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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/18/2026 has been entered.
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 11, line 4, recites “means for heating water” and is being interpreted under 112(f). The “means” is understood to be heating means 12 as per page 5 of the specification describing “water can be heated by making it pass through a heat exchanger, for example a coil, positioned in a diesel oil or gas boiler.” This treatment similarly applies to further recitations in claims 12 and 13.
3-prong analysis:
The claim limitation uses the term “means” for performing the claimed function; “means”
The term “means” is modified by functional language, “for heating water”
The term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; “means” is not modified by sufficient structure in claim 11
Claim 11, line 7, recites “means for generating forced air” and is being interpreted under 112(f). The “means” is understood to be electric fans 14, 14’ as per page 10 of the specification describing “Preferably, the forced air generating means comprise one or more electric fans 14, 14'.”
3-prong analysis:
The claim limitation uses the term “means” for performing the claimed function; “means”
The term “means” is modified by functional language, “for generating forced air”
The term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; “means” is not modified by sufficient structure in claim 11
Claim 11, line 8, recites “means for heating the forced air” and is being interpreted under 112(f). The “means” is understood to be heating means 15, 15’ as per page 5 of the specification describing “For example, the forced air, for example produced by a suitable fan, can be heated efficiently using electric heating elements appropriately positioned in the duct for forced air downstream of the forced air generating means.” T
3-prong analysis:
The claim limitation uses the term “means” for performing the claimed function; “means”
The term “means” is modified by functional language, “heating the forced air”
The term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; “means” is not modified by sufficient structure in claim 11
Claim 11, line 12, recites “second conveying means for conveying the water” and is being interpreted under 112(f). The “second conveying means” is understood to be the pipe of second conveying means 21 as per page 9 of the specification describing “second conveying means 21 (for example a pipe made of a suitable material) of said water.”
3-prong analysis:
The claim limitation uses the term “means” for performing the claimed function; “second conveying means”
The term “means” is modified by functional language, “for conveying the water”
The term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; “second conveying means” is not modified by sufficient structure in claim 11
Claim 11, line 15, recites “means for transferring the foaming substance” and is being interpreted under 112(f). The “means” is understood to be transfer means 22 as per page 10 of the specification describing “through transfer means 22 of said foaming substance, for example formed by a pipe made of suitable material provided with specific pumping devices.”
3-prong analysis:
The claim limitation uses the term “means” for performing the claimed function; “means”
The term “means” is modified by functional language, “for transferring the foaming substance”
The term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; “means” is not modified by sufficient structure in claim 11
Claim 20, lines 1 and 2, recites “means of transport” and is being interpreted under 112(f). The “means” is understood to be a tractor, truck, or other self-propelled vehicle as per page 8 of the specification describing “For this purpose, the equipment can advantageously comprise means for operational coupling with a means of transport, particularly with a farm tractor” and “For example, it is possible for the equipment to be assembled on a truck or other self-propelled vehicle for other uses.”
3-prong analysis:
The claim limitation uses the term “means” for performing the claimed function; “means”
The term “means” is modified by functional language, “of transport”
The term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; “means” is not modified by sufficient structure in claim 20
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.
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 11, 15, 16, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan et al. (US 20210169063 A1), hereinafter Cowan, in view of Reddy et al. (US 20100129157 A1), hereinafter Reddy, and Rajamannan (US 5575111 A, previously cited by Examiner 12/16/2025).
Regarding claim 11, Cowan discloses an apparatus for mobile weed control and/or desuckering of tree crops (weed control apparatus 10; Fig. 1), the apparatus comprising:
means for heating water (boiler 23; Fig. 1);
a foaming substance containment tank (bottle/jar 20; Fig. 1);
means for generating forced air (air blower 14; Fig. 1);
a foam generating device (nozzle 32; Fig. 2);
a forced air duct connecting the means for generating forced air to the foam generating device (Fig. 2 shows forced air duct of cylindrical body 12 connecting to nozzle 32 within, as well as connecting to blower 14);
second conveying means for conveying the water from the means for heating the water on a first end of the second conveying means (Fig. 1 shows end of flexible hose 22 linkable to boiler 23) to a first injection device at a second end of the second conveying means (Figs. 1 and 2 show second end of flexible hose 22 located next to and in communication with venturi constriction 34) and located along the forced air duct at a point upstream of the foam generating device and downstream of the means for heating the forced air (flexible hose 22; Fig. 1 shows flexible hose 22 and duct to venturi 34 is a conveying means for the water);
means for distribution of the foam (annular nozzle structure 25; Fig. 1); and
control means (¶ 0025, lines 2-5, “The solenoid-controlled valve 42 is controlled by a microprocessor or a timer [not shown] that may be within the cylindrical body 12”),
a third conveying means of said water branching from a point of said second conveying means upstream of an inlet of the means for transferring the foaming substance (Fig. 2 shows the duct portion between control valve 42 connection to flexible hose 22 and venturi connection 34 is a third conveying means located downstream of blower 14 and upstream of duct 36 connection to venturi 34); and
one or more devices downstream of the foam generating device and configured to lower grass and convey the foam so as to form a covering of a constant height (chute 26; Fig. 1 shows chute 26 is configured to lower grass if contact is made, and configured to convey at constant height if device is held at constant height from ground).
Cowan, however, fails to specifically disclose a water containment tank and water conveyed via first conveying means from a water containment tank, and a means for heating the forced air, wherein the means for heating the forced air is positioned in the forced air duct, as well as wherein the first injection device is configured to inject a mixture of water and foaming substance from the second conveying means into the forced air duct, and a means for transferring the foaming substance from the foaming substance containment tank to the second conveying means, and the third conveying means connecting with said forced air duct at a point downstream of the means for heating the forced air upstream of the first injection device.
Reddy is in the field of treatment using forced air and water and teaches a water containment tank (fluid reservoir 216; Fig. 7) and water conveyed via first conveying means from a water containment tank (feed line 218; Fig. 7), and a means for heating the forced air, wherein the means for heating the forced air is positioned in the forced air duct (gas heater 10; Fig. 7 shows gas heater 10 is situated in casing 210), and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of treatment using forced air and water before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cowan to include a water containment tank and water conveyed via first conveying means from a water containment tank and a means for heating the forced air, wherein the means for heating the forced air is positioned in the forced air duct, as taught by the water supply and forced air heater of Reddy. The reservoir would ensure an adequate supply of water for use, and the forced air heater would increase the temperature of the air generated, which would improve treatment capabilities and the overall function of the device. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Rajamannan is in the field of using hot air foam to kill vegetation and teaches wherein the first injection device is configured to inject a mixture of water and foaming substance from the second conveying means into the forced air duct (Fig. 1 shows water from conduit 12 and surfactant from container 15 are mixed upstream from injection point into forced air duct at nozzle 14) and a means for transferring the foaming substance from the foaming substance containment tank to the second conveying means (Fig. 1 shows surfactant from container 15 travels through transferring means into conduit 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of hot air foam to kill vegetation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cowan in view of Reddy such that the first injection device is configured to inject a mixture of water and foaming substance from the second conveying means into the forced air duct and a means for transferring the foaming substance from the foaming substance containment tank to the second conveying means, as taught by the injection device of Rajamannan The combination of the foaming substance and water prior to injection would improve control over mixing, which would result in improved foam generation. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cowan in view of Redden and Rajamannan such that the third conveying means connecting with said forced air duct at a point downstream of the means for heating the forced air upstream of the first injection device in order to improve foam generation. Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 15, Cowan in view of Reddy and Rajamannan discloses the device of claim 11.
Cowan discloses comprising a second injection device configured to inject water from the third conveying means into the forced air duct (nozzle 32; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Cowan in view of Reddy and Rajamannan discloses the device of claim 15.
Cowan discloses wherein the first injection device and/or the second injection device comprises one or more nebulizing/atomizing nozzles of the mixture of water and foaming substance and/or of the water (mist nozzle 32; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Cowan in view of Reddy and Rajamannan discloses the device of claim 11.
Cowan discloses wherein the first injection device comprises one or more nebulizing/atomizing nozzles of the mixture of water and foaming substance and/or of the water (mist nozzle 32; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 22, Cowan discloses a method of operating an apparatus for mobile weed control and/or desuckering of tree crops (weed control apparatus 10; Fig. 1), the method comprising:
wherein the water is heated (boiler 23; Fig. 1);
conveying heated water from the first heating area (boiler 23; Fig. 1) and simultaneously introducing a foaming substance from a second containment tank to the heated water from the first heating area (¶ 0013, lines 1-10, “The foam-generating device may comprise an air blower connected to an air duct, with a liquid spray nozzle within the air duct. A flow duct to carry water leads via a venturi constriction to the spray nozzle, and a second duct communicates between a vessel to contain a concentrate for the aqueous solution and the venturi constriction, so that water flowing through the flow duct causes the concentrate to be sucked into the water flow at the venturi constriction, so that a diluted aqueous solution is then sprayed through the spray nozzle to mix with the airflow and form foam”);
further wherein the duct connects at an output into a foam generator (Fig. 2 shows forced air duct of cylindrical body 12 connecting to nozzle 32 within);
conveying water from a point of the heated water upstream of where the foaming substance is introduced, into the duct via a third input (Fig. 2 shows the duct portion between control valve 42 connection to flexible hose 22 and venturi connection 34 is located downstream of blower 14 and upstream of duct 36 connection to venturi 34); and
distributing foam from the foam generator (foam 46; Fig. 1), using one or more devices for lowering grass and conveying the foam (chute 26; Fig. 1).
Cowan, however, fails to specifically disclose conveying water from a first containment tank of the apparatus to a first heating area, and forcing air via a first input into a duct comprising a second heating area wherein the forced air is heated, as well as injecting a mixture of foaming substance and heated water from the first heating area into the duct via a second input, at a point upstream of the foam generator and downstream of the second heating area, and a third input located at a point downstream of the second heating area and upstream of a second input.
Reddy teaches conveying water from a first containment tank of the apparatus to a first heating area (fluid reservoir 216, feed line 218; Fig. 7), and forcing air via a first input into a duct comprising a second heating area wherein the forced air is heated (gas heater 10; Fig. 7 shows gas heater 10 is situated in casing 210).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of treatment using forced air and water before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cowan to include conveying water from a first containment tank of the apparatus to a first heating area, and forcing air via a first input into a duct comprising a second heating area wherein the forced air is heated, as taught by the water supply and forced air heater of Reddy. The reservoir would ensure an adequate supply of water for use, and the forced air heater would increase the temperature of the air generated, which would improve treatment capabilities and the overall function of the method. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Rajamannan teaches injecting a mixture of foaming substance and heated water from the first heating area into the duct via a second input, at a point upstream of the foam generator and downstream of the second heating area (Fig. 1 shows water from conduit 12 and surfactant from container 15 are mixed upstream from injection point into forced air duct at nozzle 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of hot air foam to kill vegetation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cowan in view of Reddy to include injecting a mixture of foaming substance and heated water from the first heating area into the duct via a second input, at a point upstream of the foam generator and downstream of the second heating area, as taught by the injection device of Rajamannan The combination of the foaming substance and water prior to injection would improve control over mixing, which would result in improved foam generation. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cowan in view of Redden and Rajamannan to include a third input at a point downstream of the second heating area and upstream of a second input in order to improve foam generation. Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Claims 24, 25, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan (US 20210169063 A1) in view of Reddy (US 20100129157 A1) and Rajamannan (US 5575111 A), and further in view of Hobbs et al. (US 9426974 B2), hereinafter Hobbs.
Regarding claim 24, Cowan in view of Reddy and Rajamannan discloses the method of claim 22, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose further comprising controlling switching on/switching off of the heating of the water in the first heating area according to calculated on/off cycles.
Hobbs teaches further comprising controlling switch on/switch off of the heating of the water in the first heating area according to calculated on/off cycles (Col. 4, lines 14-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of weed control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cowan in view of Reddy and Rajamannan to include controlling switch on/switch off of the heating of the water in the first heating area according to calculated on/off cycles, as taught by the heater control of Hobbs. This would allow for more precise control over temperature of water being supplied, which would improve overall function of the method. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 25, Cowan in view of Reddy and Rajamannan discloses the method of claim 22, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose further comprising controlling switch on/switch off of the heating of the water in the first heating area according to on/off cycles calculated in real time as a function of an inlet temperature of the water into the first heating area, and/or an outlet temperature of the water from the first heating area, and/or a desired temperature of water delivered from the first heating area.
Hobbs teaches further comprising controlling switch on/switch off of the heating of the water in the first heating area according to on/off cycles calculated in real time as a function of an inlet temperature of the water into the first heating area, and/or an outlet temperature of the water from the first heating area, and/or a desired temperature of water delivered from the first heating area (Col. 4, lines 14-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of weed control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cowan in view of Reddy and Rajamannan to include controlling switch on/switch off of the heating of the water in the first heating area according to on/off cycles calculated in real time as a function of an inlet temperature of the water into the first heating area, and/or an outlet temperature of the water from the first heating area, and/or a desired temperature of water delivered from the first heating area, as taught by the heater control of Hobbs. This would allow for more precise control over temperature of water being supplied, which would improve overall function of the method. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 30, Cowan discloses a method of operating an apparatus for mobile weed control and/or desuckering of tree crops (weed control apparatus 10; Fig. 1), the method comprising:
conveying heated water from the first heating area (boiler 23; Fig. 1) and simultaneously introducing a foaming substance from a second containment tank to the heated water from the first heating area (¶ 0013, lines 1-10);
further wherein the duct connects at an output into a foam generator (Fig. 2 shows forced air duct of cylindrical body 12 connecting to nozzle 32 within);
distributing foam from the foam generator (foam 46; Fig. 1); and
Cowan, however, fails to specifically disclose conveying water from a first containment tank of the apparatus to a first heating area, wherein the water is heated, and forcing air via a first input into a duct comprising a second heating area wherein the forced air is heated, as well as controlling a switching on/switching off of the heating of the water in the first heating area according to on/off cycles calculated in real time as a function of an inlet temperature of the water into the first heating area, and/or an outlet temperature of the water from the first heating area, and/or a desired temperature of water delivered from the first heating area, and injecting a mixture of foaming substance and heated water from the first heating area into the duct via a second input, at a point upstream of the foam generator and downstream of the second heating area.
Reddy teaches conveying water from a first containment tank of the apparatus to a first heating area, wherein the water is heated (fluid reservoir 216, feed line 218; Fig. 7), and forcing air via a first input into a duct comprising a second heating area wherein the forced air is heated (gas heater 10; Fig. 7 shows gas heater 10 is situated in casing 210).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of treatment using forced air and water before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cowan to include conveying water from a first containment tank of the apparatus to a first heating area, and forcing air via a first input into a duct comprising a second heating area wherein the forced air is heated, as taught by the water supply and forced air heater of Reddy. The reservoir would ensure an adequate supply of water for use, and the forced air heater would increase the temperature of the air generated, which would improve treatment capabilities and the overall function of the method. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Rajamannan teaches injecting a mixture of foaming substance and heated water from the first heating area into the duct via a second input, at a point upstream of the foam generator and downstream of the second heating area (Fig. 1 shows water from conduit 12 and surfactant from container 15 are mixed upstream from injection point into forced air duct at nozzle 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of hot air foam to kill vegetation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cowan in view of Reddy to include injecting a mixture of foaming substance and heated water from the first heating area into the duct via a second input, at a point upstream of the foam generator and downstream of the second heating area, as taught by the injection device of Rajamannan The combination of the foaming substance and water prior to injection would improve control over mixing, which would result in improved foam generation. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Hobbs teaches further comprising controlling a switching on/switching off of the heating of the water in the first heating area according to on/off cycles calculated in real time as a function of an inlet temperature of the water into the first heating area, and/or an outlet temperature of the water from the first heating area, and/or a desired temperature of water delivered from the first heating area (Col. 4, lines 14-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of weed control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cowan in view of Reddy and Rajamannan to include controlling a switching on/switching off of the heating of the water in the first heating area according to on/off cycles calculated in real time as a function of an inlet temperature of the water into the first heating area, and/or an outlet temperature of the water from the first heating area, and/or a desired temperature of water delivered from the first heating area, as taught by the heater control of Hobbs. This would allow for more precise control over temperature of water being supplied, which would improve overall function of the method. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 17, 18, 20, 23, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan (US 20210169063 A1) in view of Reddy (US 20100129157 A1) and Rajamannan (US 5575111 A), and further in view of Swan et al. (US 20170202203 A1), hereinafter Swan.
Regarding claim 17, Cowan in view of Reddy and Rajamannan discloses the device of claim 11, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose comprising a first recirculation line of the water from the second water conveying means to the water containment tank.
Swan is in the field of weed control and teaches comprising a first recirculation line of the water from the second water conveying means to the water containment tank (water storage tank 14, pressure relief duct 74, medium-pressure relief valve 75; Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of weed control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cowan in view of Reddy and Rajamannan to include a first recirculation line of the water from the second water conveying means to the water containment tank, as taught by the recirculation system of Swan. This would allow for water conservation within the system as well as pressure regulation, which would improve the overall operation of the device. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18, Cowan in view of Reddy and Rajamannan discloses the device of claim 11, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose comprising a second water recirculation line of the water from the first water conveying means to the water containment tank.
Swan teaches comprising a second water recirculation line of the water from the first water conveying means to the water containment tank (water storage tank 14, pressure relief duct 50, high-pressure relief valve 52; Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of weed control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cowan in view of Reddy and Rajamannan to include a second water recirculation line of the water from the first water conveying means to the water containment tank, as taught by the recirculation system of Swan. This would allow for water conservation within the system as well as pressure regulation, which would improve the overall operation of the device. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 20, Cowan in view of Reddy and Rajamannan discloses the device of claim 11, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the apparatus is operationally coupled with a means of transport and comprises one or more devices downstream of the foam generating device, positioned laterally to the means of transport and configured to dispense the foam in a direction substantially perpendicular to a direction of travel of the means of transport.
Swan teaches wherein the apparatus is operationally coupled with a means of transport (pickup truck 12; Fig. 1) and comprises one or more devices downstream of the foam generating device, positioned laterally to the means of transport and configured to dispense the foam in a direction substantially perpendicular to a direction of travel of the means of transport (Fig. 1 shows lances 24 positioned laterally to the means of transport and configured to dispense the foam in a direction substantially perpendicular to a direction of travel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of weed control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cowan in view of Reddy and Rajamannan such that the device is operationally coupled with a means of transport and comprises one or more devices downstream of the foam generating device, positioned laterally to the means of transport and configured to dispense the foam in a direction substantially perpendicular to a direction of travel of the means of transport, as taught by the vehicle and lance structure of Swan. This would allow for the device to be transported more effectively, which would improve the overall operation of the device. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 23, Cowan in view of Reddy and Rajamannan discloses the method of claim 22, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the apparatus is mounted on a transport vehicle, and wherein foam generator is positioned laterally with respect to the transport vehicle and the foam is distributed from the foam generator in a direction substantially perpendicular to a direction of travel of the transport vehicle.
Swan teaches wherein the apparatus is mounted on a transport vehicle (pickup truck 12; Fig. 1), and wherein foam generator is positioned laterally with respect to the transport vehicle and the foam is distributed from the foam generator in a direction substantially perpendicular to a direction of travel of the transport vehicle (Fig. 1 shows lances 24 to generate foam positioned laterally perpendicular to a direction of travel of the truck 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of weed control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cowan in view of Reddy and Rajamannan to include the apparatus is mounted on a transport vehicle, and wherein foam generator is positioned laterally with respect to the transport vehicle and the foam is distributed from the foam generator in a direction substantially perpendicular to a direction of travel of the transport vehicle, as taught by the vehicle of Swan. This would allow for the device to be transported more effectively, which would improve the overall operation of the method. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 26, Cowan in view of Reddy and Rajamannan discloses the method of claim 22, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose comprising recirculating of water, having been conveyed from the first heating area and prior to injection into the duct via the second input, to the first containment tank.
Swan teaches comprising recirculating of water, having been conveyed from the first heating area and prior to injection into the duct via the second input, to the first containment tank (water storage tank 14, pressure relief duct 74, medium-pressure relief valve 75; Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of weed control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cowan in view of Reddy and Rajamannan to include recirculating of water, having been conveyed from the first heating area and prior to injection into the duct via the second input, to the first containment tank, as taught by the recirculation system of Swan. This would allow for water conservation within the system as well as pressure regulation, which would improve the overall operation of the device. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 27, Cowan in view of Reddy, Rajamannan, and Swan discloses the method of claim 26, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the recirculating step is performed during a pre-heating process and until a predetermined operating temperature is reached (Swan; ¶ 0007, lines 7-12, “Until such time as the heater heats the water to the desired temperature, the water will be recirculated through the pressure relief valve back to the water storage tank, but when the water reaches the desired temperature the control valve will open, and the resulting hot water will be supplied to the hoses”).
Regarding claim 28, Cowan in view of Reddy and Rajamannan discloses the method of claim 22, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose comprising recirculating of water, having been conveyed from the first containment tank and prior to the first heating area, to the first containment tank.
Swan teaches comprising recirculating of water, having been conveyed from the first containment tank and prior to the first heating area, to the first containment tank (water storage tank 14, pressure relief duct 74, medium-pressure relief valve 75; Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of weed control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cowan in view of Reddy and Rajamannan to include recirculating of water, having been conveyed from the first containment tank and prior to the first heating area, to the first containment tank, as taught by the recirculation system of Swan. This would allow for water conservation within the system as well as pressure regulation, which would improve the overall operation of the device. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 29, Cowan in view of Reddy, Rajamannan, and Swan discloses the method of claim 28, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the recirculating step is performed during an interruption in the mobile weed control and/or desuckering operations, further wherein heating of the water in the first heating area is temporarily disabled (Swan; ¶ 0020, lines 3-12, “If there were to be a blockage in the water heater 16, this would be detected either by an increase in pressure as sensed by the pressure sensor 48 or a decrease in flow as detected by the flow sensor 46; and in either case the controller 30 may stop the operation of the water heater 16. The high-pressure relief valve 52 is arranged to open if the water pressure exceeds a safety limit [for example 40 bar=4.0 MPa], so the pressure is relieved, and the excess water can return to the water return circuit 54”).
Claims 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan (US 20210169063 A1) in view of Reddy (US 20100129157 A1), Rajamannan (US 5575111 A), and Hobbs (US 9426974 B2), and further in view of Swan (US 20170202203 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Cowan in view of Reddy, Rajamannan, and Hobbs discloses the method of claim 30, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the apparatus is mounted on a transport vehicle, and wherein the foam generator is positioned laterally with respect to the transport vehicle and the foam is distributed from the foam generator in a direction substantially perpendicular to a direction of travel of the transport vehicle.
Swan teaches wherein the apparatus is mounted on a transport vehicle (pickup truck 12; Fig. 1) and wherein the foam generator is positioned laterally with respect to the transport vehicle and the foam is distributed from the foam generator in a direction substantially perpendicular to a direction of travel of the transport vehicle (Fig. 1 shows lances 24 positioned laterally to the means of transport and configured to dispense the foam in a direction substantially perpendicular to a direction of travel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of weed control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cowan in view of Reddy, Rajamannan, and Hobbs such that the apparatus is mounted on a transport vehicle, and wherein the foam generator is positioned laterally with respect to the transport vehicle and the foam is distributed from the foam generator in a direction substantially perpendicular to a direction of travel of the transport vehicle, as taught by the vehicle and lance structure of Swan. This would allow for the device to be transported more effectively, which would improve the overall operation of the method. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 32, Cowan in view of Reddy, Rajamannan, and Hobbs discloses the method of claim 30, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose comprising recirculating of water, having been conveyed from the first heating area and prior to injection into the duct via the second input, to the first containment tank; wherein the recirculating step is performed during a pre-heating process and until a predetermined operating temperature is reached.
Swan teaches comprising recirculating of water, having been conveyed from the first heating area and prior to injection into the duct via the second input, to the first containment tank (water storage tank 14, pressure relief duct 74, medium-pressure relief valve 75; Fig. 2); wherein the recirculating step is performed during a pre-heating process and until a predetermined operating temperature is reached (Swan; ¶ 0007, lines 7-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of weed control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cowan in view of Reddy, Rajamannan, and Hobbs to include recirculating of water, having been conveyed from the first heating area and prior to injection into the duct via the second input, to the first containment tank, wherein the recirculating step is performed during a pre-heating process and until a predetermined operating temperature is reached, as taught by the recirculation system of Swan. This would allow for water conservation within the system as well as pressure regulation, which would improve the overall operation of the device. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 33, Cowan in view of Reddy, Rajamannan, and Hobbs discloses the method of claim 30, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose comprising recirculating of water, having been conveyed from the first containment tank and prior to the first heating area, to the first containment tank; wherein the recirculating step is performed during an interruption in the mobile weed control and/or desuckering operations, further wherein heating of the water in the first heating area is temporarily disabled.
Swan teaches comprising recirculating of water, having been conveyed from the first containment tank and prior to the first heating area, to the first containment tank (water storage tank 14, pressure relief duct 74, medium-pressure relief valve 75; Fig. 2); wherein the recirculating step is performed during an interruption in the mobile weed control and/or desuckering operations, further wherein heating of the water in the first heating area is temporarily disabled (Swan; ¶ 0020, lines 3-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of weed control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cowan in view of Reddy, Rajamannan, and Hobbs to include recirculating of water, having been conveyed from the first containment tank and prior to the first heating area, to the first containment tank; wherein the recirculating step is performed during an interruption in the mobile weed control and/or desuckering operations, further wherein heating of the water in the first heating area is temporarily disabled., as taught by the recirculation system of Swan. This would allow for water conservation within the system as well as pressure regulation, which would improve the overall operation of the device. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument on pages 12 and 13 that “Because Cowan fails to disclose the means for transferring the foaming substance to the second conveying means, Cowan likewise fails to disclose the ‘third conveying means of said water branching from a point of said second conveying means upstream of an inlet of the means for transferring the foaming substance and connecting with said forced air duct.’ The third conveying means is structurally defined by reference to the inlet of the foam transfer means, as the present disclosure provides the third conveying means branches off the second conveying means at a point before the foaming substance is introduced into that water stream. This upstream branching point has no referent in Cowan because, as established above, Cowan's foam transfer means (duct 36) never connects to the second conveying means (hose 22) at all. There is accordingly no inlet of a transfer means on the second conveying means from which an upstream branching point can be identified, and the third conveying means limitation necessarily fails along with the transfer means limitation. In addition, even considered independently of the transfer means limitation, the third conveying means element further requires a connection to ‘said forced air duct at a point downstream of the means for heating the forced air and upstream of the first injection device.’ This positional requirement presupposes that the forced air duct contains a means for heating the forced air, where that means for heating the forced air is a discrete air-heating element positioned within the duct. As the Office acknowledges, Cowan discloses no means for heating the forced air anywhere in its device. See Office Action, at 9. To the extent the Office relies on Reddy's heater 10 to supply both the missing means for heating the forced air and the downstream reference point for the third conveying means, that proposed modification introduces its own insurmountable structural and thermal inoperability problems that independently defeat the rejection, as addressed in detail in Section B below,” the Examiner submits that Cowan teaches multiple water paths as claimed by the Applicant, including a second conveying means through flexible hose 22, as well as a third conveying means through duct portion between control valve 42 connection and venturi connection 34, these conveying means are separate structures for the conveying of water. Additionally, the third conveying means branches from a point of said second conveying means 22 which connects at venturi connection 34 upstream of an inlet of the means for transferring the foaming substance from duct 36 from bottle/jar 20. Furthermore, Figs. 1 and 2 of Cowan show that the third conveying means connects with and is located within the forced air duct of cylindrical body 12, with Reddy being relied upon to teach the air heating element.
Regarding the argument on pages 14 and 15 that “the cited references fail to teach the step of ‘conveying heated water from the first heating area and simultaneously introducing a foaming substance from a second containment tank to the heated water from the first heating area’ (i.e., the method analog of the apparatus claims' transfer means to the second conveying means) because Cowan introduces its foaming concentrate passively via venturi suction at the point of foam generation, not into a heated water stream upstream of injection into the forced air duct. By extension, the cited references equally fail to teach ‘conveying water from a point of the heated water upstream of where the foaming substance is introduced, into the duct via a third input at a point downstream of the second heating area and upstream of a second input,’ because, as with the third conveying means of claim 11, there is no identifiable upstream branching point in Cowan's architecture from which clean heated water is diverted to the forced air duct independently of the foaming mixture, nor does Cowan disclose a second heating area within the forced air duct from which a downstream connection point for such conveyance could be defined,” the Examiner submits that the above argument is incommensurate with the scope of the claims, as claim 22 requires “conveying heated water from the first heating area and simultaneously introducing a foaming substance from a second containment tank to the heated water from the first heating area,” and since ¶ 0013, lines 1-10, details that the conveyance of heated water and introduction of a foaming substance occur in unison, Cowan discloses the claimed step.
Regarding the argument on page 15 that “The cited prior art (Hobbs), on the other hand, only appears to a threshold-based cutoff, which is essentially the same technique which is expressly distinguished in the present Application and further at least fails to disclose ‘switch-on’ heating or a calculation of on/off cycles,” the Examiner maintains that Hobbs teaches “controlling switch on/switch off of the heating of the water in the first heating area according to calculated on/off cycles,” as Col. 4, lines 14-31 details an on/off switch that operates in response to cycles dictated by calculated required temperature thresholds. Therefore, Hobbs discloses the claimed switch structure.
Regarding the argument on page 17 that “Second, even if the forced air duct and water path were properly understood as separate in Cowan's device, placing Reddy's heater 10 in the forced air path would still render the combined device entirely inoperable for foam generation. Foam generation depends on the preservation of a liquid phase at the foam generating screen. See Application at 1[0049], 1[0061]. The present disclosure operates at forced air temperatures of greater than 50°C, preferably greater than 100°C, because those are the temperatures at which hot air promotes foam stability without vaporizing the liquid films that constitute the foam bubbles. See Application at 1[0049]. Reddy's heater 10, operating at a minimum exit temperature of 150°C and a maximum of 1,500°C in all disclosed embodiments would raise the forced air temperature hundreds of degrees beyond the threshold at which any liquid phase can survive in the forced air duct. See Reddy, at [0056]. At those temperatures, the water drawn through venturi 34 would be flash-vaporized before it could reach mist spray nozzle 32, the conical mesh barrier 38 would be exposed to superheated gas rather than a liquid-laden air stream, and no foam of any kind could form. The Office's assertion that adding Reddy's heater would ‘improve treatment capabilities and the overall function of the device’ is therefore precisely backwards, as the proposed combination would destroy the foam function entirely,” the Examiner submits that there is no evidence that the addition of the heater of Reddy would destroy the foam function, as the heater of Reddy is located upstream of the water introduction point, and the water/foaming substance lines and the forced air duct of Cowan are not the same line.
Regarding the argument on pages 17 and 18 that “Reddy's fluid reservoir 216 and feed line 218 are fundamentally incompatible with Cowan's device and would certainly fail to achieve the problems addressed by the present disclosure. According to the Office is would have been obvious to configure Reddy's fluid reservoir 216 and feedline 218 with Gowan's ‘external heater or boiler’ 23 to ‘ensure an adequate supply of water for use.’ See Office Action, at 9. This rationale is directly contradicted by Reddy's own disclosure. Reddy's reservoir 216 is explicitly described as a small polycarbonate cup sized to supply water at a drip-feed rate of approximately 1 ml/min to 35 ml/min to a venturi tube for the sole purpose of flash-vaporizing that water into superheated steam for microorganism management. See Reddy at [0053], [0088]. Reddy's feed line 218 is a stainless steel pipe regulated by needle valve 220 that meters this minimal trickle of water into delivery tube 212 at the gas exit port of heater 10, where the passing superheated gas draws the water in and immediately vaporizes it. See Reddy at [0053]-[0054]. Far from being a water supply system capable of feeding Cowan's boiler or capable of serving as a tractor-mounted system designed to treat vineyard and orchard under-rows at commercial agricultural operating speeds like the present disclosure, Reddy expressly touts the smallness of its reservoir as an advantage of the system, noting that its design ‘uses significantly less steam as compared to conventional steamers and thus the size of the fluid reservoir 216 may be significantly smaller.’ See Reddy at 1[0088]. In other words, Reddy affirmatively designed its reservoir to be as small as possible by contrast to what would be needed to ensure an adequate supply of water to Cowan's external boiler operating at the volumes required for continuous agricultural weed treatment. As evidenced by Swan, which the Office itself cites as in the same family of rejections, a non-limiting example of a normal water flow rate would be at least 9 to 12 L/min through a dispensing hose. See Swan, at 1[0017]. Therefore, a small polycarbonate cup metering water at a fraction of a milliliter per second by needle valve into a venturi cannot supply an agricultural boiler operating at those demands, and the proposed modification would therefore fail to achieve the continuous hot water delivery that the present disclosure requires,” the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the claims require “a water containment tank and water conveyed via first conveying means from a water containment tank” which is taught by the fluid reservoir 216 and feed line 218 of Reddy, with motivation to combine with the device of Cowan found in Reddy, which demonstrates the need to size the reservoir based on the desired supply of water for use. Accordingly, accommodating the device of Cowan with the water containment tank of Reddy which takes into consideration adequate required water supply, would improve the overall function of the device, and would have been obvious to incorporate to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as specifically applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Moren, US 20050223638 A1, discusses a hot water apparatus and method for sustainable agriculture.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER THOMAS CALLAWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-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, Joshua Huson can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/S.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights