paragraphs 0010, 0038).
With respect to claim 2, Pitaud, as modified by Michael, discloses the multi-tank spray system of claim 1. Pitaud discloses the multi-tank spray system (entire system, 101, 102, Fig. 1) further comprising a second pump (37, Figs. 1-2), wherein:
the second end (downstream end of valve 45, shown in Fig. 1) of the second valve (45, Fig. 1) is in fluid communication with an inlet (38, Fig. 1) of the second pump (37, shown in Fig. 1), and
the tank module (51, Fig. 1) is configured to operate the second pump (37, Figs. 1-2) based on (i) the received spray mode and (ii) the received measurement (control unit 51 commands the first and/or second pumping assembly 14, 36, which includes the second pump 37, to change configuration or the valves 24, 45 to change position based on instructions, Paragraphs 0095-0098), and as modified by Michael above regarding claim 1, would result in the second end of the second sump valve is in fluid communication with an inlet of the second pump.
Regarding claim 3, Pitaud, as modified by Michael, discloses the multi-tank system of claim 2. Pitaud discloses the multi-tank spray system (entire system, 101, 102, Fig. 1) further comprising:
a first distribution pipe (16a, Fig. 1) connected to an outlet (21, shown in Fig. 1) of the first pump (19, Fig. 1); and
a second distribution pipe (41a, Fig. 1) connected to an outlet (39, shown in Fig. 1) of the second pump (37, Fig. 1).
In regards to claim 4, Pitaud, as modified by Michael, discloses the multi-tank spray system of claim 3. Pitaud discloses the multi-tank spray system (entire system, 101, 102, Fig. 1) further comprising a plurality of spray nozzles (22, Fig. 1), wherein each nozzle (22, Fig. 1) of the plurality of spray nozzles (22, Fig. 1) is mounted to at least one of the first distribution pipe or the second distribution pipe (nozzles 22 are mounted to first discharge line 16a, shown in Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 6, Pitaud, as modified by Michael, discloses the multi-tank spray system of claim 1. Pitaud further discloses the tank module (51, Fig. 1) is configured to, in response to determining that the received spray mode indicates that the first fluid stored in the first tank (13, Figs. 1-2) and a second fluid stored in the second tank (17, Figs. 1-2) should be supplied to the first pump (19, Fig. 1), open the (i) first valve (24, Figs. 1-2), (ii) the second valve (45, Fig. 1), and (iii) the equalizing valve (32, control unit 51 can determine if liquid is needed to be added to the first tank 13 and the second tank 17 based on a predetermined threshold difference, and can provide instructions to change the configuration of the first valve 24 and third valve 45 to a first position to inject liquid into Venturi effect device 32 and supply the first pump 19 or first tank 13, Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0085, 0095, 0101, 0103), and as modified by Michael above regarding claim 1, would result in the tank module is configured to, in response to determining that the received spray mode indicates that the first fluid stored in the first tank and a second fluid stored in the second tank should be supplied to the first pump, open the (i) first sump valve, (ii) the second sump valve, and (iii) the equalizing valve.
In regards to claim 7. Pitaud, as modified by Michael, discloses the multi-tank spray system of claim 6. Pitaud discloses the plurality of sensors (52, 53, “pressure sensor”, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0098) includes a first tank level sensor (52, Fig. 1) that measures a fluid level of the first tank (13, first level detector 52 detects a liquid level in the first tank 13, Figs. 1-2, Paragraph 0097).
In regards to claim 8, Pitaud, as modified by Michael, discloses the multi-tank spray system of claim 7. Pitaud discloses the tank module (51, Fig. 1) is configured to:
determine a state of the first tank based on the received measurement (first level detector 52 is connected to control unit 51 through the input interface and provides information to the control unit about the liquid level in the first tank 13, Paragraph 0097), and
in response to determining that the first tank is in a low-level state, close the first valve (control unit 51 commands the first and/or second pumping assembly 14, 36, which includes the first pump 19, to change configuration or the valves 24, 45 to change position based on instructions from information received from the first level detector 52 if liquid is needed to be added to the first tank 13 based on a predetermined threshold difference, Paragraphs 0095-0098, 0101-0103), and as modified by Michael above regarding claim 1 would result in in response to determining that the first tank is in a low-level state, close the first sump valve.
Regarding claim 9, Pitaud, as modified by Michael, discloses the multi-tank spray system of claim 8. Pitaud discloses the plurality of sensors (52, 53, “pressure sensor”, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0098) includes a second tank level sensor (53, Fig. 1) that measures a fluid level of the second tank (17, second level detector 53 detects a liquid level in the second tank 17, Figs. 1-2, Paragraph 0097), and
the tank module (51, Fig. 1) is configured to:
determine a state of the second tank based on a received measurement from the second tank level sensor (second level detector 53 is connected to control unit 51 through the input interface and provides information to the control unit about the liquid level in the second tank 17, Paragraph 0097), and
in response to determining that the second tank is in a low-level state, open the first valve (control unit 51 commands the first and/or second pumping assembly 14, 36, which includes the first pump 19, to change configuration or the valves 24, 45 to change position based on instructions from information received from the second level detector 53 if liquid is needed to be added to the second tank 17 based on a predetermined threshold difference, Paragraphs 0095-0098, 0101-0103), and as modified by Michael above regarding claim 1 would result in in response to determining that the second tank is in a low-level state, open the first sump valve.
Regarding claim 10, Pitaud, as modified by Michael, discloses the multi-tank spray system of claim 9. Pitaud discloses the plurality of sensors (52, 53, “pressure sensor”, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0098) includes a pressure sensor (“pressure sensor”, Paragraph 0098) that measures a fluid pressure associated with an outlet (21, Fig. 1) of the first pump (19, pressure sensor measures liquid pressure in the lower part of first tank 13, Fig. 1), and
the tank module (51, Fig. 1) is configured to:
determine a state of the first pump based on a measurement received from the pressure sensor (pressure sensor is connected to control unit 51 through the input interface and provides information to the control unit about the pressure of the liquid in the lower part of the first tank 13, Paragraph 0098), and
in response to determining that that the first pump is in a running-dry state, stop the first pump (control unit 51 commands the first and/or second pumping assembly 14, 36, which includes the first pump 19, to change configuration or the valves 24, 45 to change position based on instructions from information received from the pressure sensor, Paragraphs 0095-0098, 0101-0103).
Regarding claim 21, Pitaud, as modified by Michael, discloses the multi-tank spray system of claim 6. Pitaud discloses the first fluid (first tank 13 contains a process or treatment liquid, Paragraphs 0015, 0027) and the second fluid (second tank 17 contains a process or treatment liquid, Paragraphs 0015, 0027) are the same fluid (treatment liquids in the first tank 13 and the second tank 17 can be the same, Paragraph 0027).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 21st, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Pitaud, in view of Michael, does not disclose the amended features of claim 1, see Remarks, pg. 10-11, Pitaud, as modified by Michael, does disclose these features. Specifically, Pitaud discloses that a second end of the first valve is in fluid communication with (i) a first end of the equalizing valve and (ii) an inlet of the first pump, such that when the first valve is open a first fluid in the first tank is permitted to flow from the first tank to the inlet of the first pump via the first valve. It is shown in annotated Fig. 1 below that a second end of the first valve is in fluid communication with a first end of the equalizing valve and an inlet of the first pump. Pitaud states that when first valve 24 is open, pumping assembly 14 is designed to connect one or more of the suction lines 15a-15c via the first valve 24 with the inlet 20 of the first pump 19 (Paragraph 0040).
PNG
media_image3.png
535
800
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Pitaud does not explicitly disclose a first sump valve and a second sump valve. Michael teaches a plurality of valves including a first sump valve (208, Fig. 2B) and a second sump valve (208, Fig. 2B). It is evidenced by NPL (Basement Sump and Pump Co) that a sump valve can be interpreted as a check valve for a sump pump in the third paragraph. Michael teaches that valves 208 are check valves (Paragraph 0038) and they connect to injector pump 203 through injector interfaces 120 as shown in Figs. 2A-2B below in Michael. It is also evidenced by NPL (Nusite Contractors Ltd) that an injector pump performs the same tasks as a sump pump, so valves 208 in Michael can be reasonably construed as sump valves in the fifth paragraph. The first sump valve and the second sump valve 208 taught in Michael would be added to Pitaud’s system to modify the first and second valves 24 and 25 in Pitaud to be a first sump valve and a second sump valve. Michael provides a motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to make this modification to Pitaud because it minimizes lag time and latency between injection of a fluid and application by implementing a check valve to prevent back flow in the system (Michael, Paragraphs 0010, 0038). This modification provides Pitaud to have a second end of the first sump valve is in fluid communication with (i) a first end of the equalizing valve and (ii) an inlet of the first pump, such that when the first sump valve is open a first fluid in the first tank is permitted to flow from the first tank to the inlet of the first pump via the first sump valve.
PNG
media_image4.png
627
800
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
611
782
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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
Prosecution Insights