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 .
In view of the appeal brief filed on 06/02/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 3–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight et al. (USPN 5934561) in view of Brown (USPN 7891930 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
823
961
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Knight Annotated Fig.
Regarding Claim 1, Knight discloses an agitation pressure control system in an agitation system of an agricultural vehicle comprising: a tank containing (1) a fluid based material (Col. 2, Lines 45–48); and a hydraulic circuit, wherein the hydraulic circuit comprises (Fig.): a hydraulic pump (5), wherein an inlet (36) of the hydraulic pump (3) is fluidly connected to the tank (1); a T connection (Knight Annotated Fig.) downstream of the hydraulic pump (3), wherein the T connection comprises a connection inlet and two connection outlets (Col. 2, Lines 59–66) the connection inlet is fluidly connected to the hydraulic pump (3), a first connection outlet of the two connection outlets is fluidly connected to an agitation line (9), a second connection outlet of the two connection outlets is fluidly connected to a spray line (10), the agitation line (9) comprises a first valve (Knight Annotated Fig.), and the spray line comprises a second valve (Knight Annotated Fig.) but does not explicitly disclose a single control lever. How are there two valves?
Brown teaches the use of a single control lever (101a) configured to control the first valve (114) and the second valve (116) in order to simplify the control of two valves (Col.10, Lines 22–30).
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 first and second valves of Knight with a lever that controls the first and second valves as taught by Brown in order to simplify the task of switching the first and second valves for the operator.
The Knight–Brown combination a single control lever (Brown 101a) configured to control the first valve and the second valve (Knight Annotated Fig.).
Regarding Claim 3, the Knight–Brown combination teaches the spray line (Knight 10) comprises an outlet downstream of the second valve (Knight Fig.), wherein the outlet of the spray line is fluidly connected to a spray system (Knight 16) of the agricultural vehicle (Knight Col. 1, Lines 7–12); and the agitation line (Knight 9) comprises an outlet which is downstream of the first valve (Knight 16) and is fluidly connected to the tank (Knight 1 and Fig.).
Regarding Claim 4, the Knight–Brown combination teaches outlet of the agitation line (Knight 9) is fluidly connected to the tank (Knight 1) via at least one venturi nozzle (Knight 3).
Claim(s) 2, 5–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight et al. (USPN 5934561) in view of Brown (USPN 7891930 B2) in further view of Engelbrecht et al. (US PGPub 20170006852 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, the Knight–Brown combination teaches a second valve (Knight 41), but does not disclose the second valve is an electronic valve.
Engelbrecht teaches electronic valves (Para. 35) as one manner in controlling a valve.
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 valves with electronic valves since it has been held that “choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.” MPEP §2143(I)(E). Here, there are only two options, manual or electronic control. Therefore, the electronic control of the valve of Engelbrecht is used to control the second valve of the Knight–Brown combination.
Regarding Claim 5, the Knight–Brown combination does not teach the spray line comprises a flow meter upstream of the second valve.
Engelbrecht teaches a flow meter (118) upstream of the second valve (94) in order to automatically control the valve.
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 spray line of the Knight–Brown combination with a flow meter as taught by Engelbrecht in order to control the valve based upon the fluid flow.
Regarding Claim 6, the Knight–Brown combination does not teach the hydraulic pump is a centrifugal pump.
Engelbrecht teaches the hydraulic pump (14) is a centrifugal pump in order to fill/provide fluid for the fluid system (Para. 13).
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 spray line of the Knight–Brown combination with a centrifugal pump as taught by Engelbrecht in order to move the fluid through the system.
Regarding Claim 7, the Knight–Brown combination teaches the agricultural vehicle but does not teach the agricultural vehicle is a self-propelled agricultural sprayer, and the self-propelled agricultural sprayer comprising an operator cabin.
Engelbrecht teaches the agricultural vehicle is a self-propelled agricultural sprayer (Para. 15) as one of two agricultural vehicle configurations.
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 agricultural vehicle sprayer with a self-propelled agricultural vehicle sprayer. Since it has been held that “choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. MPEP §2143(I)(E). In Engelbrecht Para. 15, discusses that the two agricultural vehicle configurations are “ trailed sprayers” and “self-propelled sprayers.”
The Knight–Brown–Engelbrecht combination teaches the self-propelled agricultural sprayer (Engelbrecht Para. 15) comprising an operator cabin (Engelbrecht Para. 35, where the cab is equivalent to the operator cabin).
Regarding Claim 8, the Knight–Brown–Engelbrecht combination teaches the single control lever (Brown 101a) is disposed within the operator cabin (Engelbrecht Para. 35, where the controls are located in the cab and the lever is a type of control).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11–15 are allowed because of the method step “starting an agitation pressure control with the second valve fully open; opening the first valve until an agitation pressure reaches a desired value or the first valve reaches a fully open state.”
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 Angelisa L. Hicks whose telephone number is 571-272-9552 and email is Angelisa.Hicks@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:30AM-5:00PM 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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/Angelisa L. Hicks/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753
