DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a nozzle orifice” is believed to be in error for --the nozzle orifice--. 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 electrostatic charging element” and “at least one modulating element” in claims 1 and 16, “a first modulating element” and “a second modulating element” in claims 4 and 23, “a modulating element” in claim 32.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-14, 32, 34, 35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batcheller 2018/0111148 in view of Kocer 2019/0350187.
In regards to Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claim 2, Batcheller teaches an electrostatic nozzle system (figure 1D) for agricultural spraying (paragraph [0002]) comprising: at least one additive fluid source (fluid through conduits 10) configured to contain an additive fluid (paragraph [0040]); and an electrostatic nozzle assembly (60) in communication with the at least one additive fluid source (as shown in figure 1D), the electrostatic nozzle assembly configured to dispense the additive fluid (out of nozzle 84, paragraph [0047]), the electrostatic nozzle assembly including: an electrostatic charging element (80) configured to electrostatically charge the additive fluid (paragraph [0046]); at least one modulating element (90) configured to control at least one of a flow rate or a pressure of the additive fluid flowing toward the electrostatic charging element (valve 90 controls flow rate, paragraph [0042], where valve 90 is upstream of charging element 80 in figure 1D); a nozzle orifice in communication with the at least one modulating element (nozzle 84 downstream of 90), the nozzle orifice configured to dispense the additive fluid (function of a nozzle); and wherein the at least one additive fluid is electrostatically charged with the electrostatic charging element upstream of the nozzle orifice (paragraph [0046], where 80 is upstream of exit of nozzle 84 in figure 1D). However, Batcheller does not teach an orifice plate proximate to the nozzle orifice, the orifice plate configured to regulate a profile of the additive fluid. Kocer teaches (particularly in figure 13) using an orifice plate (1106) proximate to a nozzle orifice (1306), the orifice plate configured to regulate a profile of the additive fluid (paragraph [0122]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the nozzle orifice of Batcheller with the orifice plate of Kocer, in order to change the spray profile without changing the droplet size from the nozzle (paragraph [0122]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Batcheller in view of Kocer teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Batcheller further teaches the at least one additive fluid source containing the additive fluid includes: a first additive fluid source (flow through conduits 10 in one of the injectors 60 of figure 1B) configured to contain a first additive fluid (chemicals through 10); a second additive fluid source (water through conduit 5 of a second of the injectors 60 in figure 1B) configured to contain a second additive fluid (water through 5, paragraph [0040]); and wherein the at least one modulating element of the electrostatic nozzle assembly includes: a first modulating element configured to control at least one of a first flow rate or a first pressure of the first additive fluid (first drive 90 of a first injector 60 in figure 1B); and a second modulating element configured to control at least one of a second flow rate or second pressure of the second additive fluid (second drive 90 of a second injector 60 in figure 1B). It is not claimed that the modulating elements are only controlling the flow rate or pressure of a single fluid, where Batcheller teaches a plurality of nozzles 60 each with a modulating element, with two fluids being sent to each nozzle.
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Batcheller in view of Kocer teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Batcheller further teaches a nozzle assembly controller (97), the nozzle assembly controller configured to control at least one of the at least one modulating element, the electrostatic charging element (line between 97 and 80, paragraph [0048]), a nozzle assembly position, and the orifice plate.
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Batcheller in view of Kocer teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Batcheller further teaches the nozzle assembly controller (97) is in communication with a sensor configured to monitor agricultural characteristics (72 monitors conditions, paragraph [0033]); wherein the nozzle assembly controller is configured to control one or more of the at least one modulating element, the electrostatic charging element (paragraph [0048], where control of 97 is based upon sensed environmental conditions), the nozzle assembly position, and the nozzle orifice based on the monitored agricultural characteristics.
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Batcheller in view of Kocer teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Batcheller further teaches the additive fluid is an herbicide, pesticide, or fertilizer (paragraph [0030]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Batcheller in view of Kocer teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Batcheller further teaches the nozzle assembly (60) is configured to be coupled with a sprayer boom (40 in figure 1B).
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, Batcheller in view of Kocer teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Batcheller further teaches that the at least one additive fluid source is coupled with the electrostatic nozzle assembly (flow through 10 passes through 80 in figure 1D).
Regarding Dependent Claim 11, Batcheller in view of Kocer teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Batcheller further teaches that the at least one additive fluid source is remotely coupled with the electrostatic nozzle assembly (tank 32 couples to 80 through 10).
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, Batcheller in view of Kocer teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Batcheller further teaches that the electrostatic charging element (80) is proximate to the nozzle orifice (80 is near nozzle 84 in figure 1D).
Regarding Dependent Claim 13, Batcheller in view of Kocer teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Batcheller further teaches that the electrostatic charging element (80) is proximate to a nozzle orifice (80 is near nozzle 84 in figure 1D, where a nozzle orifice is being interpreted as the nozzle orifice).
Regarding Dependent Claim 14, Batcheller in view of Kocer teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Batcheller further teaches the electrostatic charging element (80) is disposed between a dispense opening (88) of the additive source (10) and a nozzle orifice (84, as shown in figure 1D).
In regards to Independent Claim 32, Batcheller teaches a method of treating one or more agricultural targets (targeted area, paragraph [0038]) with an additive fluid (chemicals 10, paragraph [0040]) comprising: delivering the additive fluid from an additive source (32) to an electrostatic nozzle assembly (60); electrostatically charging the additive fluid (with 80), including: subjecting the additive fluid to an electrostatic charging mechanism (with mechanism 80, paragraph [0046]); and generating an electrostatically charged additive (paragraph [0046]); dispensing the electrostatically charged additive fluid from the electrostatic nozzle assembly (through nozzle 84); and adhering the electrostatically charged additive fluid with the one or more agricultural targets (paragraph [0046]). However, Batcheller does not teach an orifice plate (modulating element) proximate to the orifice, the orifice plate configured to regulate a profile of the electrostatically charged additive fluid. Kocer teaches (particularly in figure 13) using an orifice plate (1106) proximate to a nozzle orifice (1306), the orifice plate configured to reduce a profile of the additive fluid (paragraph [0122]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the nozzle orifice of Batcheller with the orifice plate of Kocer, in order to change the spray profile without changing the droplet size from the nozzle (paragraph [0122]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 34, Batcheller in view of Kocer teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Batcheller further teaches forming droplets of additive fluid (with 88, paragraph [0043]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 35, Batcheller in view of Kocer teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Batcheller further teaches subjecting the additive fluid to the electrostatically charging mechanism proximal to an orifice of the electrostatic nozzle assembly (80 is near 84 in figure 1D).
Regarding Dependent Claim 37, Batcheller in view of Kocer teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Batcheller further teaches dispensing agricultural product droplets (water from 5 in figure 1D) with a larger profile than additive fluid droplets (conduit 5 has a larger diameter than conduits 10, such that droplets can be a larger diameter, where the claim is silent to the droplets being dispensed from either the nozzle of the nozzle assembly or another nozzle, or that the droplets can not be combined within the nozzle assembly prior to being expelled from the assembly).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batcheller in view of Kocer as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Moucharafieh 2006/0194699.
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Batcheller in view of Kocer teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Batcheller in view of Kocer does not teach that the droplet size includes diameters between 5 and 20 microns. Moucharafieh teaches using herbicides that are optimally between 5 and 30 microns (paragraph [0069]) which overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use a droplet size of 5 microns for the system of Batcheller in view of Kocer, as taught by Moucharafieh, in order to enable an herbicide to enter the stoma of weeds (paragraph [0069]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batcheller in view of Kocer as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Preheim 2017/0348718.
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Batcheller in view of Kocer teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Batcheller in view of Kocer does not teach that the sensor includes a flow meter. Preheim teaches an agricultural system nozzle system (figure 1) with a flow meter (44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use the flow meter of Preheim in the system of Batcheller in view of Kocer, in order to allow the system to match the actual flow rate with a target flow rate (paragraph [0030]).
Claims 15 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batcheller in view of Kocer as applied to claims 1 and 32 above, and further in view of Thurmaier EP 0287552 A2.
Regarding Dependent Claims 15 and 38, Batcheller in view of Kocer teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Batcheller in view of Kocer does not teach using between 5 and 15 kV for the electrostatic charging element. Thurmaier teaches using between 10 and 15 kV for the electrodes of an electrostatic sprayer (Col. 2, ll. 34-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to operate the electrostatic spray of Batcheller in view of Kocer at a voltage between 10 and 15 kV, as taught by Thurmaier, in order to maximize adhesion of the charged droplets with the desired targets (Col. 2, ll. 16-30 and 34-40).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-31 are allowable.
Claim 33 and 36 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of independent Claim 16, an agricultural product nozzle assembly with a nozzle proximate a nozzle of an electrostatic nozzle assembly for an additive fluid; prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 33, dispensing the agricultural product from the agricultural product nozzle assembly, and attracting the electrostatically charged fluid from the electrostatic nozzle assembly to the agricultural product; and prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 36, adhering at least one droplet of electrostatically charged additive fluid with at least one drop of agricultural product proximate to an orifice of the electrostatic nozzle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the limitations “an electrostatic charging element”, “at least one modulating element”, “a first modulating element”, “a second modulating element”, and “a modulating element” do not invoke 35 USC 112f because of the structure disclosed in the specification. ("Sufficient structure exists when the claim language specifies the exact structure that performs the function in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure."); see also Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1376, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1874 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In the instant case, applicant resorts to citing portions of the specification as evidence of the structure.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an electrostatic charge applied to the fluid before droplets are formed) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Batcheller teaches a nozzle orifice (84) downstream of an electrostatic charging element (80) as shown in figure 1D, which is what is recited in the independent claims, not that an electrostatic charging element is upstream of droplet formation of a nozzle system as argued.
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 STEVEN M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270 - 1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN M SUTHERLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752