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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 07/13/2026, are accepted and do not introduce new matter.
Previous 112(b) rejection of claim 8 is overcome in view of amendment to claim 1. Claim 1 requires that the water quality sensor be located within the product tank, but it does not specify where within the tank. Claim 8 specifies that the sensor is on the mixing device, wherein the mixing device is within the tank. As such, claim 8 is now definite and narrows where the sensor is within the tank.
Claims 1, 4-8 and 17-18 are pending; claims 2-3 and 9-16 are cancelled; claims 17-18 are new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thompson (U.S. 2018/0364155).
Regarding claim 1, Thompson teaches a liquid distribution system (101) for a crop sprayer (the system dispenses solution 105, which contains pesticides or other agrochemicals – Par 0137), comprising:
a product tank (103) configured to contain a liquid (105), the product tank having a fluid inlet (defined at 123/125, which is a point through which water or other materials used to make the pesticide solution 105 can be added to the tank – Par 0138);
a pump (111) in fluid communication with the product tank (as seen in Fig 2);
a plurality of nozzles (119) carried by a boom (107, see Par 0161) and configured to receive the liquid from the pump through at least one plumbing line (plumbing lines that connect the pump 111 to the boom 107 seen in Fig 2); and
at least one water quality sensor (detection system 11) located within the product tank (as seen in Fig 18 and disclosed in Par 0167, the detection system 11 can be placed in a case 41 within the product tank 103) and configured to detect a water quality property (the detection system 11 includes a photodetector device 13 including one or more detectors 15 positioned to detect light, and a flow cell 17 in which a fluid, such as water, flows thereby to detect a substance in the fluid – see Par 0135; the substance detected can be any of an adjuvant, a fertilizer, a growth regulator, a micronutrient, a biological control agent, a plant health agent, an inoculant, a surfactant, an osmoprotectant, a safener, a trace molecule, a buffering agent, a trace element, a water conditioning agent and a hard water solute – see Par 0018) of liquid entering the product tank (as seen in Fig 18 and disclosed in Par 0167, the detection system 11 can be placed in a case 41 within the product tank 103) through the fluid inlet (Par 0140 discloses the detection system 11 can be placed in the tank or its contents such as on screen 125, wherein 125 is part of the fluid inlet of the tank; Par 0138 discloses the tank 103 storing water, as such the detection system 11 detects the quality of the water in the tank).
Regarding claim 4, Thompson teaches the liquid distribution system of claim 1, wherein the at least one water quality sensor comprises at least one sensor selected from the group consisting of a pH sensor, a turbidity sensor, a dissolved oxygen sensor, a salinity sensor, an ammonia sensor, a chlorine sensor, a nitrate sensor, a sulfite sensor, and a total organic carbon sensor (as disclosed in Par 0253, the detection system 11 determines concentration of fertilizer in the fluid, which includes ammonium nitrate; thus its sensors comprise a nitrate sensor and/or an ammonia sensor).
Regarding claim 5, Thompson teaches the liquid distribution system of claim 1, wherein the at least one water quality sensor is configured to report the water quality property to an operator of the crop sprayer (as seen in Fig 1 and Par 0142, the system includes a data exchange interface 25 that communicates to the detection system 11, wherein such data is sent to a personal computer, tablet computer, smartphone, or other mobile device; thus reporting water quality to an operator of the sprayer).
Regarding claim 7, Thompson teaches the liquid distribution system of claim 1, further comprising a mixing device (agitator 141) within the product tank (141 is within the tank 103, and is configured to agitate the contents within the tank – Par 0270, i.e. it acts as a mixing device). Note: the “mixing device” is broadly claimed; it does not disclose structure or what it is mixing; as such, the agitator 141 is reasonably interpreted as a mixing device.
Regarding claim 8, Thompson teaches the liquid distribution system of claim 7, wherein the sensor is configured to detect the water quality property of liquid passing through the mixing device (Par 0276 discloses the detection system 11, i.e. the sensor, used to determine fluid quality in equipment that includes the agitator; that is, it detects quality data of fluid passing through the agitator, i.e. mixing device).
Regarding claim 17, Thompson teaches a liquid distribution system (101, seen in Fig 2) for a crop sprayer (the system dispenses solution 105, which contains pesticides or other agrochemicals – Par 0137), comprising:
a product tank (defined by case 41, which as disclosed in Pars 0169-171, holds a liquid product within, i.e. it is considered a tank; wherein tank 41 can be placed in a variety of locations of the distribution system, as seen in Figs 6-18) configured to contain a liquid (an agrochemical and water, as disclosed in Par 19), the product tank having a fluid inlet (water inlet 62), the fluid inlet being configured such that liquid entering the product tank via the fluid inlet follows a flow path (flow path defined by tubes attached to inlet 62, tube 35 and tube attached to outlet 63, seen in Fig 19);
a pump (111) in fluid communication with the product tank (pump 111 pumps the product throughout the distribution system, as disclosed in Par 0137; this includes the product tank 41);
a plurality of nozzles (119) carried by a boom (107, see Par 0161) and configured to receive the liquid from the pump through at least one plumbing line (plumbing lines that connect the pump 111 to the boom 107 seen in Fig 2); and
at least one water quality sensor (defined by radiation source 39 and photodetector 13) located within the product tank (39 and 13 are located within 41, see Fig 19) and positioned within the flow path (as seen in Fig 19, the sensor 39/13 is positioned through the passage 35, which is part of the flow path), the water quality sensor being configured to detect a water quality property of liquid (the sensor includes a photodetector device 13 including one or more detectors positioned to detect light, and a flow cell in which a fluid, such as water, flows thereby to detect a substance in the fluid – see Par 0135; the substance detected can be any of an adjuvant, a fertilizer, a growth regulator, a micronutrient, a biological control agent, a plant health agent, an inoculant, a surfactant, an osmoprotectant, a safener, a trace molecule, a buffering agent, a trace element, a water conditioning agent and a hard water solute – see Par 0018) flowing through the flow path (as seen in Fig 19 and 9, the sensor senses water quality of water passing through passage 35).
Regarding claim 18, Thompson teaches the liquid distribution system of claim 17, further comprising a mixing device (defined by 51, which mixes the agrochemical coming in from 61 with the water coming in from 62, as disclosed in Par 0169 and seen in Fig 19), the mixing device being located within the product tank (51 is within tank 41) and positioned in a manner such that fluid passing through the mixing device enters the flow path (liquid enters the flow path at passage 35 after the mixing device 51), the water quality sensor being positioned in the flow path downstream of the mixing device (39/13 is in the flow path at 35 and downstream of the mixing device 51, as seen in Fig 19). Note: the “mixing device” is broadly claimed; the claim does not disclose structure or what it is mixing; as such, the merging connector 51 is reasonably interpreted as a mixing device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (U.S. 2018/0364155) in view of Gunnar et al (EP 2,617,286 A1). Note: references to Gunnar made in parenthesis hereafter are referencing the translation provided by Examiner herewith.
Regarding claim 6, Thompson teaches the liquid distribution system of claim 1. However, Thompson does not teach the system further comprising a rinse tank configured to contain rinse water separate from the liquid in the product tank, wherein the water quality sensor is configured to measure the water quality property of the rinse water entering the product tank through the fluid inlet.
Gunnar teaches an agricultural spraying device (seen in Figs 1-3) comprising a product tank (1) and a rinse tank (clear water tank 12) configured to contain rinse water separate from the liquid in the product tank (the rinse tank 12 is separate from the product tank 1, and configured to send rinse water to the product tank through pump 18 and cleaning tank 20, as seen in Fig 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thompson to incorporate the teachings of Gunnar to provide a rinse tank in connection to the product tank in order to use clean water to clean any remaining pesticide (or substance residue) from the entire liquid circuit or the system (as taught by Gunnar, see the highlighted section of the translation provided), which would add to the lifetime of the sprayer system. In combination, Thompson and Gunnar teach the system wherein the water quality sensor is configured measure the water quality property of the rinse water entering the product tank through the fluid inlet (since Thompson teaches water coming into the inlet 125/123 – Par 0138; and also teaches that the detection system 11 can be used to measure the quality of fluid in a rinse tank – Par 0266).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding prior art rejection of claim 1, Applicant argues that Thompson does not teach the sensor being configured to detect a water quality property of the liquid in the tank as it enters the fluid inlet. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim is broad when it comes to where exactly the sensor is placed within the tank. The claim reads: “at least one water quality sensor located within the product tank and configured to detect a water quality property of liquid entering the product tank through the fluid inlet”. It is not positively claimed that the sensor is placed at the inlet, such that the water quality is detected as it enters the tank. Examiner notes that this limitation is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as: the sensor being configured to detect water quality of the liquid that has entered the tank through the inlet, which is shown in Fig 18 and disclosed in Par 0167 of Thompson. Moreover, Fig 18 shows fluid flow arrows passing through the casing 41 of sensor 11, thus indicating that the water is flowing though the sensor; wherein the water coming into the tank must have come in from the fluid inlet. For this reason, Examiner maintains that Thompson reads on claim language.
Regarding claim 6 Applicant argues that Gunnar does not cure the deficiencies of Thompson. As stated above, Thompson anticipates claim language.
Applicant did not make any further arguments against the prior art.
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 JUAN C BARRERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6284. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Generally 10am-4pm and 6-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR O. HALL can be reached on 571-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN C BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 September 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights