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 .
Status of Claims
Currently claims 1-13 and 15 are pending, claim 1 is amended, and claim 14 is cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/05/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/03/2025. These drawings are unacceptable as they include new matter. The included elements of figures 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3, and 4 are all new matter as they show orientations and elements not shown previous are explained in the specification. For example, figure 1a, the specification does not include that 22 comes from the bottom of 42, or that 42 is a box, same with 41 that 21 extends from its bottom and is a box. These are included new figures and unshown elements not previously disclosed. The specific hole placement in 1b and 2b, was not shown nor described as detailed and shown in the specification. Please see the previous Drawings objection from the non-final mailed on 8-8-2025, as it appears that the inclusion of all those elements into the drawings resulted in submitted drawings with new matter.
Specification
The amendment filed 11/03/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Paragraphs 0032, 0034-0036, and 0062-0063. As the inclusion of new drawings not originally filed that coincide with new paragraphs for those drawings is all new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballu (U.S. 2013/0233940) in view of Balducchi (U.S. 2020/0307986).
With respect to claim 1, Ballu discloses a spraying assembly comprising a first tank (figure 1, #5) configured to contain a carrier liquid, and a second tank (one of 25) configured to contain an active substance (material within 25, paragraph 0070), at least one spray nozzle (1), at least one injection device (21), a first hydraulic circuit to convey carrier liquid from the first tank to the spray nozzle (line 78 to 7 to 1), under a carrier liquid circulation pressure (pressure from 13), the first hydraulic circuit comprising, upstream of the spray nozzle, an injection section (section of 3 where 21 injects the active substance into the fluid from 5), a second hydraulic circuit for conveying the active substance from the second tank to the injection device (lines 27 to 23), under an injection pressure greater (from pump 33) than the carrier liquid circulation pressure (paragraph 0063), the active substance injection device being connected to the injection section of the first hydraulic circuit (as seen in figure 1) and being configured to inject the active substance into a carrier liquid stream (stream flowing through 7 and 3) circulating in the first hydraulic circuit (as it circulates from 5 to 1), the injection device comprising, at the end of the second hydraulic circuit opposite to the second tank, a direct dosing interface comprising a plurality of through-holes leading into the injection section of the first hydraulic circuit (through holes of 22a-22d), and the injection device comprising at least one actuator corresponding to the plurality of through-holes (being the actuators of 21, paragraphs 0054, 0057, and 0084), the at least one actuator (being the actuators of 210) being configured to open or close a plurality of through holes among the plurality of through-holes (open and close 26a-26d), so as to allow a determined dosing of the active substance through at least one open through-hole of the plurality of through-holes of the direct dosing interface to be injected into the carrier liquid flow (paragraphs 0100-0101), in such a way as to form a mixture comprised of carrier liquid and proportioned the active substance to be sprayed through the at least one spray nozzle, for the purpose of crop treatment (paragraphs 0100 and 0035). Ballu fails to disclose not all the holes of the plurality of through-holes have the same diameter.
Balducchi, paragraph 0031, discloses the use of adjustable orifices with different sizes for injecting fluid in, such that changing the orifice size would change the amount of fluid injected.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize and adjustable orifice size as disclosed by Balducchi into the system of Ballu, allowing their through-holes to then have different sizes (diameters) and allowing for a desired amount of fluid flow based on the injectors orifices size.
With respect to claim 2, Ballu discloses the at least one actuator is a piezoelectric actuator (paragraphs 0054 and 0057).
With respect to claim 5, Ballu discloses the at least one actuator is a solenoid valve (being an electromagnetic valve, paragraph 0019).
With respect to claim 6, Ballu discloses the at least one actuator is controlled in opening and closing by a pulse width modulation generator (being the known device that utilizes electrical pulses in the ejector to control the liquid to be sprayed).
With respect to claim 7, Ballu discloses the injection pressure is at least one bar higher than the carrier liquid circulation pressure (paragraph 0063).
With respect to claim 8, Ballu discloses a plurality of through-holes, and discloses them having a diameter, but fails to disclose the different diameters of the holes being especially between 50 µm and 300 µm.
Balducchi, paragraph 0031, discloses the use of adjustable orifices with different sizes for injecting fluid in, such that changing the orifice size would change the amount of fluid injected.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize and adjustable orifice size as disclosed by Balducchi into the system of Ballu, allowing their through-holes to then have different sizes (diameters) and allowing for a desired amount of fluid flow based on the injectors orifices size. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to have the holes be between 50 and 300 microns, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. By utilizing orifice sizes of 50 to 300 microns, a corresponding amount of fluid flow is allowed to be injected during an injection event.
With respect to claim 9, Ballu discloses a set of actuators corresponding to the holes of the plurality of through-holes (as seen in figure 1), the spraying assembly further comprising a calculation unit for determining (paragraph 0097), from a dosing setpoint, the amount of the active substance to be injected into the carrier liquid stream and for controlling opening and closing of the corresponding number of holes of the direct dosing interface (paragraph 0097).
With respect to claim 10, Ballu discloses the calculation unit determines a frequency of opening and closing for each hole of a set of holes among the holes of the direct dosing interface (paragraph 0066-0067), based on a carrier liquid flow rate in the first hydraulic circuit (paragraphs 0078 and 0108-0110).
With respect to claim 11, Ballu discloses the active substance circulates along an injection direction (from the vats to the injectors) and the carrier liquid flows along a direction of circulation when injecting the active substance into the carrier liquid (along the direction of 3), the injection direction of the active substance being substantially parallel to the direction of circulation of the carrier liquid, or forming with it an angle between 0° and 90° (showing 90 degrees, it could also be taken as the fluid flows through 7 itself as the carrier liquid prior to injection, which is parallel itself to the direction of the injectors as well).
With respect to claim 12, Ballu discloses the at least one spray nozzle comprises a nozzle head (nozzles head 1) forming a chamber directly upstream of an outlet of the spray nozzle (the chamber of 3), and the injection section forms a circular portion housed in the chamber (as the noted holes of the injection section are circular themselves, being closed off by needles paragraph 0019), and the spraying assembly comprises a plurality of holes (26a-26d), but fails to disclose the plurality of holes are distributed in a star shape on the injection section so as to inject the active substance into the nozzle head.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a start shaped pattern of the holes on the injection site, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI-C). Please note in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
With respect 13, Ballu discloses a plurality of spray nozzles including the spraying nozzle (paragraph 0058) and one or more dosing interfaces dedicated to a spray nozzle or a plurality of spray nozzles (figure 1).
With respect to claim 15, Ballu discloses at least two active substance second tanks (figure 25a-25d) respectively connected to corresponding second hydraulic circuits each having a direct dosing interface with the first hydraulic circuit (as seen in figure 1 where the various 251-25d are connected to their respective injectors with 27a-27d and 23a-23d)).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballu in view of Wichmann (U.S. 2008/0078843).
With respect to claims 3 and 4, Ballu discloses a compressed air circuit (from compress S to line 400 to the injectors), but fails to disclose specifically the at least one actuator is a pneumatic actuator and the spraying assembly comprises a compressed air circuit to enable the at least one pneumatic actuator to be actuated, such that the at least one actuator is a piezoelectrically actuated pneumatic actuator.
Wichmann discloses, paragraphs 0016-0017 utilizing existing pneumatic systems for activating the dosing in a spraying device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize pneumatic actuated dosing systems as disclosed by Wichmann into the system of Ballu, utilizing the existing compressed air in the system with the piezoelectric actuation of the injector would allow for a simpler system utilizing the pneumatic air to both actuated and be injected into fluid as desired by Ballu (paragraph 0036)
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The Amendment filed (05/05/2026) has been entered. Currently claims 1-13 and 15 are pending, claim 1 is amended, and claim 14 is cancelled. Applicants’ amendments to the claims have failed to overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Office Action dated (02/23/2026).
Applicant's arguments filed 05/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the new matter rejection and drawings rejection are improper. It is noted, from the MPEP “ However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings. “ This the added boxes in figures 1a and 2a, being only the included box with the labeled number, are understood themselves being okay. The further included conduit coming from a distinct side and area, are not and constitute new matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees. If it was just a labeled box examiner would agree, but the location and inclusion of other elements associated with the labeled box is new matter. If the conduits’ location of 22 and 21 being on the bottom side of 41 and 42, examiner would agree that 41 and 42 are merely illustrated drawings utilizing a labeled rectangular box. However, the inclusion of 1b and 2b, are entirely new matter. As the number of holes of 1b nor the layout of 2b are disclosed in the specification. Applicant argues that the added paragraphs are also not new matter, examiner disagrees as the added paragraphs gave more then just abstract schematic information, they added in whole new figures, added in new numbered elements, and elements never previously cited in applicants’ specification.
With respect to applicants’ arguments with regards to the above art rejection, applicant argues the proper art fails to disclose the plurality of through holes and the claimed control interface as well as the ‘at least one actuator being configured to open or close a plurality of through-holes among the plurality of through holes.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The indicated “at least one actuator” can be all of the actuators being used to then open/close the plurality of through holes. For instance, taking 2 actuators (being at least one actuator) and opening/closing 2 of the corresponding plurality of through holes, reads on the claimed limitation and included amendments above. Applicant further argues that the holes of the group of injectors cannot be reasonably considered to be the “direct dosing interface” as claimed, the examiner fails to see any claimed structural limitations that prevent a group of injectors from being a dosing interface.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights