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 1-20 are pending.
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 second bladder, a portion of the first bladder attached to the inner wall surface, plurality of hoses, and plurality of pumps 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 10-12, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Skotinkov (U.S. 5,755,382).
With respect to claims 1 and 18, Skotinkov discloses a vehicle (figure 1), comprising:
a chassis (chassis of frame 1) ;
a plurality of ground-engaging elements (wheels 12) coupled to the chassis of the vehicle; and
a liquid holding tank (tank 90) mounted to the chassis and configured to hold at least one product (shown holding multiple in figure 22), the liquid holding tank comprising:
a wall having an inner wall surface (inner wall of 90) defining an interior of the liquid holding tank (inside of 90);
a first bladder (bladder 96) disposed within the interior of the liquid holding tank, the first bladder defining a first chamber within the first bladder (being the chamber within the bladder 102);
a first inlet (inlet at 98c) extending through the wall of the liquid holding tank and through the first bladder and in fluid communication with the first chamber;
a second chamber (chamber within 90, specifically within 92 is) defined between the inner wall surface of the wall of the liquid holding tank (90) and an outer surface of the first bladder (outer surface of 102); and
a second inlet (98c) extending through the wall of the liquid holding tank and in fluid communication with the second chamber (entering into 92).
With respect to claim 2, Skotinkov discloses the liquid holding tank is configured to hold a first product within the first chamber (holding a first product within 96s chamber) and a second product within the second chamber (second product within 92s chamber).
With respect to claim 3, Skotinkov discloses the liquid holding tank comprises a second bladder (94) disposed within the interior of the liquid holding tank, the second bladder defining a third chamber within the second bladder (as seen in figure 22).
With respect to claim 4, Skotinkov discloses the first bladder comprises an elastomeric material (column 8 rows 15-20).
With respect to claim 7, Skotinkov discloses at least a portion of the first bladder lines the inner wall surface of the wall of the liquid holding tank (as seen in figure 2, where when the bladder is filled it would then expand till it is pressed against the wall of 90 (as it cannot move past said shell 90).
With respect to claims 8 and 20, Skotinkov discloses the first chamber of the first bladder is in an at least substantially full state, the first bladder occupies at least about 8 percent of an overall internal volume of the liquid holding tank (column 8 rows 25-30).
With respect to claim 10, Skotinkov discloses an application system comprising a delivery system (having the spraying boom, abstract) configured to deliver products held within the first chamber and the second chamber during an agricultural process (delivering the product from the bladder/tank to the spraying boom such that it can be sprayed, abstract).
With respect to claims 11 and 19, Skotinkov discloses each of the first chamber and the second chamber are in fluid communication with the delivery system of the application system (allowing the chemicals to be sprayed, abstract).
With respect to claim 12, Skotinkov discloses a volume of the second chamber is inversely linearly related to a volume of the first chamber (as both chambers take up space within 90, the space one could be filled up is reflective on how much the other can be filled up (taking the third bladder to be kept at a constant volume).
With respect to claim 15, Skotinkov The vehicle of claim 1, further comprising an operator cabin comprising a display panel (monitor 26).
With respect to claim 16, Skotinkov discloses a method of forming a liquid holding tank (figure 22, #90) of a vehicle, the method comprising:
disposing a first bladder (96) within an interior of the liquid holding tank (90), a first chamber being defined within the first bladder (chamber within 90) and a second chamber being defined between an inner wall surface of the liquid holding tank and an exterior of the bladder (chamber within 90 at where 92 is);
causing a first inlet extending through a wall of the liquid holding tank (the inlet formed at 98c) and through the first bladder to be in fluid communication with the first chamber (having an inlet from 98c through the tank allowing material to go into 96);
causing a second inlet (inlet 98a) extending through the wall of the liquid holding tank to be in fluid communication with the second chamber (as it extends through the top wall of 90); and
causing both of the first chamber and the second chamber to be in fluid communication with a delivery system of an application system of the vehicle (abstract, bringing the fluid from the tank 90 to the spraying system of the boom).
With respect to claim 17, Skotinkov discloses a second bladder (94) within the interior of the liquid holding tank (figure 22), a third chamber (chamber within 94) being defined within the second bladder; and causing the third chamber to be in fluid communication with the delivery system of the application system of the vehicle (abstract).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skotinkov in view of Witthuhn (U.S. 2017/0021970).
With respect to claim 5, Skotinkov discloses the first bladder, but fails to disclose the first bladder comprises one or more of natural rubber (isoprene), styrene-butadiene rubber, butyl, nitrile, neoprene, ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM), silicone, Viton®, polyurethane, or hydrogenated nitrile.
Witthuhn discloses, paragraph 0008, the use of polyurethane for making a liner for bulk container, as such a liner material provides excellent protection while being economical (paragraph 0003).
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 multiwalled liner as disclosed by Witthuhn that utilizes polyurethane into the structure of Skotinkov, allowing for the liner (bladder) to have excellent protection while being economical.
With respect to claim 9, V discloses the first blader, but fails to disclose the first bladder comprises a plurality of layers.
Witthuhn discloses, abstract, utilizing a multi-layer liner (bladder), as such a liner material provides excellent protection while being economical (paragraph 0003).
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 multiwalled liner as disclosed by Witthuhn into the structure of Skotinkov, allowing for the liner (bladder) to have excellent protection while being economical.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skotinkov in view of Galvin (U.S. 2016/0130078)
With respect to claim 6, Skotinkov discloses the first bladder and the inner wall surface of the wall of the liquid holding tank, but fails to disclose at least a portion of the first bladder is attached to the inner wall surface of the wall of the liquid holding tank.
Galvin, paragraph 0027, discloses attaching the bladder to the tank to hold it in place.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the disclosure of attaching the bladder to the tank wall as done in Galvin into the system of Skotinkov, allowing the bladder to be held (at least at its inlet) in the desired place against the tanks wall so that it can be filled as desired.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skotinkov in view of LeMay (U.S. 2023/0284608).
With respect to claim 13, Skotinkov discloses a laterally extending boom (28); but fails to specifically disclose;
a plurality of hoses supported by the laterally extending boom;
a plurality of pumps supported by the laterally extending boom; and
a plurality of spray nozzles supported by the laterally extending boom.
LeMay, paragraph 0043, discloses the use of a pair of booms that support hoses, pumps, and spray nozzles to allow for dispensing of fluid from a tank onto crops.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize hoses, nozzles, and pumps as disclosed by LeMay onto the boom arms of Skotinkov, allowing their system to pump the fluid from the tank (and bladders) through the system and to efficiently spray the fluid to crops beneath the device.
With respect to claim 14, Skotinkov as modified discloses, the laterally extending boom is configured to fold for transport (as is known in the system of Skotinkov, see background, where such boom arms fold and unfold from the vehicles side).
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