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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reineccius et al. US PGPub 20140083358 in view of Oelbermann et al., DE 3511572.
PNG
media_image1.png
476
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Reineccius et al. discloses a liquid delivery system (see fig 2a) for a treatment device (100), the liquid delivery system comprising: a first reservoir (keg 1) containing a first liquid (chemical contained in keg 1); a first positive displacement pump (pump connected to keg 1 in fig 2a) operably coupled to the first reservoir (keg 1) and configured to pump the first liquid (as described above) therethrough at a first flow rate (determined by 102); a second reservoir (keg 2) containing a second liquid (chemical contained in keg 2); a second positive displacement pump (pump connected to keg 2 in fig 2a) operably coupled to the second reservoir (keg 2) and configured to pump the second liquid (as described above) therethrough at a second flow rate (determined by 102); and a motor (see [0099]) operably coupled to the first and second positive displacement pumps (as described above) to drive simultaneous operation thereof; wherein at least one of: the first flow rate (as described above) and the second flow rate (as described above) are different (see [0114]), the first liquid and the second liquid have different viscosities (due to the chemical composition of each liquid), or the first liquid and the second liquid have different flow characteristics (see [0114]), wherein the first and second positive displacement pumps (as described above) comprise first and second peristaltic pumps (see [0089]). Reineccius et al. discloses the liquid delivery system of claims 1, 3 and 16 but does not specify the motor comprises a drive shaft; and the first and second positive displacement pumps are stacked or the tubes have different diameters.
PNG
media_image2.png
664
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Oelbermann et al. teaches a similar pumping system (see fig 2) wherein the motor (2) comprises a drive shaft (20); and the first and second positive displacement pumps (8-10) are stacked on the drive shaft (20) to be driven thereby and further comprising a first tube (14) extending from the first reservoir through the first peristaltic pump (8) and a second tube (16) extending from the second reservoir through the second peristaltic pump (10), the first and second tubes having different internal diameters (see fig 4). (claim 1)
wherein elements (11 and 13) of the first (8) and second peristaltic pumps (10) engage the first and second tubes (14,16), respectively, such that, when not in operation, the elements stop fluid flow through the first and second tubes (14,16), isolating the first liquid within the first reservoir and the first tube and the second liquid within the second reservoir and the second tube. (claim 5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a stacked pumps with different diameter tubes as described by Oelbermann et al. in the system disclosed by Reineccius et al. in order to reduce the complexity of the pumping system and allow for a single drive to better control the chemical flow rate over a larger range.
Regarding claim 6, Reineccius et al. in view of Oelbermann et al. discloses the liquid delivery system of claim 4, further comprising: a Y connector (136) coupled to the first and second tubes (exiting first and second pumps); and a delivery tube coupled to the Y connector (see fig 2a) and configured to receive the combined flow of the first and second tubes (see fig 2a).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, Reineccius et al. in view of Oelbermann et al. discloses the liquid delivery system of claim 6, further comprising a flow meter (200 – see [0114]) configured to measure a flow rate of the combined flow of the first and second tubes (see [0114]).
Regarding claim 8, Reineccius et al. in view of Oelbermann et al. discloses the liquid delivery system of claim 1, further comprising a load cell (110) having a support surface (top of 110 holding 106); the first and second reservoirs (kegs 1 and 2) disposed on the support surface (as described above) for the load cell (110) to measure a loss in weight thereof.
Regarding claim 9, Reineccius et al. in view of Oelbermann et al. discloses the liquid delivery system of claim 1 wherein the first and second liquids (as described above) have different viscosities (due to the varied chemical compositions)
Regarding claim 10-11, Reineccius et al. in view of Oelbermann et al. discloses the liquid delivery system of claim 9 but does not specify the viscosity range of each chemical. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to employ the specified viscosity rangesw since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated employ the specified viscosity ranges in order to employ the system for varied chemical mixtures and expand the range of compatible chemicals.
Regarding claim 12, Reineccius et al. in view of Oelbermann et al. discloses the liquid delivery system of claim 1, wherein the first liquid comprises an inoculant (see [0115]). Reineccius et al. does not specify that the second liquid comprises an extender. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ an extender as the second liquid, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended us as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to employ an extender in order to optimize the mixed chemicals for a specific application.
Regarding claim 13, Reineccius et al. in view of Oelbermann et al. discloses the liquid delivery system of claim 1 but does not specify that the first and second reservoirs comprise first and second bladders. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to employ chemical bladders since the examiner takes Official Notice of the equivalence of bladders and drums for their use in the chemical storage and distribution art and the selection of any of these known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motived to employ chemical bladders in order to reduce packaging associated costs and bulky waste.
Regarding claim 14, Reineccius et al. in view of Oelbermann et al. discloses a treatment device (see fig 1-2) comprising the liquid delivery system of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Reineccius et al. in view of Oelbermann et al. discloses the treatment device of claim 14 comprising a seed treatment device (see abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Reineccius et al. in view of Oelbermann et al. discloses a method for delivering a plurality of liquids to a treatment device, the method comprising: providing a first reservoir (keg 1) containing a first liquid (chemical in keg 1) fluidly connected to a first positive displacement pump (pump connected to keg 1 in fig 2a) and a second reservoir (keg 2) containing a second liquid (chemical contained in keg 2) fluidly connected to a second positive displacement pump (pump connected to keg 2 in fig 2a); operating a motor (see [0099]) operably coupled to the first positive displacement pump (as described above) and the second positive displacement pump (as described above) to drive simultaneous operation thereof to pump the first liquid (as described above) at a first flow rate (determined by 102) and the second liquid (as described above) at a second flow rate (determined by 102); wherein at least one of: the first flow rate and the second flow rate are different (see [0114]), the first liquid and the second liquid have different viscosities (due to the chemical composition of each liquid), or the first liquid and the second liquid have different flow characteristics (see [0114]).
Regarding claim 17, Reineccius et al. in view of Oelbermann et al. discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising: stopping operation (see stop control in fig 16a) of the motor (as described above) for a predetermined amount of time (determined by operator) to thereby stop delivery of the first liquid (as described above) and the second liquid (as described above); and subsequently operating the motor (as described above).
Regarding claim 18, Reineccius et al. discloses the method of claim 17 but does not specify that the predetermined amount of time comprises at least 24 hours. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to stop the system for 24 hours since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated stop the system for the specified time in order to perform maintenance on the equipment.
Regarding claim 19, Reineccius et al. in view of Oelbermann et al. discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising treating seeds (as described above) with a mixture (within 200) of the first and second liquids (as described above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine the dual diameter tubing described by Oelbermann et al. to the system of Reineccius et al.. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide different diameter tubes as described by Oelbermann et al. in the system disclosed by Reineccius et al. in order to reduce the complexity of the pumping system and allow for a single drive to better control the chemical flow rate over a larger range. Therefore the combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and Applicants argument is not persuasive.
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 MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7956. The examiner can normally be reached 8-6 EST Monday - Friday.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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.
MICHAEL A. RIEGELMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights