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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-8) and Species B (Fig 4) in the reply filed on 03/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 discloses: “wherein the sensor is configured to detect the water quality property of liquid passing through the mixing device”. However, independent claim 1 discloses: “at least one water quality sensor configured to detect a water quality property of liquid entering the product tank through the fluid inlet”. Claim 1 makes it clear that the sensor detects water quality at the fluid inlet of the product tank. As such, it is unclear how the sensor can also detect water quality at the mixing device, since claim 7 (from which claim 8 depends on) requires the mixing device placed within the product tank. In other words, it appears that claim 8 is claiming the sensor in a location that contradicts claim 1, since the disclosure shows the inlet of tank 306 and the mixing device 312 of tank being separate components at separate portions of the tank. This renders the claim indefinite.
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 1-5 and 7-8 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) 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 2, Thompson teaches the liquid distribution system of claim 1, wherein the at least one water quality sensor is disposed 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).
Regarding claim 3, Thompson teaches the liquid distribution system of claim 1, wherein the at least one water quality sensor is disposed to measure the water quality property of the liquid in the product tank (as seen in Fig 18 and disclosed in Par 0167, the detection system 11 is inside the tank; as disclosed in Par 0018, 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; thus giving an indication of water quality).
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 configure 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, as best understood, 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 (as best understood, 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).
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 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 use to measure the quality of fluid in a rinse tank – Par 0266).
Conclusion
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
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights