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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Line 3: liquid should read “a liquid” and later recitations should read “the liquid”
Claim 1, Line 5: “at least one first spray nozzle” and “the first spray nozzle” and “the first nozzle” later in the claims appear to refer to the same part, they should both be named “at least one first spray nozzle” or “a/the first spray nozzle” for consistency.
Claim 1, Line 7: “at least one group of spray nozzle” and “the group of spray nozzles” “the group of nozzles” later in the claims appear to refer to the same part, they should both be named “at least one group of spray nozzle” or “a/the group of spray nozzles” for consistency.
Claim 1, Line 11: “the inlet” and “each outlet” should read “the liquid inlet” and “each controllable outlet”, “the outlets” also appears in the claim and must be amended the same way. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5 and 6, Lin 1, “the spray nozzles” should read “each spray nozzle” as the individual nozzles of the group of spray nozzles has not been positively recited yet.
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.
Claim 1, line 4: “flow regulating means” is being interpreted to mean at least one control valve.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the interface" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the other of the outlet" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The outlets should be labelled as the first and second controllable outlets consistently across the whole claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “first valve” and “second valve” in lines 6 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The valves should be labelled as the first and second controllable valves consistently across the whole claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “each valve of the plurality of valves” and in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The valves should be labelled as the controllable valves consistently across the whole claim.
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 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 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podevin (FR3009925B1)
Regarding claim 1, Podevin discloses a spray boom for an agricultural sprayer (provided translation, par. 1), comprising a primary duct (20, fig 1) and at least one nozzle holder (2 would need at least some method of being attached to 20, fig 1) connected to said primary duct and comprising: [Symbol font/0x2D] a body (1, fig 1) housing a liquid intake duct (duct between 22 and 24, fig 1) configured to be supplied with liquid by said primary duct and housing at least one flow regulating means (24, fig 1); [Symbol font/0x2D] at least one first spray nozzle (12 right side, fig 1); [Symbol font/0x2D] at least one secondary duct section (6, left side, fig 1); [Symbol font/0x2D] at least one group of spray nozzles (12, left side) distributed over the secondary duct section, the first spray nozzle being separate from said group of spray nozzles, said first spray nozzle being not distributed over the secondary duct section, and being not supplied by said secondary duct section (the left and right side form two separate secondary duct sections each supplying a first spray nozzle or a group of spray nozzles; said at least one flow regulating means being arranged at an interface (2, fig 1) between the intake duct, the first spray nozzle and the secondary duct section and comprising a liquid inlet (at the entrance of 24, fig 1) and at least a first controllable outlet (28, left side, fig 1) and a second controllable outlet (28, right side, fig 1) disposed downstream of said primary duct, the liquid inlet and controllable outlet being controllable between an open position and a closed position (the valve when closed will close off both its inlet and outlet when placed in the closed position), the first spray nozzle being connected to one of the outlets of the flow regulating means and the secondary duct section being connected to the other of the outlets of the flow regulating means (fig 1, the first nozzle being on the right and the second being on the left), in the open position of the liquid inlet, said flow regulating means being configured to enable supply the first nozzle and/or the group of nozzles with liquid and, in the closed position of said liquid inlet, said flow regulating means being configured to prevent supply the first nozzle and the group of nozzles with liquid (both valves 28 controls flow to all of the nozzles, fig 1), in the open position of the outlet connected to the first liquid nozzle, said flow regulating means being configured to enable supply of the first nozzle and, in the closed position of said liquid outlet, said flow regulating means being configured to prevent supply of the first nozzle, in the open position of the other liquid outlet, said flow regulating means being configured to enable supply of the secondary duct section and, in the closed position of said other liquid outlet, said flow regulating means being configured to prevent supply of the secondary duct section (since the valve controls flow to the entire boom, when it is closed it closes both outlets and when it’s open opens both outlets), said spray boom being configured to spray liquid through said first spray nozzle and through at least one nozzle of said group of spray nozzles (all the nozzles of 12 can be used to spray liquid from the spray boom).
Podevin does not explicitly disclose the secondary duct section extending in parallel to the primary duct. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the secondary duct section (duct comprising the nozzles) extend in parallel to the primary duct (duct delivering liquid from the tank), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. This could be done in situations such as wherein the secondary ducts are mounted in line with the tank, such that the primary duct extends outward towards a laterally extending boom which holds the secondary ducts and the nozzles.
Regarding claim 2, Podevin discloses wherein the flow regulating means comprises two controllable valves, a first controllable valve being arranged at the interface between the intake duct and the secondary duct section and a second controllable valve being arranged at the interface between the intake duct and the first spray nozzle (28, fig 1, left side and right side each valve leads to one of those locations), the first outlet of the flow regulating means corresponding to the outlet of the first controllable valve and the second outlet of the flow regulating means corresponding to the outlet of the second controllable valve.
Regarding claim 3, Podevin discloses wherein the group of spray nozzles comprises at least two spray nozzles connected to each other through the secondary duct section (12, fig 1), said secondary duct section being configured to convey liquid from the flow regulating means to each nozzle of said group of spray nozzles (the nozzles are fed through the secondary duct section).
Regarding claim 4, Podevin discloses wherein a plurality of controllable valves (28, fig 1) are arranged in said secondary duct section, each valve of said plurality of valves being associated with one of the nozzles of the group of nozzles and each valve being movable between a closing position in which it is configured to prevent conveying of said liquid from the flow regulating member to the nozzle with which it is associated, and an opening position in which it is configured to allow conveying said liquid from the flow regulating member to the nozzle with which it is associated (each valve 28 supplies flow to one group of nozzles, and it can be seen that there is a fluid path through both valves that when cut off would block flow through said valves into the respective nozzles.
Regarding claim 5, Podevin discloses wherein the spray nozzles of the group of spray nozzles are equidistant from each other (fig 1, the nozzles are all equidistant from each other).
Regarding claim 7, Podevin does not explicitly disclose wherein the first spray nozzle is tilted relative to the primary duct, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the secondary duct section extend in parallel to the primary duct, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podevin in view of Wilger (6126088).
Regarding claim 6, Podevin does not disclose wherein the spray nozzles of the group of spray nozzles are spaced apart by 5 to 25 cm.
Wilger discloses wherein the spray nozzles of a secondary boom are spaced apart by 6 2/3 inches, which comes out to 16.9 cm which is within range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spray nozzle spacing disclosed by Podevin by using a spray nozzle spacing of between 5-25cm based on the teachings of Wilger. Doing so would put them at a standard spacing (col 3, lines 9-21) which would make them easier to use across a broad user base, as suggested by Wilger
Regarding claims 8-10, Podevin does not disclose a plurality of nozzle holders, each nozzle holder being connected to said primary duct, wherein the nozzle holders of the plurality of nozzle holders are equidistant from each other and are spaced apart by 25 cm, or 33 cm or 50 cm
Wilger discloses an agricultural spraying boom comprising a plurality of nozzle holders (8A-C), each nozzle holder being connected to said primary duct (12, fig 1), wherein the nozzle holder (11, fig 3) of a secondary boom (10, fig 3) are equidistant and spaced 20 inches (50 cm) apart (col 7, lines 9-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spray nozzle spacing disclosed by Podevin by using a plurality of nozzle holders based on the teachings of Wilger. Doing so would put them at a standard spacing for multiple crop rows (col 3, lines 9-21) which would make them easier to use across a broad user base, as suggested by Wilger.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see remarks, filed 7/9/2026, with respect to the objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of 3/9/2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments, see remarks, filed 7/9/2026, with respect to the 112b rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112b rejection of 3/9/2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 7/9/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under Mellin 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 Podevin.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 SEAN V MEILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9229. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-5pm.
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.
/SEAN V MEILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
