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 without traverse of claims 9-16 in the reply filed on 09/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(line 1) “The system of claim 13” should be changed to “The system of claim 14” to provide proper antecedent basis for the limitation “the pulsating valve”.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 application device…configured to apply the particulate to crops” in claim 9.
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. The specification describes the application device as a drop with at least one component for applying particulate.
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 § 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)(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 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tong et al. (CN 110521557).
As concerns claim 9, Tong shows a crop input application system, comprising: an irrigation vehicle (1, 2) having a reel (Fig. 1: unlabeled reel supporting pipe 13) supporting a flexible conduit (13) such that the conduit can be extended from or retracted onto said reel (Fig. 1); a particulate source (27) fluidly coupled with the flexible conduit (Fig. 1); a pressurized air source (5) coupled with the conduit and configured to supply particulate from the particulate source to the flexible conduit (Fig. 1); an application device (34) fluidly coupled with the flexible conduit and configured to apply the particulate to crops (Fig. 4).
As concerns claim 10, Tong shows wherein the particulate source (27) is mounted to the vehicle (Fig. 1).
As concerns claim 12, Tong shows a switch valve (22) configured to selectively provide the particulate to the conduit (Fig. 1).
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.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. (US 2017/0265379) and further in view of Geng et al. (CN 111011175).
As concerns claim 9, Moore shows a crop input application system, comprising: an irrigation vehicle (paragraph 0011: self-propelled sprayer vehicle) having a flexible conduit (20); a particulate source (paragraph 0013: bulk hopper or other supply source) fluidly coupled with the flexible conduit; a pressurized air source (paragraph 0013: blower) coupled with the conduit and configured to supply particulate from the particulate source to the flexible conduit; an application device (200) fluidly coupled with the flexible conduit and configured to apply the particulate to crops (Fig. 5). Moore discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the irrigation vehicle includes a reel supporting the flexible conduit such that the conduit can be extended from or retracted onto said reel. Geng teaches an irrigation vehicle (18) having a reel (7) supporting a flexible conduit (8) such that the conduit can be extended from or retracted onto said reel (Fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Moore, as taught by Geng, to include a reel supporting the flexible conduit such that the conduit can be extended from or retracted onto said reel for the expected benefit of allowing the irrigation vehicle to traverse across a field to apply the particulate to crops in the field while being connected to a fluid source located on or adjacent the field and not disposed on the vehicle. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a reel supporting the flexible conduit such that the conduit can be extended from or retracted onto said reel would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the expected result of this configuration improves versatility/adaptability/efficiency of the crop input application system design.
As concerns claim 10, Moore shows wherein the particulate source is mounted to the vehicle (paragraph 0013).
As concerns claim 11, Moore shows wherein the irrigation vehicle further includes a deflector (220) applying the particulate to crops.
As concerns claim 12, the combination teaches a switch valve (Geng: 6) configured to selectively provide the particulate to the conduit.
As concerns claim 13, the combination teaches wherein the vehicle further includes a boom (Moore: 210; Geng: 10) and wherein a plurality of atomizing nozzles (Moore: 300; Geng: 17) are mounted to the boom.
As concerns claim 14, the combination teaches at least one pulsating valve (Geng: 6) fluidly coupled to at least one of the plurality of atomizing nozzles (Geng: 17).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. and Geng et al. as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Gerdes et al. (US 2019/0297796).
As concerns claim 15, the combination of Moore and Geng discloses the claimed invention except for a sensor configured to sense presence of a weed, wherein the pulsating valve operates to deliver a concentrate mix to the weed. Gerdes teaches a sensor (145) configured to sense presence of a weed, wherein a valve operates to deliver a concentrate mix to the weed (paragraph 0034; claim 1). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Moore and Geng, as taught by Gerdes, to include a sensor configured to sense presence of a weed for the expected benefit of allowing the irrigation vehicle to traverse across a field to apply the particulate to crops in the field while also identifying and remedying the presence of weeds or other pests in order to maintain or improve the health of the crops. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a sensor configured to sense the presence of a weed during operation of the irrigation vehicle would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the expected result of this configuration improves versatility/adaptability/efficiency of the crop input application system design.
As concerns claim 16, the combination teaches one or more sensors (Gerdes: 314) coupled with the vehicle to detect one or more conditions of the ground (Gerdes: paragraph 0048) and wherein a controller (Gerdes: 304) operates the application device to deliver particulate to crops based on the one or more detected conditions (Gerdes: paragraph 0050).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fortkamp (US 2023/0263089), Parod et al. (US 2018/0049381) and Peng et al. (CN 106718675) each show an irrigation vehicle having a reel supporting a flexible conduit such that the conduit can be extended from or retracted onto said reel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
