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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 6-15, filed May 6th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-4, 11-12, and 14-15 under Engelbrecht et al. (US Patent 10,631,531) under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), claims 2 and 13 under Engelbrecht et al. (US Patent 10,631,531) in view of Bastin et al. (US Patent 6,345,772), claim 5 under Engelbrecht et al. (US Patent 10,631,531) in view of Anderson et al. (US 20220248655 A1), claim 6 under Engelbrecht et al. (US Patent 10,631,531) in view of Price et al. (US 20230405625 A1), and claim 10 under Engelbrecht et al. (US Patent 10,631,531) in view of de Andrade Alves et al. (US 20220287289 A1) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Engelbrecht et al. (US 20080197207 A1) under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) for claims 1-5 and 11, Engelbrecht et al. (US 20080197207 A1) in view of Price et al. (US 20230405625 A1) under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claim 6, Engelbrecht et al. (US 20080197207 A1) in view of de Andrade Alves et al. (US 20220287289 A1) under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claim 10, Engelbrecht et al. (US 20080197207 A1) in view of Bastin et al. (US Patent 6,345,772) under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claims 12-14, and Engelbrecht et al. (US 20080197207 A1) in view of Bastin et al. (US Patent 6,345,772) and Stovall et al. (US Patent 10,912,245) under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claim 15.
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 1-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Engelbrecht et al. (US 20080197207 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Engelbrecht discloses a liquid distribution system (10, Fig. 1) for a crop sprayer (Paragraph 0001), comprising:
a product tank (16, 70, Fig. 1) configured to contain a liquid (shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0005);
a pump (20, Fig. 1) in fluid communication with the product tank (16, 70, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0006, 0009);
a plurality of nozzles (14, Fig. 1) carried by a boom (12, shown in Fig. 1) and configured to receive the liquid from the pump (20, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0005, 0014);
a recirculation line (72, line from solution tank 16 through pump 20 and spray regulator 30 and to spray sections 14, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0014) connecting the plurality of nozzles (14, Fig. 1) to the product tank (16, 70, shown in Fig. 1), the recirculation line (72, line from tank 16 through pump 20 and spray regulator 30 and to spray sections 14, Fig. 1) comprising a first on/off valve (24, Fig. 1) configured to alternatively block or permit flow through the recirculation line (valve 24 is a control valve at an outlet 26 of solution tank 16, Paragraphs 0006, 0014); and
a bypass line (50, line from solution tank 16 through pump 20, bypass valve 51, selector valve 56, and solution tank input 58 to solution tank 16, Fig. 1) connecting the pump (20, Fig. 1) to the product tank (16, shown in Fig. 1), the bypass line (50, line from solution tank 16 through pump 20, bypass valve 51, selector valve 56, and solution tank input 58 to solution tank 16, Fig. 1) comprising a second on/off valve (51, Fig. 1) configured to alternatively block or permit flow through the bypass line (50, line from solution tank 16 through pump 20, bypass valve 51, selector valve 56, and solution tank input 58 to solution tank 16, controller 100 is connected to bypass valve 51 to control flow in bypass circuit 50, Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0008, 0011) and a third valve (56, Fig. 1) in series with the second on/off valve (50, shown in Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 2, Engelbrecht discloses the liquid distribution system of claim 1. Engelbrecht discloses a check valve (76, Fig. 1) in the recirculation line (72, line from solution tank 16 through pump 20 and spray regulator 30 and to spray sections 14, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0014), wherein the check valve (76, Fig. 1) is configured to prevent flow from the product tank (16, 70, Fig. 1) to the plurality of nozzles (14, Fig. 1) through the recirculation line (valve 76 is a one-way check valve from fill system 70, Paragraph 0009).
Regarding claim 3, Engelbrecht discloses the liquid distribution system of claim 1. Engelbrecht discloses a flow indicator (36, 38, Fig. 1) configured to detect flow through the recirculation line (flow and pressure signals are provided through flow and pressure transducers 36 and 38, Paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 4, Engelbrecht discloses the liquid distribution system of claim 1. Engelbrecht further discloses the plurality of nozzles (14, Fig. 1) comprises a first plurality of nozzles (top spray section 14, shown in Fig. 1) and a second plurality of nozzles (bottom spray section 14, shown in Fig. 1), and wherein each plurality of nozzles (14, Fig. 1) is configured to receive the liquid from the pump (20, Fig. 1) independent of the other plurality of nozzles (14, each spray section receives flow from pump 20 independently from another spray section through control valves 34, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0006, 0014).
With respect to claim 5, Engelbrecht discloses the liquid distribution system of claim 4. Engelbrecht discloses a manifold (30, Fig. 1) configured to receive the liquid from the pump (20, shown in Fig. 1) and distribute the liquid to each of the first plurality of nozzles (top spray section 14, shown in Fig. 1) and the second plurality of nozzles (bottom spray section 14, shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Engelbrecht discloses the liquid distribution system of claim 1. Engelbrecht further discloses a control system (100, Fig. 1) configured to selectively control positions of the first and second on/off valves (24, 51, controller 100 may be a system controller for controlling sprayer functions, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0011), wherein when the first and second on/off valves (24, 51, Fig. 1) are in a first position, the pump (20, Fig. 1) is configured to circulate the liquid through the recirculation line and the bypass line (controller 100 can control sprayer functions, such as circulation, Paragraphs 0011, 0014), and wherein when the first and second on/off valves (24, 51, Fig. 1) are in a second position, the pump (20, Fig. 1) is configured to pump the liquid out through at least some of the plurality of nozzles (14, during normal spraying operations, valve 24 opens outlet 26 of solution tank 16 to allow flow out of spray sections 14, and controller 100 is connected to bypass 51 to control and activate the bypass circuit 50, Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0011, 0014).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelbrecht et al. (US 20080197207 A1) 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 the motivation of providing 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 20080197207 A1) 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 motivation to maintain a constant flow rate regardless of pressure drop across the valve and flow direction (de Andrade Alves, Paragraph 0065).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelbrecht et al. (US 20080197207 A1) in view of Bastin et al. (US Patent 6,345,772).
With respect to claim 12, Engelbrecht discloses the liquid distribution system of claim 1. Engelbrecht discloses a crop sprayer (12, Fig. 1).
However, Engelbrecht does not explicitly disclose a chassis. Bastin teaches a crop sprayer (10, Fig. 2) comprising a chassis (14, shown in Fig. 3).
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 chassis in Bastin’s system, to Engelbrecht’s system, to have the motivation of providing a frame to support the boom and a majority of other components of sprayer 10 (Bastin, Col. 3, Ln. 11-14).
In regards to claim 13, Engelbrecht, as modified by Bastin, discloses the crop sprayer of claim 12. Bastin further teaches 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).
Regarding claim 14, Engelbrecht, as modified by Bastin, discloses the crop sprayer of claim 12. Bastin further teaches comprising an operator cab (cab of sprayer 10, shown in Fig. 2) supported by the chassis (14, shown in Fig. 2).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelbrecht et al. (US 20080197207 A1) in view of Bastin et al. (US Patent 6,345,772) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Stovall et al. (US Patent 10,912,245).
In regards to claim 15, Engelbrecht, as modified by Bastin, discloses the crop sprayer of claim 12. However, Engelbrecht and Bastin do not explicitly teach a hitch.
Stovall teaches comprising a hitch (40, Fig. 1) configured to couple the chassis (20, Fig. 1) to a tractor (10, shown in Fig. 1, Col. 4, Ln. 38-41).
Engelbrecht, Bastin, and Stovall 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 hitch in Stovall’s system, to Engelbrecht’s system, as modified by Bastin, to have the motivation of providing a frame to support or couple a plurality of components to the crop sprayer (Stovall, Col. 4, Ln. 31-43).
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
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights