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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 03/03/2026. These drawings overcome the drawing objection issued in Office Action mailed 12/03/2025 and are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: term “the wall” is believed to be in error for - - the opening wall - -
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 12, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 and its dependents, it is unclear whether either of term “the first boom section” or term “the second boom section” refers to any of the previously claimed “primary boom section”, “inner boom section”, and “breakaway boom section”. The same rejection is also applied to claim 16 and its dependents.
Regarding claim 12, term “the second pivot joint” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear what it refers to.
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 1, 3-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patterson 5927606 in view of Wilger 4709857 and Shaffer 20250212716.
Regarding claim 1, Patterson teaches the invention as claimed: An agricultural applicator (Figs. 1-2), comprising:
a chassis (the chassis of tractor 10); and
a boom assembly (comprising 21, 19, and 20) supported by the chassis (see Figs. 1-2), the boom assembly comprising:
a lift arm assembly (21, see col. 5, ll. 50-56 and Figs. 1-2); and
a boom arm (19 or 20) supported by the lift arm assembly (Figs. 1-2), the boom arm comprising:
a primary boom section (22) coupled to the lift arm assembly (21, see Figs. 1-2);
an inner boom section (24) pivotably coupled to the primary boom section (22) at a first pivot joint (23) defining a first axis of rotation (axis 27 in Fig. 2 at pivot tube 43 of the first pivot joint 23 in Figs. 4 and 8 and col. 6, ll. 40-48) and configured to pivot between a folded position (see Fig. 1) and an extended position (see Fig. 2) about the first pivot joint (23) relative to the primary boom section (22, see Figs. 1 and 8);
a breakaway boom section (26) pivotably coupled to the inner boom section (24) at a second pivot joint (25) and configured to pivot between a folded position (see Figs. 7-8) and an extended position (see in Fig. 2) about the second pivot joint (25) relative to the inner boom section (24), the second pivot joint (25) defining a second axis of rotation (at pivot tube 54 in Fig. 5 of the second pivot joint 25 in Fig. 2, also see Figs. 6-8 and col. 7, ll. 8-25) different from the first axis of rotation (axis 27 in Fig. 2 at pivot tube 43 of the first pivot joint 23 in Figs. 4 and 8 and col. 6, ll. 40-48; at two different locations);
a plurality of nozzles (the distribution nozzles per col. 7, ll. 30-35) positioned along the first boom section (24) and the second boom section (26) for selectively applying an agricultural product to a field surface (col. 5, ll. 12-25 and col. 7, ll. 30-35); and
a transport holder (59) coupled to the primary boom section (22, see Figs. 2-3) and configured to hold the breakaway boom section (26) while the inner boom section (24) is in the folded position (see annotated Fig. 1) and the breakaway boom section (26) is in the extended position (see annotated Fig. 1) during transportation (col. 5, ll. 34-56), such that the second boom section (24) and the primary boom section (22) is positioned parallelly and adjacently to each other (see annotated Fig. 1),
wherein, the inner boom section (24) is positioned between the primary boom section (22) and the breakaway boom section (26, see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
956
1546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Patterson does not teach a coupler defined at the breakaway boom section, a transport lock coupled to the primary boom section and received by the coupler of the breakaway section while the inner boom section is in the folded position and the breakaway boom section is in the extended position, whereby pivoting of the breakaway boom section away from the extended position is limited when the inner boom section is in the folded position.
However, Wilger teaches a transport lock assembly comprises a transport lock (hook 28, col. 5, ll. 48-57 and Fig. 3) and a coupler (the coupler per col. 5, ll. 48-57), wherein the transport lock (hook 28, col. 5, ll. 48-57 and Fig. 3) coupled to the primary boom section (9, at an inner end that is close to tractor 2, see Fig. 3) and received by the coupler (the coupler per col. 5, ll. 48-57) defined at the breakaway boom section (10, at an outer end of 10, see Fig. 3), whereby pivoting of the breakaway boom section (10) away from the primary boom section is limited (inherited by the teaching of hook 28 engages with a coupler) when the primary boom section (9) and the breakaway boom section (10) are positioned parallelly and adjacently to each other during transportation (col. 5, ll. 48-57 and Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the transport holder of Patterson with Wilger’s transport lock assembly comprising a transport lock coupled to the primary boom section and a coupler defined at the breakaway boom section, such that
a coupler defined at the breakaway boom section, a transport lock coupled to the primary boom section and received by the coupler of the breakaway section while the inner boom section is in the folded position and the breakaway boom section is in the extended position, whereby pivoting of the breakaway boom section away from the extended position is limited when the inner boom section is in the folded position (the modification is to replace Patterson’s holder 59 with Wilger’s transport lock assembly, such that Wilger’s transport lock is coupled to Patterson’s primary boom section and Wilger’s coupler is defined at Patterson’s breakaway boom section, and when Patterson’s inner boom section is in folded position and Patterson’s breakaway boom section is in extended position during transportation, Wilger’s transport lock and Wilger’s coupler are engaged to each other and perform the claimed function, and thus, the modification read on the claimed limitation)
because it is noted that a simple substitution of one known element, in this case, using transport holder, for another, in this case, using a transport lock assembly comprising a transport lock and a coupler, to obtain predictable Results, in this case, holding the weight of the breakaway boom section during transportation, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, MPEP 2141 III(B).
Patterson in view of Wilger does not teach said coupler comprises a bounded opening defined through the breakaway boom section, such that said transport lock is received within the bounded opening of the breakaway boom section, whereby pivoting of the breakaway boom section away from the extended position is limited to an extent of the bounded opening.
However, Shaffer teaches a transport lock assembly comprising a transport lock (hook 48) and a coupler (35, see Fig. 6), wherein the coupler comprises a bounded opening (annotated Fig. 6) defined through the breakaway boom section (17, on a bar of 17, see annotated Fig. 6), such that the transport lock (hook 48) is received within the bounded opening (see Fig. 7, 48 inserts into the opening) of the breakaway boom section (17), whereby pivoting of the breakaway boom section (17) is limited to an extent of the bounded opening (because hook 48 inserted into the bounded opening as shown in Fig. 7, the pivoting movement of 17 is limited by the space defined by the bounded opening in annotated Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
893
1044
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosed but non-depicted coupler of Patterson in view of Wilger to be the coupler comprising a bounded opening as taught by Shaffer, such that
a bounded opening defined through the breakaway boom section, a transport lock is received within the bounded opening of the breakaway boom section, whereby pivoting of the breakaway boom section away from the extended position is limited to an extent of the bounded opening (the modification is to provide Wilger’s coupler with Shaffer’s bounded opening in order to receive Wilger’s transport lock, and thus, the modification read on the claim limitation)
in order to receive the transport lock and hold the second section (Shaffer, [0067]).
Regarding claim 3, Patterson in view of Wilger and Shaffer further teaches the function of the transport lock claimed in claim 3 because said function is inherited by the structures and the location of the transport lock as taught by Patterson in view of Wilger and Shaffer, see discussion for claim 1 above.
The motivations of the combination are the same with the reasons for rejecting claim 1, see above.
Regarding claim 4, Patterson in view of Wilger and Shaffer further teaches wherein: the transport lock (Wilger’s hook 28 in Wilger’s Fig. 3, which is indicated by Shaffer’s 48 in Figs. 5-6) comprises a bracket plate (a plate that forms Wilger’s hook 28 as shown in Shaffer’s Figs. 5-6) protruding from the primary boom section (Patterson’s 22 where Wilger’s hook 28 is coupled to, see Wilger’s col. 5, ll. 48-57 and Wilger’s Fig. 3); and the bounded opening (Wilger’s coupler as taught by Wilger’s col. 5, ll. 48-57 comprising Shaffer’s bounded opening in Shaffer’s annotated Fig. 6 in claim 1) is configured to receive the bracket plate (Wilger’s hook 28 in Wilger’s Fig. 3, which is indicated by Shaffer’s 48 in Fig. 6, received by Shaffer’s bounded opening as shown in Shaffer’s Fig. 7) therethrough when the inner boom section (Patterson’s 24) is pivoted to the folded position (as shown in Patterson’s Fig. 1) and the breakaway boom section (Patterson’s 26) is in the extended position (as shown in Patterson’s Fig. 1, also see teaching at Patterson’s col. 5, ll. 34-56).
The motivations of the combination are the same with the reasons for rejecting claim 1, see above.
Regarding claim 5, Patterson in view of Wilger and Shaffer further teaches wherein: a bracket portion (Wilger’s hook 28 in Wilger’s Fig. 3, which is indicated by Shaffer’s 48 in Fig. 5-6 comprising the bracket portion in Shaffer’s annotated Fig. 5) configured to couple the bracket plate (the plate that forms Wilger’s hook 28 indicated by Shaffer’s 48 in Shaffer’s Figs. 5-6) to the primary boom section (Patterson’s 22 where Wilger’s hook 28 is coupled to, see Wilger’s col. 5, ll. 48-57 and Wilger’s Fig. 3); and a finger portion (the finger portion in Shaffer’s annotated Fig. 5) protruding from the bracket portion (the bracket portion in Shaffer’s annotated Fig. 5) and configured to be received through the bounded opening (Wilger’s coupler as taught by Wilger’s col. 5, ll. 48-57 comprising Shaffer’s bounded opening in Shaffer’s annotated Fig. 6 in claim 1 receiving the finger portion in Shaffer’s annotated Fig. 5) when the inner boom section (Patterson’s 24) is pivoted to the folded position (as shown in Patterson’s Fig. 1) and the breakaway boom section (Patterson’s 26) is in the extended position (as shown in Patterson’s Fig. 1, also see teaching at Patterson’s col. 5, ll. 34-56).
PNG
media_image3.png
834
870
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The motivations of the combination are the same with the reasons for rejecting claim 1, see above.
Regarding claim 6, Patterson in view of Wilger and Shaffer further teaches wherein: the bounded opening (Wilger’s coupler as taught by Wilger’s col. 5, ll. 48-57 comprising Shaffer’s bounded opening in Shaffer’s annotated Fig. 6) of the breakaway boom section (Patterson’s 26) is bounded by an opening wall (the filled part marked in Shaffer’s annotated Fig. 6) for limiting movement of the finger portion (the finger portion in Shaffer’s annotated Fig. 5 in claim 5) of the bracket plate (the plate that forms Wilger’s hook 28 indicated by Shaffer’s 48 in Shaffer’s Figs. 5-6) within the wall (when the lock is inserted into the bounded opening as shown in Shaffer’s Fig. 7); and the finger portion (the finger portion in Shaffer’s annotated Fig. 5 in claim 5) of the bracket plate (the plate that forms Wilger’s hook 28 indicated by Shaffer’s 48 in Shaffer’s Figs. 5-6) contacts the opening wall (the filled part marked in Shaffer’s annotated Fig. 6) to limit pivoting of the breakaway boom section (Patterson’s 26) to the extent of the opening wall (the lock cannot move beyond Shaffer’s opening wall, see Shaffer’s Fig. 7) about the second pivot joint (Patterson’s 25) toward the folded position (as shown in Patterson’s Figs. 7-8) when the inner boom section (Patterson’s 24) is in the folded position (as shown in Patterson’s Fig. 1, also see teaching at Patterson’s col. 5, ll. 34-56).
PNG
media_image4.png
893
1046
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The motivations of the combination are the same with the reasons for rejecting claim 1, see above.
Regarding claim 7, Patterson further teaches wherein the first axis of rotation (axis 27 in Fig. 2 at pivot tube 43 in Fig. 4 of the first pivot joint 23 in Fig. 2, also see col. 6, ll. 40-48) is oriented differently than (see annotated Fig. 4) the second axis of rotation (at pivot tube 54 in Fig. 5 of the second pivot joint 25 in Fig. 2, also see Figs. 6-8 and col. 7, ll. 8-25).
PNG
media_image5.png
838
1088
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Patterson further teaches wherein: the first axis of rotation (axis 27 in Fig. 2 at pivot tube 43 in Fig. 4 of the first pivot joint 23 in Fig. 2) comprises a vertical axis of rotation (axis 27 is vertical to the post 41, see annotated Fig. 4 in claim 7 and col. 6, ll. 35-40 and col. 5, ll. 40-45); and the second axis of rotation (at pivot tube 54 in Fig. 5 of the second pivot joint 25 in Fig. 2) comprises an oblique axis of rotation (because pivot tube 54 is obliqued, best seen in Fig. 8A and col. 7, ll. 8-25).
Regarding claim 9, Patterson teaches the invention as claimed: A boom assembly (comprising 19, 20 and 21) for an agricultural applicator (Figs. 1-2), comprising:
a lift arm assembly (21, see col. 5, ll. 50-56 and Figs. 1-2); and
a boom arm (19 or 20) supported by the lift arm assembly (Figs. 1-2), the boom arm comprising:
a primary boom section (22) coupled to the lift arm assembly (21, see Figs. 1-2);
an inner boom section (24) pivotably coupled to the primary boom section (22) and configured to pivot between a folded position (see Fig. 1) and an extended position (see Fig. 2) relative to the primary boom section (22, see Figs. 1 and 8);
a breakaway boom section (26) pivotably coupled to the inner boom section (24) and configured to pivot between a folded position (see Figs. 7-8) and an extended position (see in Fig. 2) relative to the inner boom section (24),
a plurality of nozzles (the distribution nozzles per col. 7, ll. 30-35) positioned along the primary boom section (22), the inner boom section (24), and the breakaway boom section (26) for selectively applying an agricultural product to a field surface (col. 5, ll. 12-25 and col. 7, ll. 30-35); and
a transport holder (59) coupled to the primary boom section (22, see Figs. 2-3) and configured to hold the breakaway boom section (26) while the inner boom section (24) is in the folded position (see annotated Fig. 1) and the breakaway boom section (26) is in the extended position (see annotated Fig. 1) during transportation (col. 5, ll. 34-56), such that the second boom section (24) and the primary boom section (22) is positioned parallelly and adjacently to each other (see annotated Fig. 1),
wherein, the inner boom section (24) is positioned between the primary boom section (22) and the breakaway boom section (26, see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
956
1546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Patterson does not teach a coupler defined at the breakaway boom section, a bracket plate coupled to the primary boom section and protruding therefrom, the bracket plate received by the coupler of the breakaway section while the inner boom section is in the folded position and the breakaway boom section is in the extended position, whereby pivoting of the breakaway boom section away from the extended position is limited when the inner boom section is in the folded position.
However, Wilger teaches a transport lock assembly comprises a bracket plate (hook 28, col. 5, ll. 48-57 and Fig. 3) and a coupler (the coupler per col. 5, ll. 48-57), wherein the bracket plate (hook 28, col. 5, ll. 48-57 and Fig. 3) coupled to the primary boom section (9, at an inner end that is close to tractor 2, see Fig. 3) and protruding therefrom, the bracket plate (hook 28, col. 5, ll. 48-57 and Fig. 3) received by the coupler (the coupler per col. 5, ll. 48-57) defined at the breakaway boom section (10, at an outer end of 10, see Fig. 3), whereby pivoting of the breakaway boom section (10) away from the primary boom section (9) is limited (inherited by the teaching of hook 28 engages with a coupler) when the primary boom section (9) and the breakaway boom section (10) are positioned parallelly and adjacently to each other during transportation (col. 5, ll. 48-57 and Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the transport holder of Patterson with Wilger’s transport lock assembly comprising a bracket plate coupled to the primary boom section and a coupler defined at the breakaway boom section, such that
a coupler defined at the breakaway boom section, a bracket plate coupled to the primary boom section an protruding therefrom, the bracket plate received by the coupler of the breakaway section while the inner boom section is in the folded position and the breakaway boom section is in the extended position, whereby pivoting of the breakaway boom section away from the extended position is limited when the inner boom section is in the folded position (the modification is to replace Patterson’s holder 59 with Wilger’s transport lock assembly, such that Wilger’s bracket plate is coupled to Patterson’s primary boom section and Wilger’s coupler is defined at Patterson’s breakaway boom section, and when Patterson’s inner boom section is in folded position and Patterson’s breakaway boom section is in extended position during transportation, Wilger’s bracket plate and Wilger’s coupler are engaged to each other and perform the claimed function, and thus the modification read on the claimed limitation)
because it is noted that a simple substitution of one known element, in this case, using transport holder, for another, in this case, using a transport lock assembly comprising a bracket plate and a coupler, to obtain predictable results, in this case, holding the weight of the breakaway boom section during transportation, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, MPEP 2141 III(B).
Patterson in view of Wilger does not teach said coupler comprises a bounded opening defined through the breakaway boom section, such that said bracket plate is received within the bounded opening of the breakaway boom section, whereby pivoting of the breakaway boom section away from the extended position is limited to an extent of the bounded opening.
However, Shaffer teaches a transport lock assembly comprising a bracket plate (hook 48) and a coupler (35, see Fig. 6), wherein the coupler comprises a bounded opening (annotated Fig. 6) defined through the breakaway boom section (17, on a bar of 17, see annotated Fig. 6), such that the bracket plate (hook 48) is received within the bounded opening (see Fig. 7, 48 inserts into the opening) of the breakaway boom section (17), whereby pivoting of the breakaway boom section (17) is limited to an extent of the bounded opening (because hook 48 inserted into the bounded opening as shown in Fig. 7, the pivoting movement of 17 is limited by the space defined by the bounded opening in annotated Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
893
1044
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosed but non-depicted coupler of Patterson in view of Wilger to be the coupler comprising a bounded opening as taught by Shaffer, such that
a bounded opening defined through the breakaway boom section, a bracket plate is received within the bounded opening of the breakaway boom section, whereby pivoting of the breakaway boom section away from the extended position is limited to an extent of the bounded opening (the modification is to provide Wilger’s coupler with Shaffer’s bounded opening in order to receive Wilger’s bracket plate, and thus, the modification read on the claim limitation)
in order to receive the transport lock and hold the second section (Shaffer, [0067]).
Regarding claim 10, Patterson in view of Wilger and Shaffer further teaches the function of the bracket plate claimed in claim 10 because said function is inherited by the structures and the location of the bracket plate as taught by Patterson in view of Wilger and Shaffer, see discussion for claim 9 above.
The motivations of the combination are the same with the reasons for rejecting claim 9, see above.
Regarding claim 12, Patterson in view of Wilger and Shaffer further teaches wherein: the bounded opening (Wilger’s coupler as taught by Wilger’s col. 5, ll. 48-57 comprising Shaffer’s bounded opening in Shaffer’s annotated Fig. 6) of the breakaway boom section (Patterson’s 26) is bounded by an opening wall (the filled part marked in Shaffer’s annotated Fig. 6); and the bracket plate (Wilger’s hook 28 indicated by Shaffer’s hook 48 in Shaffer’s Figs. 5-6) contacts the opening wall (the filled part marked in Shaffer’s annotated Fig. 6) to limit pivoting of the breakaway boom section (Patterson’s 26) about the second pivot joint (Patterson’s 25) toward the folded position (as shown in Patterson’s Figs. 7-8) when the inner boom section (Patterson’s 24) is in the folded position (as shown in Patterson’s Fig. 1, also see teaching at Patterson’s col. 5, ll. 34-56).
PNG
media_image4.png
893
1046
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The motivations of the combination are the same with the reasons for rejecting claim 1, see above.
Regarding claim 13, Patterson further teaches wherein: the inner boom section (24) is pivotably coupled to the primary boom section (22) at a first pivot joint (23) defining a first axis of rotation (axis 27 in Fig. 2 at pivot tube 43 of the first pivot joint 23 in Figs. 4 and 8 and col. 6, ll. 40-48) and configured to pivot between the folded position (Fig. 1) and the extended position (Fig. 2) relative to the primary boom section (22) about the first pivot joint (23) relative to the primary boom section (22; col. 6, ll. 35-46 and Fig. 4); and
the breakaway boom section (26) is pivotably coupled to the inner boom section (24) at a second pivot joint (25) and configured to pivot between the folded position (see Figs. 7-8) and the extended position (Fig. 2) about the second pivot joint (25) relative to the inner boom section (24), the second pivot joint (25) defining a second axis of rotation (at pivot tube 54 in Fig. 5 of the second pivot joint 25 in Fig. 2, also see Figs. 6-8 and col. 7, ll. 8-25) different from the first axis of rotation (at two different locations, see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Patterson in view of Wilger and Shaffer further teaches the function of the bracket plate claimed in claim 14 because said function is inherited by the structures and the location of the bracket plate as taught by Patterson in view of Wilger and Shaffer, see discussion for claim 9 above.
The motivations of the combination are the same with the reasons for rejecting claim 9, see above.
Regarding claim 15, Patterson further teaches the claimed limitation, see rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 16, Patterson teaches the invention as claimed: An agricultural system (Figs. 1-2), comprising:
a primary boom section (22) supported relative to a chassis (the chassis of tractor 10) of an agricultural applicator (tractor 10, see Figs. 1-2);
an inner boom section (24) pivotably coupled to the primary boom section (22) at a first pivot joint (23) defining a first axis of rotation (axis 27 in Fig. 2 at pivot tube 43 of the first pivot joint 23 in Figs. 4 and 8 and col. 6, ll. 40-48) and configured to pivot between a folded position (see Fig. 1) and an extended position (see Fig. 2) relative to the primary boom section (22, see Figs. 1 and 8) about the first pivot joint (23);
a breakaway boom section (26) pivotably coupled to the inner boom section (24) at a second pivot joint (25) and configured to pivot between a folded position (see Figs. 7-8) and an extended position (see in Fig. 2) about the second pivot joint (25) relative to the inner boom section (24), the second pivot joint (25) defining a second axis of rotation (at pivot tube 54 in Fig. 5 of the second pivot joint 25 in Fig. 2, also see Figs. 6-8 and col. 7, ll. 8-25) different from the first axis of rotation (axis 27 in Fig. 2 at pivot tube 43 of the first pivot joint 23 in Figs. 4 and 8 and col. 6, ll. 40-48; at two different locations);
a plurality of nozzles (the distribution nozzles per col. 7, ll. 30-35) positioned along the first boom section (24) and the second boom section (26) for selectively applying an agricultural product to a field surface (col. 5, ll. 12-25 and col. 7, ll. 30-35); and
a transport holder (59) coupled to the primary boom section (22, see Figs. 2-3) and configured to hold the breakaway boom section (26) while the inner boom section (24) is in the folded position (see annotated Fig. 1) and the breakaway boom section (26) is in the extended position (see annotated Fig. 1) during transportation (col. 5, ll. 34-56), such that the second boom section (24) and the primary boom section (22) is positioned parallelly and adjacently to each other (see annotated Fig. 1),
wherein, the inner boom section (24) is positioned between the primary boom section (22) and the breakaway boom section (26, see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
956
1546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Patterson does not teach a coupler defined at the breakaway boom section, a transport lock coupled to the primary boom section and received by the coupler of the breakaway section while the inner boom section is in the folded position and the breakaway boom section is in the extended position, whereby pivoting of the breakaway boom section away from the extended position is limited when the inner boom section is in the folded position.
However, Wilger teaches a transport lock assembly comprises a transport lock (hook 28, col. 5, ll. 48-57 and Fig. 3) and a coupler (the coupler per col. 5, ll. 48-57), wherein the transport lock (hook 28, col. 5, ll. 48-57 and Fig. 3) coupled to the primary boom section (9, at an inner end that is close to tractor 2, see Fig. 3) and received by the coupler (the coupler per col. 5, ll. 48-57) defined at the breakaway boom section (10, at an outer end of 10, see Fig. 3), whereby pivoting of the breakaway boom section (10) away from the primary boom section is limited (inherited by the teaching of hook 28 engages with a coupler) when the primary boom section (9) and the breakaway boom section (10) are positioned parallelly and adjacently to each other during transportation (col. 5, ll. 48-57 and Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the transport holder of Patterson with Wilger’s transport lock assembly comprising a transport lock coupled to the primary boom section and a coupler defined at the breakaway boom section, such that
a coupler defined at the breakaway boom section, a transport lock coupled to the primary boom section and received by the coupler of the breakaway section while the inner boom section is in the folded position and the breakaway boom section is in the extended position, whereby pivoting of the breakaway boom section away from the extended position is limited when the inner boom section is in the folded position (the modification is to replace Patterson’s holder 59 with Wilger’s transport lock assembly, such that Wilger’s transport lock is coupled to Patterson’s primary boom section and Wilger’s coupler is defined at Patterson’s breakaway boom section, and when Patterson’s inner boom section is in folded position and Patterson’s breakaway boom section is in extended position during transportation, Wilger’s transport lock and Wilger’s coupler are engaged to each other and perform the claimed function, and thus the modification read on the claimed limitation)
because it is noted that a simple substitution of one known element, in this case, using transport holder, for another, in this case, using a transport lock assembly comprising a transport lock and a coupler, to obtain predictable Results, in this case, holding the weight of the breakaway boom section during transportation, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, MPEP 2141 III(B).
Patterson in view of Wilger does not teach said coupler comprises a bounded opening defined through the breakaway boom section, such that said transport lock is received within the bounded opening of the breakaway boom section, whereby pivoting of the breakaway boom section away from the extended position is limited to an extent of the bounded opening.
However, Shaffer teaches a transport lock assembly comprising a transport lock (hook 48) and a coupler (35, see Fig. 6), wherein the coupler comprises a bounded opening (annotated Fig. 6) defined through the breakaway boom section (17, on a bar of 17, see annotated Fig. 6), such that the transport lock (hook 48) is received within the bounded opening (see Fig. 7, 48 inserts into the opening) of the breakaway boom section (17), whereby pivoting of the breakaway boom section (17) is limited to an extent of the bounded opening (because hook 48 inserted into the bounded opening as shown in Fig. 7, the pivoting movement of 17 is limited by the space defined by the bounded opening in annotated Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
893
1044
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosed but non-depicted coupler of Patterson in view of Wilger to be the coupler comprising a bounded opening as taught by Shaffer, such that
a bounded opening defined through the breakaway boom section, a transport lock is received within the bounded opening of the breakaway boom section, whereby pivoting of the breakaway boom section away from the extended position is limited to an extent of the bounded opening (the modification is to provide Wilger’s coupler with Shaffer’s bounded opening in order to receive Wilger’s transport lock, and thus, the modification read on the claim limitation)
in order to receive the transport lock and hold the second section (Shaffer, [0067]).
Regarding claim 17, Patterson further teaches a lift arm assembly (21, col. 5, ll. 50-56 and Figs. 1-2), wherein the primary boom section (22) is coupled to the lift arm assembly (21, see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 18, Patterson in view of Wilger and Shaffer further teaches the claimed limitation, see rejection for claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 19, Patterson in view of Wilger and Shaffer further teaches the claimed limitation, see rejection for claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 20, Patterson in view of Wilger and Shaffer further teaches wherein: the bounded opening (Wilger’s coupler as taught by Wilger’s col. 5, ll. 48-57 comprising Shaffer’s bounded opening in Shaffer’s annotated Fig. 6) of the breakaway boom section (Patterson’s 26) is bounded by an opening wall (the filled part marked in Shaffer’s annotated Fig. 6) for limiting movement of the bracket plate (the plate that forms Wilger’s hook 28 indicated by Shaffer’s 48 in Shaffer’s Figs. 5-6) within the wall (when the lock is inserted into the bounded opening as shown in Shaffer’s Fig. 7); and the the bracket plate (the plate that forms Wilger’s hook 28 indicated by Shaffer’s 48 in Shaffer’s Figs. 5-6) contacts the opening wall (the filled part marked in Shaffer’s annotated Fig. 6) to limit pivoting of the breakaway boom section (Patterson’s 26) to the extent of the opening wall (the lock cannot move beyond Shaffer’s opening wall, see Shaffer’s Fig. 7) about the second pivot joint (Patterson’s 25) toward the folded position (as shown in Patterson’s Figs. 7-8) when the inner boom section (Patterson’s 24) is in the folded position (as shown in Patterson’s Fig. 1, also see teaching at Patterson’s col. 5, ll. 34-56).
PNG
media_image4.png
893
1046
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The motivations of the combination are the same with the reasons for rejecting claim 16, see above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s argument on pp. 13-14 regarding the combination of Patterson, Wilger, and Shaffer does not teach the transport lock/bracket plate as claimed in claims 1, 9, and 16 are not persuasive because:
i) the base reference Patterson teaches a primary boom section 22, an inner boom section 24, and a breakaway boom section 26, and their locations and structures as claimed (see rejection above), Patterson further teaches a transport holder 59 coupled to the primary boom section 22 to hold/support the breakaway boom section 26 while the inner boom section 24 is in the folded position and the breakaway boom section is in the extended position as shown in Fig. 1 during the transportation (see col. 5, ll. 34-56);
ii) Wilger teaches a transport lock assembly comprising a transport lock/bracket plate 28 and a coupler (col. 5, ll. 48-57), wherein the transport lock/bracket plate 28 is coupled to a primary boom section 9 and the coupler is defined at a breakaway boom section 10, and during transportation, the primary boom section 9 and the breakaway boom section 10 are placed parallel to each other, which is a similar position as taught by Patterson during transportation, and the transportation lock/bracket plate 28 is received by the coupler in order to hold the weight of the breakaway boom section during transportation,
iii) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace Patterson’s transport holder with Wilger’s transport lock assembly for the motivation stated in the rejection above, and such that Wilger’s transport lock/bracket plate is coupled to Patterson’s primary boom section and Wilger’s coupler is defined at Patterson’s breakaway boom section, and when Wilger’s transport lock/bracket plate is engaged with Wilger’s coupler while Patterson’s inner boom section is in the folded position and Patterson’s breakaway boom section is in the extended position as shown in Patterson’s Fig. 1 during the transportation, pivoting of Patterson’s breakaway boom section away from the extended position as shown in Patterson’s Fig. 1 is limited when Patterson’s inner boom section is in the folded position as shown in Patterson’s Fig. 1;
iv) Shaffer teaches a transport lock assembly comprising a transport lock/bracket plate 48 and a coupler including a bounded opening (see Shaffer’s annotated Fig. 6 above) defined through a breakaway boom section 17, where the transport lock/bracket plate 48 is received within the bounded opening of the breakaway section 17, whereby pivoting of the breakaway boom section 17 is limited to an extent of the bounded opening;
v) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosed but non-depicted coupler of Patterson in view of Wilger as the coupler as taught by Shaffer that comprising a bunded opening in order to receive the transport lock/bracket plate;
vi) therefore, the combination of Patterson in view of Wilger and Shaffer teaches apparatus as claimed in claims 1, 9, and 16, e.g., the location and the structure(s) of the claimed transport lock/bracket plate, and the location and the structure(s) of the bounded opening, and location and structures of the primary, inner, and breakaway boom sections.
Applicant’s argument on p. 14, “At best, the sprayer of Patterson includes various cradles 29 and/or 59 upon which boom sections may rest while folded. The cradles are depicted as mechanical stops that either prevent the tip section from moving beyond a desired position during folding of the outer boom section or that hold all the boom sections together while all sections are folded as shown in FIG. 1 of Patterson. Patterson is silent as to a transport lock of a primary boom section and bounded opening of a breakaway boom section that limit/prevent breakaway boom section folding. Wilger and Shaffer are also silent about this and, as such, a person of ordinary skill would not modify Patterson with Wilger and Shaffer to teach amended independent claims 1, 9, and 16”.
Examiner does not agree because: It is noted, “However, there is no requirement that an "express, written motivation to combine must appear in prior art references before a finding of obviousness." Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1276, 69 USPQ2d 1686, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 402, 82 USPQ2d at 1389 ("The diversity of inventive pursuits and of modern technology counsels against confining the obviousness analysis by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasizing the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.") See also Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc., 957 F.3d 1334, 1339-40, 2020 USPQ2d 10476 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ("[W]e hold that the Board erred when it determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the teachings of Okubo with Konishi's server-side plotting to render obvious the limitation ‘software ... to transmit the map with plotted locations to the first individual.’ This combination does not represent ‘impermissible hindsight’…. Rather, because Okubo's terminal-side plotting and Konishi's server-side plotting were both well known in the art, and were the only two identified, predictable solutions for transmitting a map and plotting locations, it would have been obvious to substitute server-side plotting for terminal-side plotting in a combination of Okubo and Konishi.")”, MPEP 2145 X(A), in this case, the transport holder and transport lock assembly are substitutions that well known in the art for achieving the same result (holding the weight during transportation), and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to replace one to another for the motivation as stated in the rejection above.
Examiner Note
Applicant is suggested to further define the structural differences between the disclosed invention and the arts on record, e.g., the respective pivot direction of the first pivot joint and/or the second pivot joint; or how the bounded opening is coupled to/formed on the primary boom section; or the orientation of the transport lock after receiving by the bounded opening.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JINGCHEN LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-6639. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/JINGCHEN LIU/ /GERALD L SUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741 Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights