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 March 6th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 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.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the boom" in ln. 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a boom” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant is referring to the sprayer boom previously recited in the claim.
Claims 2-12 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 1.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dunkel et al. (US 20200047206 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dunkel discloses an agricultural sprayer (200, Fig. 1) comprising:
an agricultural product reservoir (268, Fig. 2) configured to contain an agricultural product (270, shown in Fig. 2);
a sprayer boom (108, Fig. 1) configured to apply the agricultural product through a plurality of spray nozzles (126, material is dispersed through nozzle(s) 126, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0013), the sprayer boom (108, Fig. 1) includes:
a boom tube (110, 112, Fig. 1) in communication with the agricultural product reservoir (268, tank(s) 106 carry a fluid to be sprayed and include substance tank(s) 268, and distribution system 130 moves fluid from tank(s) 106 to boom arms 110, 112 of boom 108 to be dispensed through nozzle(s) 126, Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0019, 0022, 0024);
a recirculation pump (224, Fig. 2) along the boom tube (110, 112, not explicitly shown, but there are pump(s) 224 that pump a mixture of rinse substance and cleaning agent for a recirculation operation along fluidic pathway 254 extending across boom 108, which includes boom arms 110, 112, and either pump fluid through nozzles 126 or back into the rinse tank 264, Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0014, 0036); and
the plurality of spray nozzles (126, Fig. 1) in communication with the boom tube (110, 112, shown in Fig. 1), wherein each of the spray nozzles (126, Fig. 1) of the plurality of spray nozzles (126, Fig. 1) is configured to spray the agricultural product (material is dispersed through nozzle(s) 126, Paragraph 0013);
an agricultural sprayer cleaning assembly (124, 128, 140, 264, 214, Figs. 1-2) in communication with at least the boom tube (110, 112, Fig. 1) and the plurality of spray nozzles (126, residue detection system 124 receives sensor signals from sensor(s) 128 and 140 that indicate chemical residue within boom 108, which includes boom arms 110, 112 and nozzles 126, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0015, 0025) the agricultural sprayer cleaning assembly (124, 128, 140, 264, 214, Figs. 1-2) including:
a cleaning agent reservoir (264, Fig. 2) configured to contain a cleaning agent (278, 266, Fig. 2); and
a cleaning agent pump (224, there may be multiple pumps 224, and pump(s) 224 can pump fluid from rinse tank(s) 264, Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0014, 0022, 0036) in communication with the cleaning agent reservoir (264, Fig. 2) and the boom tube (110, 112, pump(s) 224 can pump fluid from rinse tank(s) 264 through fluidic pathway 254 extending along boom 108 which includes boom arms 110, 112, Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0014, 0022, 0036); and
wherein the agricultural sprayer (200, Fig. 1) includes application and cleaning configurations (system has a spraying operation to spray a variety of fluids through nozzles onto an agricultural field and a rinse cycle to spray water with a cleaning agent through the nozzles to remove residue, Paragraphs 0011, 0023-0024):
in the application configuration the boom tube (110, 112, Fig. 1) and the sprayer nozzles (126, Fig. 1) are in communication with the agricultural product reservoir (268, during a spraying operation, one or more substances 270 from substance tank(s) 268 are sprayed onto an agricultural field, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0024) and are isolated from the cleaning agent reservoir (264, rinse cycles are conducted prior to or after a spraying operation, which indicates that while a spraying operation is ongoing, rinse tank(s) 264 is not in use, Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0003, 0011, 0029); and
in the cleaning configuration the boom tube (110, 112, Fig. 1) and the sprayer nozzles (126, Fig. 1) are in communication with the cleaning agent reservoir (264, during a rinse cycle operation, rinse substance 266 and cleaning agent 278 are mixed in rinse tank(s) 264, and rinse fluid is pumped from the rinse tank(s) 264 along fluidic pathway 254 within boom 108 and boom arms 110, 112 and through nozzles 126, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0023), and the cleaning agent (278, 266, Fig. 2) is delivered with the cleaning agent pump (224, Fig. 2) to the boom (interpreting as sprayer boom, 108, Fig. 1) and the sprayer nozzles (126, Fig. 1) and recirculated through the boom tube (110, 112, Fig. 1) with the recirculation pump (224, rinse substance 266 and cleaning agent 278 are mixed in rinse tank(s) 264, and the mixed fluid is pumped by pump(s) 224 from the rinse tank(s) 264 along fluidic pathway 254 within boom 108 and boom arms 110, 112 and through nozzles 126, and the mixed fluid can be recirculated any number of times within sprayer 100 during a rinse cycle operation by the pump(s) 224, Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0023, 0036, 0038).
With respect to claim 2, Dunkel discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 1. Dunkel further discloses in the cleaning configuration the cleaning agent (278, 266, Fig. 2) is recirculated through the boom tube (110, 112, the mixed fluid can be recirculated within fluidic pathway 254 within boom 108 and boom arms 110, 112 any number of times within sprayer 100 during a rinse cycle operation and back to tank(s) 106, Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0023, 0036, 0038).
Regarding claim 5, Dunkel discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 1. Dunkel discloses circulation of the cleaning agent includes recirculation of the cleaning agent (interpreting circulation as orderly movement through a circuit, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, during a rinse cycle operation, 278, 266, rinse substance 266 and cleaning agent 278 are mixed in rinse tank(s) 264, and the mixed fluid is pumped from the rinse tank(s) 264 along fluidic pathway 254 within boom 108 which can then be recirculated any number of times within sprayer 100 during a rinse cycle operation by the pump(s) 224 or sprayed through nozzles 126, Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0023, 0036, 0038).
In regards to claim 6, Dunkel discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 1. Dunkel discloses the agricultural product reservoir (268, Fig. 2) includes:
a carrier fluid reservoir (268, Fig. 2) configured to contain a carrier fluid (270, there may be one or more substances 270 that can include a wide variety, including being a carrier fluid, depending on a desired spraying operation, Paragraph 0024);
an injection product reservoir (268, there may be multiple substance tank(s) 268, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0024) configured to contain an injection product (270, there may be one or more substances 270 that can include a wide variety, including being an injection product, depending on a desired spraying operation, Paragraph 0024).
In regards to claim 8, Dunkel discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 1. Dunkel further discloses the agricultural sprayer cleaning assembly (124, 128, 140, 264, 214, Figs. 1-2) includes:
a constituent sensor (interpreting as a sensor that monitors one or more of composition or concentration of the agricultural product, 128, 140, Figs. 1-2) configured to monitor one or more constituent characteristics of the agricultural product or rinsate of the agriculture product in the agricultural product reservoir or boom tube (110, 112, sensor(s) 128 and 140 can detect chemical residue within sprayer 100 including boom arms 110, 112 and a characteristic of fluid present in fluidic pathway 254 within boom arms 110, 112, Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0015, 0020); and
a controller (210, 202, Fig. 2) in communication with the constituent sensor (128, 140, Figs. 1-2) and the cleaning agent pump (224, control system 210 generates control signals based on sensor signals received from sensor(s) 128 and 140 to drive pump(s) 224, Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0017, 0019), and the controller (210, 202, Fig. 2) is configured to operate the cleaning agent pump (224, Fig. 2) and the administration of the cleaning agent (278, 266, Fig. 2) based on the monitored one or more constituent characteristics (control system 210 generates control signals based on sensor signals received from sensor(s) 128 and 140 that there is residue concentration, to drive pump(s) 224 to pump cleaning agent 278 and rinse substance 266, Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0017, 0019, 0022).
With respect to claim 9, Dunkel discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 8. Dunkel discloses the controller (210, 202, Fig. 2) includes a constituent comparator (214, Fig. 2), the constituent comparator (214, Fig. 2) compares the monitored one or more constituent characteristics with corresponding one or more constituent thresholds (threshold logic receives concentration output from residue detection system 124 and compares determined concentration to a threshold value, Paragraph 0028), and the controller (210, 202, Fig. 2) is configured to operate the administration of the cleaning agent based on the comparison (control system 210 generates control signals based on sensor signals received from sensor(s) 128 and 140 that there is residue concentration based on comparison of the concentration value to the threshold value by the threshold logic 214, to drive pump(s) 224 to pump cleaning agent 278 and rinse substance 266, Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0017, 0019, 0022, 0028, 0033).
Regarding claim 10, Dunkel discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 1. Dunkel further discloses the agricultural sprayer cleaning assembly (124, 128, 140, 264, 214, Figs. 1-2) includes a rinsate reservoir (264, Fig. 2) configured to receive rinsate of the agricultural product (266, Fig. 2), and in the cleaning configuration the rinsate reservoir (264, Fig. 2) is in communication with one or more of the boom tube (110, 112, Fig. 2), the plurality of spray nozzles (126, Fig. 1) or the agricultural product reservoir (268, during a rinse cycle operation, rinse substance 266 and cleaning agent 278 are mixed in rinse tank(s) 264, and rinse fluid is pumped from the rinse tank(s) 264 along fluidic pathway 254 within boom 108 and boom arms 110, 112 and through nozzles 126, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 12, Dunkel discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 1. Dunkel discloses the cleaning agent (278, 266, Fig. 2), and the cleaning agent (278, 266, Fig. 2) includes a diluting agent configured to dilute the agricultural product (270, there is a direct injection subsystem 290 that controls a variation of concentration spray adjuvants, and one or more substances 270 can include a wide variety depending on a desired spraying operation, Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0018, 0024).
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunkel et al. (US 20200047206 A1) in view of Engelbrecht et al. (US 20170006852 A1).
With respect to claim 3, Dunkel discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 1. However, Dunkel does not disclose in the cleaning configuration the cleaning agent is circulated through the agricultural product reservoir. Engelbrecht teaches in the cleaning configuration the cleaning agent is circulated through the agricultural product reservoir (12, pumps and valves can be controlled to allow multiple fluid operations to occur, such as cleaning and circulation, valve 90 is opened in direction of purge line 96 to release fluid to upper region of tank 12 for rinsing or cleaning the tank 12 to circulate the rest of the fluid in the tank 12, Figs. 1-3A, 6, Paragraphs 0013-0014, 0041).
Dunkel and Engelbrecht are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the cleaning configuration taught in Engelbrecht’s sprayer to Dunkel’s sprayer, to have the cleaning configuration the cleaning agent is circulated through the agricultural product reservoir. There is a motivation to combine the cleaning configuration taught in Engelbrecht to Dunkel’s sprayer because doing so allows the agricultural product reservoir to be cleaned to avoid contamination (Engelbrecht, Paragraphs 0004, 0013-0014, 0041).
In regards to claim 4, Dunkel discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 1. Dunkel further discloses the cleaning configuration includes a first cleaning configuration (system has a rinse cycle to spray water with a cleaning agent through the nozzles to remove residue, Paragraphs 0011, 0023-0024):
in the first cleaning configuration the cleaning agent is circulated through the boom tube (during a rinse cycle operation, rinse substance 266 and cleaning agent 278 are mixed in rinse tank(s) 264, and rinse fluid is pumped from the rinse tank(s) 264 along fluidic pathway 254 within boom 108 and boom arms 110, 112, Paragraph 0023).
However, Dunkel does not disclose a second cleaning configuration. Engelbrecht discloses the cleaning configuration includes a second cleaning configuration (there is rinsing and cleaning of a first portion of the fluid operation system 10 and rinsing and cleaning a second part of the fluid operation system 10, Paragraph 0021):
in the second cleaning configuration the cleaning agent is circulated through the agricultural product reservoir (12, valve 90 is opened in direction of purge line 96 to release fluid to upper region of tank 12 for rinsing or cleaning the tank 12 to circulate the rest of the fluid in the tank 12, Figs. 1-3A, 6, Paragraphs 0013-0014, 0041).
Dunkel and Engelbrecht are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the second cleaning configuration taught in Engelbrecht’s sprayer to Dunkel’s sprayer, to have the cleaning configuration includes a first cleaning configuration and a second cleaning configuration, and in the second cleaning configuration the cleaning agent is circulated through the agricultural product reservoir. There is a motivation to combine the second cleaning configuration taught in Engelbrecht to Dunkel’s sprayer because doing so allows the agricultural product reservoir to be cleaned to avoid contamination (Engelbrecht, Paragraphs 0004, 0013-0014, 0041).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunkel et al. (US 20200047206 A1) in view of Krosschell et al. (US 20210219538 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Dunkel discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 6. However, Dunkel does not explicitly disclose an injection pump. Krosschell teaches an agricultural sprayer (1400, Fig. 14) comprising an injection pump (1408, Fig. 14) in communication with the injection product reservoir (1406, shown in Fig. 14, Paragraph 0138), and the injection pump (1408, Fig. 14) is configured to inject the injection product to the carrier fluid (injection product is pumped from injection pump 1408 to injection port 1410, where the carrier fluid is supplemented with the injection product, Paragraph 0138), wherein the agricultural product includes the carrier fluid and the injection product (a mixture of the injection product with the carrier fluid is delivered out of the boom tubes 1420, the boom sections 1428, and the spray nozzles 1424, Paragraph 0139).
Dunkel and Krosschell are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the injection pump taught in Krosschell’s sprayer to Dunkel’s sprayer, to have an injection pump in communication with the injection product reservoir, and the injection pump is configured to inject the injection product to the carrier fluid, wherein the agricultural product includes the carrier fluid and the injection product. Doing so provides a specified amount of agricultural product and prevents misapplication (Krosschell, Paragraph 0006).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunkel et al. (US 20200047206 A1) in view of Davis et al. (US 20200113171 A1).
In regards to claim 11, Dunkel discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 1. Dunkel discloses the cleaning agent (278, 266, Fig. 2). However, Dunkel does not explicitly disclose the cleaning agent includes a neutralizing agent configured to neutralize the agricultural product as claimed.
Davis teaches an agricultural sprayer (20, Fig. 1) comprising the cleaning agent (“chemical”, Paragraph 0092) includes a neutralizing agent configured to neutralize the agricultural product (one of the chemicals has a neutralizing agent that when mixed together with another chemical, would neutralize the mixture, Paragraph 0092).
Dunkel and Davis are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the cleaning agent taught in Davis’ sprayer to Dunkel’s sprayer, to have the cleaning agent includes a neutralizing agent configured to neutralize the agricultural product. Doing so provides particular applications for various uses (Davis, Paragraphs 0092-0093).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 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.
In response to applicant’s argument that “a constituent sensor” in claim 8 should not be interpreted under 112(f), see pg. 7-9, applicant’s arguments were found persuasive and the claim interpretation under 112(f) has been withdrawn.
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 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