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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the invention of Group I in the reply filed on 25 February 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examining all of the claims would not impose a significant burden on the examiner. This is not found persuasive. It is pointed out that, contrary to what applicant suggests, the examination burden is not limited exclusively to a prior art search but also includes the effort required to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection. Multiple inventions, such as those in the present application, normally require additional reference material and further discussion for each additional invention examined. Concurrent examination of multiple inventions would thus typically involve a significant burden even if all searches were coextensive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 25 February 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peterson et al. (US 2007/0131791).
Regarding claim 1, Peterson teaches an agricultural system (par. 3; fig. 1) comprising:
a boom assembly (10) including an inner boom section (20) having an inner section frame (fig. 1) and a breakaway boom section (30) having a breakaway section frame (fig. 1);
a hinge assembly (52B) configured to guide movement of the breakaway boom section relative to the inner boom section (par. 29), the hinge assembly comprising:
an inner bracket (205) operably coupled with the inner boom section and a mounting plate (see annotated figure);
an outer bracket operably coupled with the breakaway section frame (see annotated figure);
a hinge pin (52B) operably coupled with the outer bracket (fig. 3); and
a bore (figs. 2, 3 – the hole in which pin 52B is disposed) operably coupled with the mounting plate and surrounding the hinge pin (figs. 2, 3); and
a damper system (200/300/400) operably coupled with the inner bracket and the outer bracket (fig. 3), wherein at least a portion of the inner bracket is positioned above the damper system (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Peterson teaches the system described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the damper system further comprises: a latch member (315) rotatably coupled with the inner bracket at a first damper joint (310, which is coupled with the inner bracket since both are part of the inner boom section).
PNG
media_image1.png
542
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Peterson teaches the system described regarding claim 2, and further wherein the damper system further comprises: a damper (210, which is considered to be a “damper” since it will diminish oscillations or vibrations) operably coupled with the inner bracket at a second damper joint (fig. 2 – at 205) and with the latch member at a third damper joint (fig. 2 – at 320).
Regarding claim 4, Peterson teaches the system described regarding claim 3, and further comprises: a linkage (405, see par. 37) operably coupled with the latch member at a fourth damper joint (fig. 2 – at 325) and the outer bracket at a fifth damper joint (par. 38), the linkage positioned vertically below at least a portion of the inner bracket (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Peterson teaches the system described regarding claim 4, and further wherein a center point of the linkage is positioned laterally outboard of the hinge pin relative to a frame of the boom assembly (see annotated figure).
PNG
media_image2.png
314
822
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Peterson teaches the system described regarding claim 1, and wherein a tilt angle defined between the inner boom section and the breakaway boom section is configured to be varied as the breakaway boom section rotates relative to the inner boom section (par. 29 - the outer boom portion 40 to horizontally and upwardly rotate from the outward position, when the outer boom portion 40 encounters an intrusive object).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berger et al. (US 2024/0268366).
Regarding claim 16, Peterson teaches an agricultural system (10) comprising:
a boom assembly (130) including an inner boom section (320) and a breakaway boom section (330);
a hinge assembly (1410) configured to guide movement of the breakaway boom section relative to the inner boom section (par. 87, 91);
a damper system (1700, which is considered to be a “damper” since it will diminish oscillations or vibrations) operably coupled with the inner boom section and the breakaway boom section (fig. 17); and
a retainment assembly (341/342, see par. 63, 64) configured to route one or more conduits vertically above at least a portion of the damper system (annotated figure; fig. 14A; par. 91).
PNG
media_image3.png
472
812
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Peterson teaches the system described regarding claim 16, and wherein the hinge assembly further comprises: an inner bracket (1400) operably coupled with the inner boom section (fig. 14A; par. 87, 91); and an outer bracket (1400) operably coupled with the breakaway boom section (fig. 14A; par. 87, 91).
Regarding claim 18, Peterson teaches the system described regarding claim 17, and further comprising: an inner section sensor bracket (410) operably coupled with the inner boom section (par. 52, 64), the inner section sensor bracket positioned at least partially below the inner bracket (fig. 4A, 7A-B).
Regarding claim 19, Peterson teaches the system described regarding claim 18, and further comprising: a sensor (400) operably coupled with the inner section sensor bracket (par. 52, 64), the sensor positioned at least partially below the breakaway section bracket (fig. 4A, 7A-B).
Regarding claim 20, Peterson teaches the system described regarding claim 17, and further comprising: a breakaway section sensor bracket (410, see par. 64) operably coupled with the outer bracket (fig. 4A – both are coupled together via the breakaway boom section), the breakaway section sensor bracket positioned at least partially above the outer bracket (fig. 5-7A); and a sensor (400) operably coupled with the breakaway section sensor bracket (par. 52), the sensor positioned at least partially above the outer bracket (fig. 5-7A).
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.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Berger et al. (US 2024/0268366).
Regarding claim 6, Peterson discloses the system described regarding claim 1, but not further comprising: a retainment assembly operably coupled with the inner bracket, the retainment assembly configured to selectively retain a conduit.
Berger teaches an agricultural system (10) comprising a boom assembly (130) including an inner boom section (310) and a breakaway boom section (330), an inner bracket (1400) coupled with the inner boom section (fig. 14A), and a retainment assembly (341/342, see par. 63) operably coupled with the inner bracket (fig. 14A), the retainment assembly configured to selectively retain a conduit (470, par. 63).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the agricultural system of Peterson to further comprise a retainment assembly operably coupled with the inner bracket, the retainment assembly configured to selectively retain a conduit, as taught by Berger, since this would provide a means to transport a fluid along the length of the boom assembly.
Regarding claim 7, Peterson discloses the system described regarding claim 1, but not further comprising: an inner section sensor bracket operably coupled with the inner boom section, the inner section sensor bracket positioned at least partially below the inner bracket.
Berger teaches an agricultural system (10) comprising a boom assembly (130) including an inner boom section (310) and a breakaway boom section (330), an inner bracket (1400) coupled with the inner boom section (fig. 14A), and an inner section sensor bracket (410) operably coupled with the inner boom section (fig. 4A), the inner section sensor bracket positioned at least partially below the inner bracket (fig. 5-7A).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the agricultural system of Peterson to further comprise an inner section sensor bracket operably coupled with the inner boom section, the inner section sensor bracket positioned at least partially below the inner bracket, as taught by Berger. Such a modification was known to allow cameras or other sensors to be mounted to the inner boom section to provide an image of the region in front of the spray boom.
Regarding claim 8, Peterson in view of Berger discloses the system described regarding claim 7, and Berger further teaches comprising: a sensor (400) operably coupled with the inner section sensor bracket (par. 52), and Peterson in view of Berger further discloses the sensor positioned at least partially below a latch member (315, see fig. 2 of Peterson).
Regarding claim 9, Peterson discloses the system described regarding claim 1, but not further comprising: a breakaway section sensor bracket operably coupled with the outer bracket, the breakaway section sensor bracket positioned at least partially above the outer bracket.
Berger teaches an agricultural system (10) comprising a boom assembly (130) including an inner boom section (310) and a breakaway boom section (330), an outer bracket (1400, see par. 91) coupled with the breakaway boom section (par. 91; fig. 14A), and a breakaway section sensor bracket (410, see par. 64) operably coupled with the outer bracket (fig. 4A – both are coupled together via the breakaway boom section), the breakaway section sensor bracket positioned at least partially above the outer bracket (fig. 5-7A).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the agricultural system of Peterson to further comprise a breakaway section sensor bracket operably coupled with the outer bracket, the breakaway section sensor bracket positioned at least partially above the outer bracket, as taught by Berger. Such a modification was known to allow cameras or other sensors to be mounted to the breakaway boom section to provide an image of the region in front of the spray boom.
Regarding claim 10, Peterson in view of Berger discloses the system described regarding claim 9, and Berger further teaches comprising: a sensor (400) operably coupled with the breakaway section sensor bracket (par. 52), the sensor positioned at least partially above the outer bracket (fig. 5-7A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pilney (US 2016/0316737), Bouten (US 2017/0367315), Ll et al. (US 2021/0354159), Long (US 2022/0087244), and Benest (US 5,957,383) all disclose agricultural systems having elements of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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 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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights