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 (Claims 1-6 and 10-15) and Species II (34’, Fig. 5) in the reply filed on December 1st, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Engelbrecht does not disclose the special technical features of the claims, specifically “a third valve in series with the second on/off valve”, see Remarks, pg. 7. This is not found persuasive because applicant states valves 90 and 92 are in parallel, not in series, but Engelbrecht states that valve 80 is in parallel occurrence with valve 92 (Col. 7, Ln. 41-59). It is shown in Fig. 6 in Engelbrecht that valves 90 and 92 are in series, because they operate in the same line, flow from valve 92 must go through valve 90.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-9 and 16-22, Fig. 4, and Fig. 7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention Group and Species Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on December 1st, 2025.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Engelbrecht et al. (US Patent 10,631,531).
With respect to claim 1, Engelbrecht discloses a liquid distribution system (10, Figs. 3, 6) for a crop sprayer (200, Fig. 1), comprising:
a product tank (12, Figs. 1-3, 6) configured to contain a liquid (“solution”, Col. 2, Ln. 63-67);
a pump (16, Figs. 1-6) in fluid communication with the product tank (12, shown in Figs. 1-3, 6);
a plurality of nozzles (22, Figs. 1-2, 6) carried by a boom (18, shown in Figs. 1-2, 6) and configured to receive the liquid from the pump (16, pump 16 pumps fluid for pump 16 pumps fluid for spraying out of the nozzles 22, shown in Figs. 1-6, Col. 5, Ln. 29-40);
a recirculation line (82, Fig. 6) connecting the plurality of nozzles (22, Figs. 1-2, 6) to the product tank (12, shown in Figs. 1-3, 6), the recirculation line (82, Fig. 6) comprising a first on/off valve (80, Fig. 6) configured to alternatively block or permit flow through the recirculation line (82, valve 80 is controllable to allow or prevent flow into recirculation line 82, Fig. 6, Col. 5, Ln. 50-64, Col. 6, Ln. 33-39, Col. 7, Ln. 41-59); and
a bypass line (102, Fig. 6) connecting the pump (16, Figs. 1-6) to the product tank (12, shown in Figs. 1-3, 6), the bypass line (102, Fig. 6) comprising a second on/off valve (92, Fig. 6) configured to alternatively block or permit flow through the bypass line (102, valve 92 aids in recirculation or circulation of fluid in the system and can be controlled to allow or prevent flow through line 102, Fig. 6, Col. 6, Ln. 1-14, 33-39) and a third valve (90, Fig. 6) in series with the second on/off valve (92, shown in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 3, Engelbrecht discloses the liquid distribution system of claim 1. Engelbrecht further discloses a flow indicator (118, Fig. 6) configured to detect flow through the recirculation line (recirculation device has a flow meter 118 which detects flow rate in the system, Col. 6, Ln. 28-32).
Regarding claim 4, Engelbrecht discloses the liquid distribution system of claim 1. Engelbrecht further discloses the plurality of nozzles (22, Figs. 1-2, 6) comprises a first plurality of nozzles (top boom section 20, shown in Fig. 6) and a second plurality of nozzles (second from the top boom section 20, shown in Fig. 6), and wherein each plurality of nozzles (top boom section 20, second from the top boom section 20, shown in Fig. 6) is configured to receive the liquid from the pump (16, Figs. 1-6) independent of the other plurality of nozzles (top boom section 20, second from the top boom section 20, section valves may be controlled to open or close a particular boom section, shown in Fig. 6, Col. 8, Ln. 5-36).
Regarding claim 11, Engelbrecht discloses the liquid distribution system of claim 1. Engelbrecht further discloses a control system (“electronic control unit”, not explicitly shown, but there is an electronic control unit electrically coupled to valves 80, 90, 92, Col. 6, Ln. 33-39) configured to selectively control positions of the first and second on/off valves (electronic control unit controls operation of the valves 80 and 90, Col. 6, Ln. 33-39, Col. 8, Ln. 63 to Col. 9, Ln. 3), wherein when the first and second on/off valves are in a first position, the pump is configured to circulate the liquid through the recirculation line and the bypass line (when valves 80 and 90 are open, fluid is pumped from pump 16 and flows through multiple pathways including recirculation line 82 and line 102, Col. 2, Ln. 1-11, Col. 4, Ln. 5-16, Col. 5, Ln. 50 to Col. 6, Ln. 14, Col. 8, Ln. 1-36), and wherein when the first and second on/off valves are in a second position, the pump is configured to pump the liquid out through at least some of the plurality of nozzles (when valves 80 and 90 are closed, fluid is prevented from flowing through the pathways, Col. 2, Ln. 1-11, Col. 4, Ln. 5-16, Col. 5, Ln. 50 to Col. 6, Ln. 14, Col. 8, Ln. 1-36).
With respect to claim 12, Engelbrecht discloses a crop sprayer (200, Fig. 1), comprising:
a chassis (226, base frame of fluid operation system 10, shown in Fig. 4, Col. 2, Ln. 55-62); and
the liquid distribution system (10, Fig. 3) of claim 1 carried by the chassis (226, Fig. 1, Col. 2, Ln. 55-62).
Regarding claim 14, Engelbrecht discloses the crop sprayer of claim 12, further comprising an operator cab (224, Fig. 2) supported by the chassis (226, Fig. 1, Col. 2, Ln. 55-62).
In regards to claim 15, Engelbrecht discloses the crop sprayer of claim 12, further comprising a hitch (shown in Fig. 2, Col. 2, Ln. 63-67) configured to couple the chassis (226, Fig. 1, Col. 2, Ln. 55-62) to a tractor (smaller vehicle shown in Fig. 2).
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.
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.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelbrecht et al. (US Patent 10,631,531) in view of Bastin et al. (US Patent 6,345,772).
With respect to claim 2, Engelbrecht discloses the liquid distribution system of claim 1. However, Engelbrecht does not disclose a check valve in the recirculation line, wherein the check valve is configured to prevent flow from the product tank to the plurality of nozzles through the recirculation line. Bastin teaches a liquid distribution system (212, Fig. 4) comprising a check valve (262, Fig. 4) in the line (line from tank 242 to valves 264, 266, shown in Fig. 4), wherein the check valve (262, Fig. 4) is configured to prevent flow from the product tank (242, Fig. 1) to the plurality of nozzles (38, Fig. 4) through the line (line from tank 242 to valves 264, 266, check valve 262 controls solution flow coming from the tank 242 and either allows or prevents flow before it reaches valves 244 and 246, and serves as a regulator, shown in Fig. 4, Col. 5, Ln. 34-59).
Engelbrecht and Bastin are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of liquid distribution systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the check valve in Bastin’s system, to Engelbrecht’s system, to have a check valve in the recirculation line, wherein the check valve is configured to prevent flow from the product tank to the plurality of nozzles through the recirculation line. Doing so ensures a simple and inexpensive way to control the liquid in the system and produce a more consistent foam coming out of the nozzles (Bastin, Col. 5, Ln. 34-59).
In regards to claim 13, Engelbrecht discloses the crop sprayer of claim 12. However, Engelbrecht does not explicitly disclose an engine supported by the chassis, the engine configured to propel the chassis through an agricultural field. Bastin teaches a crop sprayer (10, Fig. 2) comprising an engine (18, Fig. 3) supported by the chassis (14, shown in Fig. 3), the engine (18, Fig. 3) configured to propel the chassis (14, Figs. 2-3) through an agricultural field (engine 18 drives chassis 14 and ground-engaging motive members 16 across a field in a conventionally known manner, Col. 3, Ln. 1-21).
Engelbrecht and Bastin are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of crop sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the engine in Bastin’s system, to Engelbrecht’s system, to have an engine supported by the chassis, the engine configured to propel the chassis through an agricultural field. Doing so enables the chassis and sprayer to move across the field (Bastin, Col. 3, Ln. 1-21).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelbrecht et al. (US Patent 10,631,531) in view of Anderson et al. (US 20220248655 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Engelbrecht discloses the liquid distribution system of claim 4. However, Engelbrecht does not disclose a manifold configured to receive the liquid from the pump and distribute the liquid to each of the first plurality of nozzles and the second plurality of nozzles. Anderson teaches a liquid distribution system (120, Fig. 2) comprising a manifold (210, Fig. 2) configured to receive the liquid from the pump (230, shown in Fig. 2) and distribute the liquid to each of the first plurality of nozzles and the second plurality of nozzles (not explicitly shown, but distribution manifold 210 may be provided with instructions from control system 130 to distribute which nozzles to be sprayed from, Paragraph 0038).
Engelbrecht and Anderson are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of liquid distribution systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the manifold in Anderson’s system, to Engelbrecht’s system, to have a manifold configured to receive the liquid from the pump and distribute the liquid to each of the first plurality of nozzles and the second plurality of nozzles. Doing so provides more specific instructions for treating plants in a specific areas (Anderson, Paragraph 0005).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelbrecht et al. (US Patent 10,631,531) in view of Price et al. (US 20230405625 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Engelbrecht discloses the liquid distribution system of claim 1. However, Engelbrecht does not disclose each of the plurality of nozzles comprises a check valve to enable flow through the respective nozzle when a pressure at the respective nozzle exceeds a threshold. Price teaches a liquid distribution system (10, Fig. 4) comprising each of the plurality of nozzles (38, Figs. 2-3) comprises a check valve (55, Figs. 2-3) to enable flow through the respective nozzle (38, Figs. 2-3) when a pressure at the respective nozzle (38, Figs. 2-3) exceeds a threshold (each nozzle 38 has a respective check valve 55 that is electronically operated for individually controlling liquid flow, which may be based on a given threshold of pressure of the liquid coming from the conduit 14, Paragraphs 0027-0028).
Engelbrecht and Price are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of liquid distribution systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the check valve in Price’s system, to Engelbrecht’s system, to have each of the plurality of nozzles comprises a check valve to enable flow through the respective nozzle when a pressure at the respective nozzle exceeds a threshold. Doing so provides simple construction and economical manufacturing, while providing more control over the flow coming from the nozzles (Price, Paragraphs 0009, 0027-0028).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelbrecht et al. (US Patent 10,631,531) in view of de Andrade Alves et al. (US 20220287289 A1).
In regards to claim 10, Engelbrecht discloses the liquid distribution system of claim 1. However, Engelbrecht does not disclose the bypass line further comprises a restriction in series with the second on/off valve. de Andrade Alves teaches a liquid distribution system (112, Fig. 6) comprising the line (line between valve 158 and reservoir 164, shown in Fig. 6) comprises a restriction (160, flow regulator 160 may be a restrictive type, Fig. 6, Paragraph 0065) in series with the second on/off valve (166, shown in Fig. 6).
Engelbrecht and de Andrade Alves are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of liquid distribution systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the restriction in de Andrade Alves’ system, to Engelbrecht’s system, to have the bypass line further comprises a restriction in series with the second on/off valve. Doing so maintains a constant flow rate regardless of pressure drop across the valve and flow direction (de Andrade Alves, Paragraph 0065).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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 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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752