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 Species A in the reply filed on 3/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no serious search burden because (1) the restriction requirement did not specify separate or different fields of search for the respective species, (2) the restriction requirement did not identify how prior art applicable to Species A would differ from prior art applicable to Species B, and (3) the independent claims include substantial overlap of claim limitations and it is not apparent from the restriction requirement how the treatment of each independent claims would incur a search burden. This is not found persuasive because (1) exemplary search strings, using identical databases, include “rotation$ SAME fingers SAME recess SAME coupl$” (1817 hits) and “rotation$ SAME pin SAME (opening aperture hole) SAME coupl$” (41,092 hits) with 548 hits that overlap between the two strings, thus a complete search of both species would be seriously burdensome, (2) there is no requirement to identify how prior art would be applied in different ways to restricted species (the species identified in the requirement, however, are clearly disclosed by Applicant as being significantly different in structure, but aside from that the species requirement is based on presence of claims directed to disclosed species – i.e. based on the figures - and not the specific recitations in the claims), and (3) the restriction requirement did not require an election between the independent claims (as noted by Applicant, the restriction requirement specifically identified each independent claims as being generic, so it is unclear to which aspect of the restriction requirement Applicant’s argument is directed).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 9 is withdrawn. Claims 1-8 & 10-20 are examined below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, & 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1:
The recitation “the first portion of the applicator assembly” (ll. 9-10) is believed to be in error for - - the first portion of the frame - -.
The recitation “the nozzle” (3rd to last line) is believed to be in error for - - the at least one nozzle - -.
Regarding Claim 2:
The recitation “application assembly” (l. 3) is believed to be in error for - - applicator assembly - -.
Regarding Claim 4:
The recitation “or clamped” (l. 2) is believed to be in error for - - or a clamped - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an anti-rotational mechanism… coupled to the support boom to maintain an orientation of the application assembly with respect to the travel direction” (claim 2), “an anti-rotational mechanism configured to be coupled to the support boom of the agricultural machine to maintain an orientation of the applicator assembly with respect to the travel direction” (claim 12), and “engaging an anti-rotational mechanism with the support boom maintains an orientation of the applicator assembly with respect to the support boom” (claim 20).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 3-7, 13-16, & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Dependent Claims 3, 5 & 7, the recitation “the anti-rotational mechanism” lacks antecedent basis in the claims and is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether this is related to the configuration of the coupler assembly “to limit rotational movement between the first coupler portion and the second coupler portion” as recited in claim 1 or something else.
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, the recitation “the support boom is coupled to the support boom with a press-fit, a snap-fit, or clamped connection” is vague and indefinite because it is unclear what is intended to be coupled to the support boom via the recited connection (the support boom is not connected to itself in this manner).
Regarding Dependent Claims 13-15, the recitation “the anti-rotational mechanism” lacks antecedent basis in the claims and is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether this is related to the configuration of the coupler assembly “to limit rotational movement between the first coupler portion and the second coupler portion” as recited in claim 11 or something else.
Regarding Dependent Claim 18, the recitation “the collar” lacks antecedent basis in the claims and is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether this is related to the locking component recited in claim 11 or something else.
Dependent Claims 6 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for their dependence from claims 5 & 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Palmer 3117725.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Palmer teaches an agricultural machine (Figs. 1 & 5) moveable across a surface in a travel direction (see Fig. 1), comprising:
a chassis (chassis of 10);
a product tank (13) coupled to the chassis, the product tank configured to store a product;
a support boom (23) coupled to the chassis;
an applicator assembly comprising a frame (46) and at least one nozzle (47), the frame having a first portion and a second portion (upper and lower portions of 46), wherein the second portion is configured to be positioned in contact with or above the surface (lower portion of 46 is positioned above the ground); and
a coupler assembly (as follows) coupled between the support boom and the first portion of the applicator assembly (the first and second coupler portions, to be discussed, are coupled between 23 and the upper portion of 46), the coupler assembly comprising a first coupler portion (portion of 55 that attaches to 48) and a second coupler portion (portion of 48 to which 55 is attached);
wherein the first coupler portion is coupled to the support boom (via 48) and comprises a female component (end of 55 is a female component) and a collar (unlabeled clamp at end of 55 which attaches to 48), wherein the first coupler portion is in communication with the product tank (via 23);
wherein the second coupler portion comprises a male component (portion of 48 to which 55 is attached comprises a male component in order for the unlabeled clamp at the end of 55 to clamp the end of 55 to 48);
wherein, during assembly, the male component is inserted into the female component and the collar engages with the male component to mechanically couple the applicator assembly to the support boom and fluidly couple the nozzle to the product tank (when 55 is assembled to 48, the male component is inserted into the female component and the unlabeled clamp engages with the male component, via a clamping force on 55, to mechanically couple the applicator assembly to 23 and fluidly couple 47 to 13);
wherein, the coupler assembly is configured to limit rotational movement between the first coupler portion and the second coupler portion (via clamping force provided by tightening fasteners 49).
PNG
media_image1.png
396
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Fig. 5 from Palmer
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Palmer further teaches the second coupler portion comprises an anti-rotational mechanism, the anti-rotational mechanism being coupled to the support boom to maintain an orientation of the application assembly with respect to the travel direction (see Fig. 1: Annotated Fig. 5 from Palmer above, 48 couples to 23 – i.e. the annotated 1st recess of the second coupler portion at 48 discussed for claim 1 above prevents rotation about the vertical axis, thus maintaining the orientation of the applicator assembly along the travel direction).
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Palmer further teaches the anti-rotational mechanism comprises a plurality of fingers (see Fig. 1: Annotated Fig. 5 from Palmer above, annotated 1st and 2nd fingers) that form a first recess and a second recess (annotated 1st and 2nd recesses), the support boom being positioned within the first recess and the second recess when the anti-rotational mechanism is coupled to the support boom (23 positioned within the annotated 1st and 2nd recesses).
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Palmer further teaches the support boom is coupled to the support boom with a press-fit, a snap-fit, or clamped connection (23 coupled to applicator assembly discussed above via clamped connection at 48/57 with fasteners 49).
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Palmer further teaches the anti-rotational mechanism comprises a first bracket portion and a second bracket portion (see Fig. 1: Annotated Fig. 5 from Palmer above, annotated 1st and 2nd bracket portions), the first bracket portion and the second bracket portion being coupled to the support boom (annotated 1st and 2nd bracket portions are coupled to 23).
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Palmer further teaches the first bracket portion and the second bracket portion are coupled to one another (annotated 1st and 2nd bracket portions are coupled to each other via fasteners 49).
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Palmer further teaches the collar is movable in an axial direction defined along the first coupler portion and is rotatable about the female component (unlabeled clamp at end of 55 which connects to 48 can be moved axially along the first coupler portion and is rotatable about the end of 55).
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, Palmer further teaches a first fluid line fluidly coupled between the product tank and the first coupler portion (first fluid line extending from 13 to 55 via 23); and a second fluid line fluidly coupled between the second coupler portion and the at least one nozzle (second fluid line is portion of 55 which extends from the portion of 55 which connects to 48 to 57 and couples the second coupler portion discussed above for claim 1 with 47).
Regarding Independent Claim 11, Palmer teaches an applicator assembly (Fig. 5) configured to be coupled to a support boom (23, though the support boom is not positively recited) of an agricultural machine (Fig. 1, though not positively recited) that is moveable across a surface in a travel direction, the agricultural machine comprising a product tank (13, though not positively recited) for storing a product, the applicator assembly comprising:
a frame (46) having a first portion (upper portion of 46) and a second portion (lower portion of 46), the second portion configured to be positioned in contact with or above the surface (lower portion of 46 above the surface);
a nozzle (47) configured to be in fluid communication with the product tank; and
a coupler assembly (as follows) configured to be coupled between the support boom and the frame (the first and second coupler portions, to be discussed, are coupled between 23 and 46), the coupler assembly comprising a first coupler portion (portion of 55 that attaches to 48) and a second coupler portion (portion of 48 to which 55 is attached);
wherein the first coupler portion is configured to be coupled to the support boom (portion of 55 that attaches to 48 is configured to be coupled to 23 via 48), the first coupler portion comprising a female component (end of 55 is a female component) and a locking component (unlabeled clamp at the end of 55 which attaches to 48), wherein the first coupler portion is configured to be in communication with the product tank (via 23);
wherein the second coupler portion is coupled to the frame (portion of 48 to which 55 is connected is coupled to 46 via 57), the second coupler portion comprising a male component (portion of 48 to which 55 is attached comprises a male component in order for the unlabeled clamp at the end of 55 to clamp the end of 55 to 48);
wherein, the applicator assembly is configured to be mechanically and fluidly coupled to the agricultural machine when the male component is inserted into the female component and the locking component engages with the male component (when 55 is assembled to 48, the male component is inserted into the female component and the unlabeled clamp engages with the male component, via a clamping force on 55, to mechanically couple the applicator assembly to 23 and the remainder of the agricultural machine in Fig. 1);
wherein, the coupler assembly is configured to limit rotational movement between the first coupler portion and the second coupler portion (via clamping force provided by tightening fasteners 49).
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, Palmer further teaches the coupler assembly comprises an anti-rotational mechanism configured to be coupled to the support boom of the agricultural machine to maintain an orientation of the applicator assembly with respect to the travel direction (see Fig. 1: Annotated Fig. 5 from Palmer above, annotated 1st and 2nd bracket portions of the coupler assembly couple to 23 to maintain an orientation of the applicator assembly with respect to the travel direction).
Regarding Dependent Claim 13, Palmer further teaches the anti-rotational mechanism is coupled to the frame (see Fig. 1: Annotated Fig. 5 from Palmer above, annotated 1st and 2nd bracket portions form an anti-rotational mechanism which is coupled to 46 via 57).
Regarding Dependent Claim 14, Palmer further teaches the anti-rotational mechanism comprises a plurality of fingers (see Fig. 1: Annotated Fig. 5 from Palmer above, annotated 1st and 2nd fingers) that form a first recess and a second recess (annotated 1st and 2nd recesses), the anti-rotational mechanism configured to be coupled to the support boom by positioning the support boom within the first recess and the second recess (23 positioned within the annotated 1st and 2nd recesses to couple the annotated 1st and 2nd fingers to 23).
Regarding Dependent Claim 15, Palmer further teaches the anti-rotational mechanism comprises a first bracket portion and a second bracket portion (see Fig. 1: Annotated Fig. 5 from Palmer above, annotated 1st and 2nd bracket portions), the first bracket portion and the second bracket portion configured to be coupled to the support boom (annotated 1st and 2nd bracket portions coupled to 23).
Regarding Dependent Claim 16, Palmer further teaches the first bracket portion and the second bracket portion are coupled to one another (annotated 1st and 2nd bracket portions are coupled to one another via fasteners 49).
Regarding Dependent Claim 17, Palmer further teaches a fluid line fluidly coupled between the second coupler portion and the nozzle (fluid line is portion of 55 which extends from the portion of 55 which connects to 48 to 57 and couples the second coupler portion discussed above for claim 11 with 47).
Regarding Dependent Claim 18, Palmer further teaches the collar is movable in an axial direction defined along the first coupler portion and is rotatable about the female component (unlabeled clamp at the end of 55 which connects to 48 is movable in the axial direction along the first coupler portion and is rotatable about the end of 55).
Regarding Independent Claim 19, Palmer teaches (Figs. 1 & 5) a method (Col. 2, ll. 50-51) of coupling an applicator assembly (discussed below) to a support boom (23) of an agricultural machine (10), the applicator assembly including a frame (46) and at least one nozzle (47), the method comprising by:
providing a coupler assembly (as follows) comprising a first coupler portion (portion of 55 that attaches to 48) and a second coupler portion (portion of 48 to which 55 is attached);
aligning a male component of the second coupler portion (portion of 48 to which 55 is attached comprises a male component in order for the unlabeled clamp at the end of 55 to clamp the end of 55 to 48) with a female component of the first coupler portion (end of 55 which attaches to 48 is a female component) (the male component and female components are necessarily aligned for assembly, see Fig. 5);
inserting the male component into engagement with the female component (the male component is necessarily inserted into engagement with the female component for assembly, see Fig. 5);
releasably coupling the first coupler portion to the second coupler portion via a locking component (unlabeled clamp at the end of 55 which attaches to 48 is a locking component which releasably couples the first and second coupler portions);
wherein, releasably coupling the first coupler portion to the second coupler portion comprises mechanically coupling the applicator assembly to the support boom and fluidly coupling the at least one nozzle to a product tank on the agricultural machine (coupling the first and second coupler portions discussed above necessarily mechanically couples the applicator assembly discussed above to 23 and fluidly couples 47 to product tank 13 on machine 10);
wherein mechanically coupling the applicator assembly to the support boom limits rotational movement between the first coupler portion and the second coupler portion (rotational movement between the first and second coupler portions is necessarily limited by mechanically coupling the applicator assembly to 23 due to clamping of 55 to 48 via the unlabeled clamp at the end of 55 which connects to 48).
Regarding Dependent Claim 20, Palmer further teaches engaging an anti-rotational mechanism with the support boom maintains an orientation of the applicator assembly with respect to the support boom (see Fig. 1: Annotated Fig. 5 above, annotated 1st and 2nd bracket portions engaged via fasteners 49 to 23 and maintains the orientation of the applicator assembly with respect to 23).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lury 4456180.
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Palmer teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Palmer further teaches the male component and the anti-rotational mechanism comprise a part (see Fig. 1: Annotated Fig. 5 from Palmer above, male component discussed for claim 1 above forms a part with the remainder of 48).
Palmer fails to expressly teach the male component and the anti-rotational mechanism comprise an injection molded part.
Lury teaches a spray nozzle assembly for use in agriculture (Col. 1, ll. 5-7) wherein all parts of a nozzle assembly and bracket are formed from injection molded plastics material (Col. 4, ll. 11-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Palmer’s agricultural machine such that the male component and the anti-rotational mechanism comprise an injection molded part because a) the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components with other components (Palmer’s undisclosed manufacturing process of the part versus the claimed injection molding, taught by Lury), b) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art (both Palmer’s undisclosed manufacturing process of the part and the claimed injection molding, taught by Lury, were known in the art for forming agricultural spraying parts), and c) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (either Palmer’s undisclosed manufacturing process of the part or Lury’s injection molding could have been used to predictably manufacture Palmer’s part for assembly into the agricultural machine). It has been held that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)). See MPEP 2143 I(B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J WALTHOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m. Eastern.
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.
/SCOTT J WALTHOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights