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 Status
Pending claims 1-20 are addressed below.
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, 7-9, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter (US 0559042) in view of Mommsen (US4679734).
Regarding claim 1, Potter discloses a fluid applicator for applying fluid to first and second adjacent rows of plants in a field comprising:
at least one applicator arm including a first applicator arm and a second applicator arm;
each of the first applicator arm and the second applicator arm can move laterally outward a first position (see annotation below) for no fluid application (the arms can be placed in first position when there is no flow) in a middle of a row between the first and second adjacent rows of plants to a second position (see annotation below) with a distal end of the first applicator arm adjacent to plants of one of the first and second adjacent rows of plants to apply fluid to plants of one of the first and second adjacent rows of plants (see annotated figure of Potter);
wherein the fluid applicator is disposed in-row between the first and second adjacent rows of plants in operation (see fig. 3 of Potter).
Potter does not teach a linkage system including an actuator and a gear box, the actuator is configured to actuate the first applicator arm laterally with an outward bias from the first position to the second position, wherein the gear box is connected to the actuator (Potter has manual adjustments).
However, Mommsen discloses a fluid applicator, in a form of a paint gun, having a linkage system (at 18; figs. 4-6) including an actuator (68, 80) and a gear box (38), the actuator is configured to actuate the applicator arm (22) laterally with an outward bias from a first position (shown in fig. 4) to a second position (fig. 5 or 6), wherein the gear box (38) is connected to the actuator (68, 80). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to assess the teaching of Mommsen to consider utilization of a linkage system with actuator and gearbox to each of Potter’s applicator arm to manipulate the arm adjustment via the linkage system in order to alleviate the need of manual adjustment for convenience and efficiency. No inventive effort would have been required.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Potter to incorporate the teachings of Mommsen to provide a linkage system including an actuator and a gear box, the actuator is configured to actuate the first applicator arm laterally with an outward bias from the first position to the second position, wherein the gear box is connected to the actuator. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating increased efficiency (See col. 1, ln 8), as such linkage system would alleviate the need for manual adjustment by the operator.
PNG
media_image1.png
715
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Potter discloses an application unit (see figs. 1-3), comprising:
a downwardly extending frame (see annotation below) to be positioned in operation between first and second adjacent rows of plants;
a base or bracket (see annotation below) coupled to the downwardly extending frame, the base or bracket to be positioned in proximity to a ground surface while in operation (see annotation below); and
at least one applicator arm coupled to the base or bracket (see figs. 1-2), the at least one applicator arm can move from a first position for no fluid application in a middle of a row between first and second adjacent rows of plants to a second position with a distal end of the applicator arm adjacent to plants of one of the first and second adjacent rows of plants to apply fluid to plants of one of the first and second adjacent rows of plants (see annotation below).
PNG
media_image2.png
724
804
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Potter does not teach the at least one applicator arm is actuated by at least one actuator to move the applicator arm laterally with an outward bias.
However, Mommsen discloses a fluid applicator, in a form of a paint gun, having a linkage system (at 18; figs. 4-6) including an actuator (68, 80) and a gear box (38), the actuator is configured to actuate the applicator arm (22) laterally with an outward bias from a first position (shown in fig. 4) to a second position (fig. 5 or 6), wherein the gear box (38) is connected to the actuator (68, 80). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to assess the teaching of Mommsen to consider utilization of a linkage system with actuator and gearbox to each of Potter’s applicator arm to manipulate the arm adjustment via the linkage system in order to alleviate the need of manual adjustment for convenience and efficiency. No inventive effort would have been required.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Potter to incorporate the teachings of Mommsen to provide the at least one applicator arm is actuated by at least one actuator to move the applicator arm laterally with an outward bias. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating increased efficiency (See col. 1, ln 8), as such system would alleviate the need for manual adjustment by the operator.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Potter, as modified above, discloses a nozzle (G) that is disposed on a distal end of at least one applicator arm for dispensing liquid (see Potter, fig. 2).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Potter, as modified above, discloses at least one applicator arm has more than one fluid delivery tube for applying more than one fluid (see Potter, fig. 2; two fluid delivery tubes are shown, which are capable of applying a mix of more than one fluid in each of the tube or applying different fluid at different time; the current claim language does not require the “more than one fluid” to be un-mixed or to be delivered via different tube).
Claims 3, 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter (US 0559042) in view of Mommsen (US4679734), further in view of Funseth (US20150367358).
Regarding claims 3, 12, 14, Potter, as modified above, does not teach the actuator includes a solenoid.
However, Funseth discloses a fluid applicator (fig. 10) with a rotatable actuator (not shown) to rotate the nozzle turret that can be a rotary solenoid (par. 80: “Rotatable actuators (not shown) include electric stepper motors, servo motors, rotary solenoids or piezo based rotators”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Potter and Mommsen to incorporate the teachings of Funseth to utilize the actuator that includes a solenoid. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to utilize one of the known actuators to yield the predictable result of facilitating movement of the parts, including nozzle or applicator arm(s).
Claims 4, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter (US 0559042) in view of Mommsen (US4679734), further in view of Mayfield (US 6010079).
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 15, Potter, as modified above, does not teach the actuator includes an electric motor.
However, Mayfield discloses a fluid applicator, wherein the arm maneuvering means may comprise any one of a number of different types of actuators, such as an hydraulic actuator, an electric motor driven actuator and a pneumatic actuator (col. 2, ln 7-11).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Potter and Mommsen to incorporate the teachings of Mayfield to provide the actuator including an electric motor. Choosing one of the known types of actuator would yield the predictable result of facilitating an arm maneuvering means (see col. 2, ln 7-11).
Claims 6, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter (US 0559042) in view of Mommsen (US4679734), further in view of Miller (US 10004175).
Regarding claims 6, 17, 18, Potter, as modified, does not teach the fluid applicator is disposed on a frame connected to a bar/toolbar, and a coulter is connected to the frame.
However, Miller discloses a comparable unit having a fluid applicator (see annotation below) disposed on a frame connected to a bar/toolbar, and a coulter is connected to the frame (see annotation below; col. 5, ln 15-20, 34-44).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Potter and Mommsen to incorporate the teachings of Miller to provide the fluid applicator is disposed on a frame connected to a bar/toolbar, and a coulter is connected to the frame. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating sealing when the fertilizer is applied and reduce loss from leaching, runoff or volatilization (See col. 5, ln 45-49).
PNG
media_image3.png
505
472
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 10, 11, 16 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUONGMINH NGUYEN PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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.
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights