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 response filed on June 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
the single user activation on the operator control interface as amended in claims 21 and 33;
the auxiliary input as recited in claim 32 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the “single user activation” as amended in claims 21 and 33 and the “auxiliary input” as recited in claim 32.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure, as originally filed, does not disclose that the invention’s controller comprising a single user activation on the operator control interface as amended in claims 21 and 33. Since the drawings and the specification failed to disclose the limitation “single user activation,” it is unclear if the limitation is a structural element such as a “single switch” or an action of the user providing instructional “input” or an electronic signal of the control? Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure, as originally filed, does not disclose that the invention comprising the operator control interface further includes an auxiliary input as amended in claim 32. Since the drawings and the specification failed to disclose the limitation “auxiliary input,” it is unclear if the limitation is a structural element as a passage “input” or an electronic signal of the control? Clarification is respectfully requested.
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 21-37 and 41 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.
The limitation “single user activation,” amended in claims 21 and 33, rendering the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the limitation refers to an activation provided by only one user (the controller cannot be operated by two users simultaneously) or the limitation refers to time, which means “one activation?” Furthermore, as elaborated in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph section above, due to the lack of information in the original drawings and specification, it is unclear if the limitation is a structural element such as a “single switch” or an action of the user providing instructional “input” or an electronic signal of the control? Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the ground applicator" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Same rejection applies to claims 36 and 41.
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 21-27, 29-37, 42 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doherty et al. (US 5,904,296. Doherty hereinafter).
With respect to claim 21, Doherty discloses a ground applicator control system (Figs. 1-12), the control system comprising:
one or more electronically controlled gates (50 and 46) movable between an open (rotating) position and a closed (stationary) position to (capable of) turn material (44) flow on or off;
one or more electronically controlled spray tips (at 64) capable of turning on and off (controlling liquid in 54);
an operator control interface (control box in Figs. 3-5) to (capable of) receive input from an operator, wherein the input includes a mode selection to select a spray mode (104, 108, 112), spread mode (102, 106, 110), or combination thereof (102, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112); and
an electronic controller (216);
wherein the controller is coupled to the operator control interface, the one or more electronically controlled gates, and the one or more electronically controlled spray tips, the controller configured to (capable of):
receive, from the operator control interface, a mode selection (knobs and switches shown in control box in Figs. 3-5);
receive, based on a single user activation (one user or one time activation) on the operator control interface, a signal (via 102, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112) to automatically start or stop flow of a spreadable material, a liquid product, or a combination thereof based on the mode selection.
With respect to claim 22, Doherty discloses wherein the controller is further configured to (capable of): receive, from the operator control interface, a pattern selection (dispersion of the left, center and right of both the liquid and granular. Figs. 3-5); and dispense, the liquid product or the granule product, based on the mode selection and the pattern selection.
With respect to claim 23, Doherty discloses wherein the controller is further configured to (capable of): receive, from the operator control interface, a calibration selection (86, 88, 90, 93, 98, 100, 116); and dispense, the liquid product or the granule product, based on the mode selection and the calibration selection.
With respect to claim 24, Doherty discloses wherein the calibration selection received from the operator control interface is a selection of a preset (minimum to maximum 86, 88, 90, 93, 98, 100, 116) in calibration or a custom (marked speed in 86, marked width in 93 and 116) calibration.
With respect to claim 25, Doherty discloses wherein in the custom calibration includes the controller being further configured to (capable of): determine a maximum speed the one or more electronically controlled gates can dispense the plurality of granules (marked speed in 86, marked width in 93 and 116); or determine a maximum speed the one or more electronically controlled spray tips can dispense the liquid product (“…liquid can alternatively also be spread by means of a rotating disk…” Col. 5, lines 57-67).
With respect to claim 26, Doherty discloses wherein the one or more electronically controlled gates or the one or more electronically controlled spray tips stop dispensing when a ground applicator is below a minimum speed (when the 40 is not operating and parked back in the station/garage).
With respect to claim 27, Doherty discloses the ground applicator control of claim 21 further including one or more speed sensors (knobs and switches shown in control box in Figs. 3-5. Switch or knob can be considered a type of sensor because it detects a physical condition (like position or rotation) and converts it into an electrical signal that can be processed by a system) configured to (capable of) regulate dispensing from the one or more electronically controlled gates or the one or more electronically controlled spray tips.
With respect to claim 29, Doherty discloses wherein the controller is further configured to (capable of) regulate a flow of the liquid product or a flow of the plurality of granules based on speed data (marked speed in 86, marked width in 93 and 116) from one or more speed sensors (86, 93 and 116).
With respect to claim 30, Doherty discloses the ground applicator control system of claim 21, wherein the controller is further configured to (capable of) receive, via one or more wireless networks (in 202, 222, 324, 232), one or more custom calibrations (based on information from 238, 250, 230 and 324).
With respect to claim 31, Doherty discloses the system further comprising a variable speed spray pump (Col. 5, lines 12-32 and lines 57-67), wherein the speed of the spray pump increases (from OFF to ON) when the one or more electronically controlled spray tips are activated.
With respect to claim 32, Doherty discloses wherein the operator control interface further includes an auxiliary input (98, 100, 118, 120), and the controller is further configured to (capable of):
dispense an additional amount of the liquid product based on activation of the auxiliary input (by turning 98, 100, 118, 120).
With respect to claim 33, Doherty discloses a ground applicator control system (Figs. 1-12) for application of granular material, the system comprising:
one or more electronically controlled gates (50 and 46) movable between an open (rotating) position and a closed (stationary) position to (capable of) turn material (44) flow on or off;
one or more variable speed spreading disks (46);
an operator control interface (control box in Figs. 3-5); and
a controller (216); wherein the controller is coupled to the operator control interface, the one or more electronically controlled gates, and the one or more variable speed spreading disks, the controller configured to (capable of):
receive, from the operator control interface, a single user (one user or one time activation) selection (via knobs and switches shown in control box in Figs. 3-5) of applicator settings;
receive, based on the single user selection, a signal (via 102, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112) to automatically start or stop flow of the granular material.
With respect to claim 34, Doherty discloses wherein the user selection further includes a spread width (Figs. 6a-7c).
With respect to claim 35, Doherty discloses wherein the user selection further includes selection of spreading predominately to a right side, a left side, or a center (102, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112).
With respect to claim 36, Doherty discloses wherein the one or more electronically controlled gates stop dispensing when the ground applicator is below a minimum speed (when the 40 is not operating and parked back in the station/garage).
With respect to claim 37, Doherty discloses the ground applicator control system of claim 33 further comprising a hopper (48) and a material vibrator (50 and 46), wherein the material vibrator is coupled to the controller and the controller is further configured to (capable of) activate the material vibrator when the one or more electronically controlled gates are open.
With respect to claim 42, Doherty discloses the ground applicator control system of claim 21, wherein the controller is further configured to (capable of) transmit, via one or more wireless networks (in 202, 222, 324, 232), information regarding an application (based on information/condition from 238, 250, 230 and 324).
With respect to claim 43, Doherty discloses the ground applicator control system of claim 42, wherein the information regarding an application includes an area covered, an amount of product used, or an amount of product remaining (flow chart and calculation map in 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.
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.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doherty in view of Leeb et al. (US10244747. Leeb hereinafter).
With respect to claim 28, Doherty discloses the ground applicator control as in claim 27 except for wherein the one or more speed sensors includes a first speed sensor and a second speed sensor, and wherein the controller is further configured to: determine, based on the first and second speed sensors, whether the ground applicator is turning determine, based on the first and second speed sensors, a direction and a magnitude of the turn; dispense, the liquid product or the granule product, based on the direction and the magnitude of the turn.
However, Leeb teaches a ground applicator control system (Figs. 1-8), the control system comprising: one or more electronically controlled spray tips (at 18) configured to (capable of) dispense a liquid product (in 14), an operator control interface (in 12); and a controller (36); wherein the controller is coupled to the operator control interface. Leeb also teaches one or more speed sensors includes a first speed sensor (32) and a second speed sensor (56 and GPS), and wherein the controller is further configured to (capable of): determine, based on the first and second speed sensors, whether the ground applicator is turning (angular rate sensor that determines the yaw, pitch and roll rates. Figs. 6A-8 and Col. 13, line 3-39); determine, based on the first and second speed sensors, a direction and a magnitude of the turn (angular rate sensor that determines the yaw, pitch and roll rates. Figs. 6A-8 and Col. 13, line 3-39); dispense, the liquid product or the granule product, based on the direction and the magnitude of the turn (Col. 11, line 39-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a first speed sensor and a second speed sensor, as taught by Leeb, to Doherty’s ground applicator control, in order to determine the exact location of the ground applicator relative to the designated spray area (Col. 13, line 3-61).
Claim(s) 38-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doherty in view of Grimm et al. (US 8191795. Grimm hereinafter).
With respect to claim 38, Doherty discloses a ground applicator control system (Figs. 1-12) for application of liquid material (in 54), the system comprising: one or more electronically controlled spray tips (at 64) configured to (capable of) dispense a liquid product; one or more electronically controlled spray pumps (146, 136, 138 and 140); an operator control interface (control box in Figs. 3-5); and a controller (216); wherein the controller is coupled to the operator control interface, the one or more electronically controlled spray tips, and one or more electronically controlled spray pumps, the controller configured to (capable of): receive, from the operator control interface, a user selection (via knobs and switches shown in control box in Figs. 3-5); wherein the user selection is variable by the user; or wherein the user selection is one or more preset selections (minimum to maximum 86, 88, 90, 93, 98, 100, 116); dispense, the liquid product, based on the user selection.
Doherty fails to disclose wherein the one or more electronically controlled spray tips are pulse width modulated (PWM) spray tips and based on the user selection by adjusting a duty cycle of the PWM spray tips to regulate a flow rate of the liquid product.
However, Grimm teaches a ground applicator control system (Figs. 1-13B) for application of liquid material with one or more electronically controlled spray tips (valve 260 coupled to the nozzles. Figs. 11 and 12 and Col. 7, lines 28-39) are pulse width modulated (PWM) spray tips (Col. 7, lines 48-57) and based on the user selection by adjusting a duty cycle (Col. 7, lines 58 to Col. 8, line 3) of the PWM spray tips to regulate a flow rate of the liquid product.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the pulse width modulated (PWM) spray tips, as taught by Grimm, to Doherty’s spray tips, in order to provide more precise application based upon various system conditions and parameters (Col. 9, line 64 to Col. 10, line 8 and Col. 11, lines 29-42).
With respect to claim 39, Doherty’s system modified by Grimm’s pulse width modulated (PWM) spray tips, Doherty further discloses wherein the user selection further includes a spread width (Figs. 6a-7c).
With respect to claim 40, Doherty’s system modified by Grimm’s pulse width modulated (PWM) spray tips, Doherty further discloses wherein the user selection further includes selection of spreading predominately to a right side, a left side, or a center (102, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112).
With respect to claim 41, Doherty’s system modified by Grimm’s pulse width modulated (PWM) spray tips, Doherty further discloses wherein the one or more electronically controlled spray tips stop dispensing when the ground applicator is below a minimum speed (when the 40 is not operating and parked back in the station/garage).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections, the Applicant argues that auger 50 and spinning disk 46 cannot be interpreted as gates. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). First, gate can be defined as “movable barrier.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gate. Therefore, auger 50 and spinning disk 46 are properly interpreted as “gates.” Second, a door is generally considered as a gate. The auger 50 and spinning disk 46 are similar to a revolving door/gate. Third, the auger 50 and spinning disk 46 are capable of having an open (rotating) position and a closed (stationary) position to (capable of) turn material (44) flow on or off.
With respect to the “single user activation” amended in claims 21 and 33, the limitation violates the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first and second paragraphs. See detailed rejections elaborated above. As for the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections, Doherty’s system is similar to the Applicant’s invention, where the Applicant’s control interface 1 cannot perform the spray or spreading without first starting the machine shown in Fig. 3 because without starring the machine, there is not power supplies to the control interface 1. Again, the limitation “single user activation” raises new matter to this Application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 38-41 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the reference and/or the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
With respect to the specification and drawings objections, the amendment to claim 32 does not alleviate the previously presented objections. See detailed objections and rejections elaborated above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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 on (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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 September 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights