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 Group I, Species I and Species A in the reply filed on October 24, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Applicant contends that there is no serious burden in examining the listed inventions simultaneously as one or more common features is recited in all three independent claims of the as-filed application. Thus, the inventions have similar components that could be expeditiously searched without a serious burden. This is found persuasive. The requirement dated August 28, 2025 has been withdrawn by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “energy storage device” in claim 3 and “energy storage devices” in claim 14 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder “device” that is coupled with functional language storing energy without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In light of the specification, the limitation “energy storage device(s)” is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure “one or more lithium-ion batteries” described in paragraph 0042.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 111264110 A) in view of Xi (CN 107258196 A1)
With regard to claim 1, Wang discloses an agricultural system comprising: a power plant (engine 4); a product application system (7), the product application system (7) further comprising: an electric machine (generator, see claim 1); a pump system (11) operably coupled with the electric machine (via battery, see claims 1 and 4); and one or more nozzle assemblies (72) configured to exhaust an agricultural product, the agricultural product driven by the pump system (11).
Wang does not disclose that a transmission system operably coupled with the power plant, the product application system operably coupled with the transmission system through an application gear assembly, the electric machine operably coupled with the application gear assembly.
Xi teaches an agricultural system comprising a power plant (5), a transmission system operably coupled with the power plant (Par. [0060]), the product application system (18) operably coupled with the transmission system through an application gear assembly, the electric machine operably coupled with the application gear assembly (diesel engine (5) through the first belt wheel 3 and the third wheel 11 of the other belt transmission to drive the generator 10 to the battery 27 charging, the fertilizer pump (9-6) and biogas liquid fertilizer pump 9-7, see Par. [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wang, by incorporating the transmission system and the application gear assembly between the power plant and the electric machine as taught by Xi, for the benefit of providing different running speed to drive the generator and other components (Par. [0060]).
With regard to claim 2, the device of Wang as modified by Xi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Wang further discloses that one or more tanks (12) fluidly coupled with the pump system (11).
With regard to claim 3, the device of Wang as modified by Xi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Wang further discloses that an energy storage device (13) operably coupled with the electric machine (generator).
With regard to claim 4, the device of Wang as modified by Xi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 3 above. Wang further discloses that the electric machine (generator) is operably coupled with the pump system (11) and the energy storage device (13) in a parallel arrangement (Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 5, the device of Wang as modified by Xi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 4 above. Wang further discloses that the electric machine is configured as a generator and a motor (generator).
With regard to claim 6, the device of Wang as modified by Xi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 5 above. Xi further discloses that the electric machine (10) is configured to operate in a first state to generate electrical power from the rotational movement of the application gear assembly (Par. [0060]).
With regard to claim 7, the device of Wang as modified by Xi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 6 above. Wang further discloses that the electrical power is used to operate the pump system (battery electrically connected with the inlet of the pump, see Par. [0029]).
With regard to claim 8, the device of Wang as modified by Xi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 7 above. Wang further discloses that the electrical power is stored in the energy storage device (battery 13).
With regard to claim 9, the device of Wang as modified by Xi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 6 above. Xi further discloses that the electric machine (10) is configured to operate in a second state in which energy stored within the energy storage device drives the electric machine to operate the pump system (Fig. 3).
With regard to claims 13-16 and 17-20, the device of Wang as modified by Xi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1-9 above Since the device of Wang as modified by Xi discloses all structure of the claimed invention, in its use, the device of Wang as modified by Xi will inherently perform all the method steps of claims 12-15, 17-18 and 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-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 HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752