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 5 June 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-11 and 16-24 are pending in the application. Claims 12-15, which were drawn to a nonelected invention, have been canceled, and claims 21-24 are newly added. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 27 March 2026; however, upon further consideration new rejections are set forth as explained below.
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.
Claims 2-5, 8, and 23 are 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 8, the limitations of “a latch member” in lines 2 and 3, respectively, renders these claims indefinite because a “latch member” was positively recited in line 14 of claim 1, on which each of claims 2 and 8 depend. As a result, it is unclear if each of claims 2 and 8 require a second “latch member”, or if it is referring to the latch member that was already recited. For the purposes of examination, the latter interpretation will be assumed; this appears to be consistent with the Specification and Drawings.
Claims 3-5 are rejected for depending from indefinite claim 2.
Claim 23 is rejected for the same reasons as claims 2 and 8, except that it depends from claim 21.
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 21-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peterson et al. (US 2007/0131791).
Regarding claim 21, Peterson, as noted in the annotated figure below and the references herein, 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 (at 26) 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 fig.);
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), wherein the damper system comprises a linkage (405, see par. 37) operably coupled with a latch member (410) and the outer bracket (par. 38), and 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_image1.png
542
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Peterson teaches the system described regarding claim 21, and further wherein the outer bracket comprises one or more fins extending fore or aft of the hinge pin configured to contact the mounting plate to prevent further rotation of the breakaway boom section, and wherein the mounting plate comprises corresponding wings extending fore or aft of the bore configured to interact with the fins, as shown in the annotated figure above.
PNG
media_image2.png
314
822
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Peterson teaches the system described regarding claim 21, and further wherein the breakaway boom section comprises a protector (40) disposed fore of a frame of the breakaway boom section (fig. 1), the protector configured to contact an object before other components of the breakaway boom section (fig. 1).
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 1-5, 11, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Ferguson (US 6,719,213).
Regarding claim 1, Peterson, as noted in the annotated figure above and the references herein, discloses 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 fig.);
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),
Peterson does not disclose wherein the mounting plate comprises a stop region supporting an adjustable stop, and wherein a latch member of the damper system comprises a stop plate configured to interact with the adjustable stop to define a stop angle.
Ferguson teaches an agricultural system (10, fig. 1) comprising a boom assembly (14) including an inner boom section (20) and a breakaway boom section (22); a damper system (30); and a hinge assembly (24) comprising a mounting plate (72), wherein the mounting plate comprises a stop region supporting an adjustable stop (98, see fig. 10), and wherein a latch member (92) of the damper system (fig. 10 – bracket 92 connects to the damper 30) comprises a stop plate (94) configured to interact with the adjustable stop to define a stop angle (col. 4, ln. 56-59).
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 such that the mounting plate comprises a stop region supporting an adjustable stop, and wherein a latch member of the damper system comprises a stop plate configured to interact with the adjustable stop to define a stop angle, as taught by Ferguson, since this was known to provide an adjustable stop for the outer boom section (see Ferguson – col. 4, ln. 56-59).
Regarding claim 2, Peterson in view of Ferguson discloses the system described regarding claim 1, and Ferguson further teaches wherein the damper system further comprises: a latch member (92) rotatably coupled with an inner bracket (76) at a first damper joint (128a, see fig. 10).
Regarding claim 3, Peterson in view of Ferguson discloses the system described regarding claim 2, and Ferguson further teaches wherein the damper system further comprises: a damper (134) operably coupled with the inner bracket at a second damper joint (fig. 10 – at 138) and with the latch member at a third damper joint (fig. 10 – at 140).
Regarding claim 4, Peterson in view of Ferguson discloses the system described regarding claim 3, and Ferguson further teaches a linkage (100) operably coupled with the latch member at a fourth damper joint (fig. 9) and an outer bracket (102) at a fifth damper joint (fig. 9 – at 104), the linkage positioned vertically below at least a portion of the inner bracket (fig. 9).
Regarding claim 5, Peterson in view of Ferguson discloses the system described regarding claim 4, and Ferguson further teaches wherein a center point of the linkage is positioned laterally outboard of a hinge pin (96) relative to a frame of the boom assembly (fig. 9).
Regarding claim 11, Peterson in view of Ferguson discloses 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).
Regarding claim 23, Peterson discloses the system described regarding claim 21, but not further wherein the mounting plate comprises a stop region supporting an adjustable stop, and wherein a latch member of the damper system comprises a stop plate configured to interact with the adjustable stop to define a stop angle.
Ferguson teaches an agricultural system (10, fig. 1) comprising a boom assembly (14) including an inner boom section (20) and a breakaway boom section (22); a damper system (30); and a hinge assembly (24) comprising a mounting plate (72), wherein the mounting plate comprises a stop region supporting an adjustable stop (98, see fig. 10), and wherein a latch member (92) of the damper system (fig. 10 – bracket 92 connects to the damper 30) comprises a stop plate (94) configured to interact with the adjustable stop to define a stop angle (col. 4, ln. 56-59).
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 such that the mounting plate comprises a stop region supporting an adjustable stop, and wherein a latch member of the damper system comprises a stop plate configured to interact with the adjustable stop to define a stop angle, as taught by Ferguson, since this was known to provide an adjustable stop for the outer boom section (see Ferguson – col. 4, ln. 56-59).
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Ferguson and further in view of Berger et al. (US 2024/0268366).
Regarding claim 6, Peterson in view of Ferguson 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 in view of Ferguson 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 in view of Ferguson 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 in view of Ferguson 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 Ferguson and 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 in view of Ferguson 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 in view of Ferguson 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 Ferguson and 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).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger.
Regarding claim 16, Berger discloses 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 (732, see par. 64 and 74) configured to route one or more conduits (451, 452; see figs. 7A/B), wherein the retainment assembly comprises one or more retainers having one or more body segments that collectively define one or more retainment openings, the one or more conduits being selectively retained within the retainment openings (par. 74; figs. 7A/B).
Berger does not disclose that the retainment assembly is configured to route one or more conduits vertically above at least a portion of the damper system.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the retainment assembly such that it routes one or more conduits vertically above at least a portion of the damper system, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 17, Berger discloses 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, Berger discloses 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, Berger discloses 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, Berger discloses 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 16-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the interpretation of Berger being used in the current rejection. Therefore, Berger is interpreted to render obvious each and every limitation of the amended claims, as explained in the rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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