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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 2nd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections for claims 1-14 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 2nd, 2026. However, the 112(b) rejection for claim 4 is maintained.
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 1-14 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.
The term “generally” in claim 1, ln. 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is not quantifiable and the specification and the claim do not define what would be considered as a generally cylindrical exterior. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the manifold has a cylindrical exterior.
Claims 2-14 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 1.
The term “approximately” in claim 4, ln. 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is not quantifiable and the specification and the claim do not define what would be considered as an approximately equal amount of material to each of the rigid tubes. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the housing is configured to direct an equal amount of material to each of the rigid tubes.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wall (US Patent 4,790,484) in view of Strand (US Patent 5,125,583).
Regarding claim 1, Wall discloses a solid distribution system (entire structure, Fig. 3) of an agricultural spreader (entire structure, Fig. 1), comprising:
a blower (54, Figs. 1, 3);
a manifold (interpreting as a pipe fitting with several lateral outlets for connecting one pipe with others, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 40, structure connecting discharge end of blower 54 to tube array 40, tube array 40 comprises a plurality of tubes 44, where the inlet ends of air tubes 44 are connected to discharge of blower 54 to move air from the blower 54 to the tubes 44, annotated in Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Col. 4, Ln. 26-37, Col. 5, Ln. 25-36), an inlet (inlet end of air tubes 44 connecting to discharge end of the blower 54, annotated and shown in Fig. 3) at a first end of the manifold (40, structure connecting discharge end of blower 54 to tube array 40, annotated and shown in Fig. 3), and a plurality of outlets (44, Figs. 3-4) arranged at an end of the manifold opposite the inlet (annotated and shown in Fig. 3), the inlet (inlet end of air tubes 44 connecting to discharge end of the blower 54, annotated and shown in Fig. 3) coupled to the blower (54, shown in Fig. 3), wherein
the manifold (40, structure connecting discharge end of blower 54 to tube array 40, annotated in Fig. 3, Fig. 4) is configured to split air flow from the blower (54, Fig. 3) into flows through each of the plurality of outlets (44, tubes 44 provide separate and independent passages for air flow from the blower 54, shown in Figs. 3-4, Col. 4, Ln. 26-37, Col. 5, Ln. 25-36), and wherein each of the plurality of outlets (44, Figs. 3-4) is oriented to direct the air flow in a direction parallel to a direction of air flow into the inlet (inlet end of air tubes 44 connecting to discharge end of the blower 54, air flowing into tubes 44 are flowing in a direction parallel to the discharge ends of the blower 54 connecting to air tubes 44 as indicated by the arrows, annotated and shown in Figs. 3-4);
a plurality of hoses (52, Fig. 3), each hose (52, Fig. 3) connected to one of the outlets (44, shown in Fig. 3, Col. 4, Ln. 50-59);
a plurality of parallel rigid tubes (38, Fig. 3), each rigid tube (38, Fig. 3) connected to one of the hoses (52, shown in Fig. 3, Col. 4, Ln. 45-50); and
a product hopper (12, Figs. 1, 3) configured to deliver solid particulate material to the rigid tubes (38, Fig. 3) without passing through the manifold (40, structure connecting discharge end of blower 54 to tube array 40, annotated in Fig. 3, Fig. 4) or hoses (52, material from the box 12 is discharged onto conveyor 22 and divided by material dividers 30 to pass down into the tubes 38 before passing through flexible tubes 52, Fig. 4, Col. 3, Ln. 55-68, Col. 4, Ln. 50-59).
PNG
media_image1.png
614
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Wall does not disclose a manifold having a generally cylindrical exterior. Strand teaches a manifold (150, Figs. 5-6) having a generally cylindrical exterior (manifold 150 is a tubular member with a circular cross-section, shown in Figs. 5-6, Col. 7, Ln. 59-61).
Wall and Strand are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of solid distribution systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the manifold taught in Strand’s system to Wall’s system garden hose nozzle, to have the motivation to permit delivery of relative high rates of material to allow the forward speed of the truck to be kept high, improving efficiency (Strand, Col. 8, Ln. 54-57).
Regarding claim 2, Wall, as modified by Strand, discloses the solid distribution system of claim 1. Wall discloses the system (entire structure, Fig. 3) further comprising a distributor (22, Fig. 3) configured to deliver the solid particulate material from the product hopper (12, Figs. 1, 3) to each of the parallel rigid tubes (38, material from the box 12 is discharged onto conveyor 22 and divided by material dividers 30 to pass down into the tubes 38 before passing through flexible tubes 52, Fig. 3, Col. 3, Ln. 55-68, Col. 4, Ln. 50-59).
Regarding claim 3, Wall, as modified by Strand, discloses the solid distribution system of claim 2. Wall further discloses the distributor (22, Fig. 3) comprises a conveyor belt (Col. 3, Ln. 57-60).
With respect to claim 4, Wall, as modified by Strand, discloses the solid distribution system of claim 2. Wall further discloses the distributor (22, Figs. 3-4) comprises a housing (30, Figs. 3-4) configured to direct an approximately equal amount of material to each of the rigid tubes (38, material dividers 30 uniformly divide material discharged from the conveyor 22 into tubes 38, Fig. 3, Col. 3, Ln. 55-68, Col. 4, Ln. 50-59).
With respect to claim 5, Wall, as modified by Strand, discloses the solid distribution system of claim 2. Wall further discloses the distributor (22, Figs. 3-4) defines a plurality of exits (32, Fig. 4), wherein each exit (32, Fig. 4) is open to a respective parallel rigid tube (38, shown in Fig. 4).
In regards to claim 6, Wall, as modified by Strand, discloses the solid distribution system of claim 2. Wall further discloses the distributor (22, Figs. 3-4) is configured to pass the solid particulate material to the parallel rigid tubes (38, Figs. 3-4) without passing through the hoses (52, material from the box 12 is discharged onto conveyor 22 and divided by material dividers 30 to pass down into the tubes 38 before passing through flexible tubes 52, Fig. 3, Col. 3, Ln. 55-68, Col. 4, Ln. 50-59).
Regarding claim 7, Wall, as modified by Strand, discloses the solid distribution system of claim 1. Wall further discloses an outlet (48, Figs. 3-4) of each of the hoses (52, Fig. 3) is axially aligned with a respective parallel rigid tube (38, shown in Figs. 3-4, Col. 4, Ln. 38-59).
With respect to claim 8, Wall, as modified by Strand, discloses the solid distribution system of claim 1. Wall discloses the system further comprising at least one boom (110, 112, Fig. 1) extending laterally outward from the product hopper (12, shown in Fig. 1), wherein each rigid tube of the plurality of parallel rigid tubes (vertical tubes of the boom sections 110 and 112, shown in Fig. 1) of the at least one boom (110, 112, Fig. 1) are of a different length (shown in Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 9, Wall, as modified by Strand, discloses the solid distribution system of claim 1. Wall further discloses the hoses (52, Fig. 3) connect to respective rigid tubes (38, shown in Fig. 3) at inboard ends (interpreting as ends located nearer the longitudinal axis or center, Dictionary.com) of the rigid tubes (38, shown in Fig. 3).
In regards to claim 10, Wall, as modified by Strand, discloses the solid distribution system of claim 1. Wall further discloses an outlet (48, Figs. 3-4) of each of the hoses (52, Fig. 3) is inset (interpreting as a place where something flows in, Merriam-Webster Dictionary) from an inboard end (interpreting as end located nearer the longitudinal axis or center, Dictionary.com) of a respective rigid tube (38, shown in Fig. 3).
In regards to claim 11, Wall, as modified by Strand, discloses the solid distribution system of claim 1. Wall further discloses an outlet (outlets of tubes 38, shown in Fig. 4) at an outboard end (interpreting as end located farther from the center) of each rigid tube (38, shown in Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 12, Wall, as modified by Strand, discloses the solid distribution system of claim 1. Wall further discloses the solid particulate material is configured to pass from the product hopper (12, Fig. 3) to the parallel rigid tubes (38, Figs. 3-4) without passing through the hoses (52, material from the box 12 is discharged onto conveyor 22 and divided by material dividers 30 to pass down into the tubes 38 before passing through flexible tubes 52, Fig. 3, Col. 3, Ln. 55-68, Col. 4, Ln. 50-59).
With respect to claim 13, Wall, as modified by Strand, discloses the solid distribution system of claim 1. Wall discloses the system further comprising:
a second blower (56, Figs. 1, 3);
a second manifold (40, structure connecting discharge end of blower 56 to tube array 40, tube array 40 comprises a plurality of tubes 42, where the inlet ends of air tubes 42 are connected to discharge of blower 56 to move air from the blower 56 to the tubes 42, annotated in Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Col. 4, Ln. 26-37, Col. 5, Ln. 25-36), a second inlet (inlet end of air tubes 42 connecting to discharge end of the blower 56, annotated and shown in Fig. 3) at a first end of the second manifold (annotated and shown in Fig. 3), and a second plurality of outlets (42, Figs. 3-4) arranged at an end of the second manifold opposite the second inlet (annotated and shown in Fig. 3), the second inlet (inlet end of air tubes 42 connecting to discharge end of the blower 56, annotated and shown in Fig. 3) coupled to the second blower (56, shown in Fig. 3), wherein the second manifold (40, structure connecting discharge end of blower 56 to tube array 40, annotated in Fig. 3, Fig. 4) is configured to split air flow from the second blower (56, Figs. 1, 3) into flows through each of the second plurality of outlets (42, tubes 42 provide separate and independent passages for air flow from the blower 56, Figs. 3-4, Col. 4, Ln. 26-37, Col. 5, Ln. 25-36), and wherein each of the second plurality of outlets (42, Figs. 3-4) is oriented to direct the air flow in a direction parallel to a direction of air flow into the second inlet (inlet end of air tubes 42 connecting to discharge end of the blower 56, air flowing into tubes 42 are flowing in a direction parallel to the discharge end of the blower 56 connecting to air tubes 42 as indicated by the arrows, annotated and shown in Figs. 3-4); and
a second plurality of hoses (50, Fig. 3), each hose of the second plurality of hoses (50, Fig. 3) connected to one of the second plurality of outlets (42, shown in Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
614
880
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Wall does not disclose a second manifold having a generally cylindrical exterior. Strand teaches a second manifold (150, only one is shown in the figures, but there may be blowers 152 on opposite sides that can be individually controlled, Figs. 5-6, Col. 7, Ln. 64 to Col. 8, Ln. 2) having a generally cylindrical exterior (manifold 150 is a tubular member with a circular cross-section, shown in Figs. 5-6, Col. 7, Ln. 59-61).
Wall and Strand are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of solid distribution systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the second manifold taught in Strand’s system to Wall’s system garden hose nozzle, to have the motivation to permit delivery of relative high rates of material to allow the forward speed of the truck to be kept high, improving efficiency (Strand, Col. 8, Ln. 54-57).
In regards to claim 14, Wall, as modified by Strand, discloses a vehicle (10, Fig. 1) comprising the solid distribution system of claim 1 (entire spraying system, shown in Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s argument that the 112(b) rejection for claim 4 is improper, see Remarks, pg. 5-6, the specification nor claim provides a standard that would quantify the term approximately. Paragraph 0039 of the specification only states “the housing 304 can direct an approximately equal amount of solid particulate material to each rigid tube 208”, but does not define a specific range that would be considered as approximate. Therefore, it is unclear what would be considered as an approximately equal amount of solid particulate material and renders the claim indefinite.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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 O 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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights