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 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.
1) This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder (device, unit, mechanism, part) that is coupled with functional language (walking, driving, spreading, ….) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1:
“walking device”- corresponding to two driving wheels and walking driving part (disclosed in claim 7);
“walking driving part” corresponding to hub motor in a rim of driving wheel and turning wheel mounted on frame (disclosed in claim 8);
“spreading device” - corresponding to flip bracket, hopper, limiting mechanism, movable door, spreading plate, opening regulation mechanism, landing regulation mechanism, switching part (disclosed in claims 13-15)
“spreading driving part” - corresponding to a motor (disclosed in par. 200)
“spraying device” – corresponding to fixing arm, movable arm, holding mechanism and spraying heads, tank, water outlet connector (disclosed in claim 9, 12),
“spraying driving part” – corresponding to a water pump (disclosed in paragraph 156)
In claims 9, 11:
“holding mechanism is configured to switch the movable arm to a second position and hold the movable arm at the second position” – corresponding to an elastic stretching unit (disclosed in par. 148);
In claim 13:
“limiting mechanism is configured to limit a flipping angle of the flip bracket between a first angle and a second angle” - corresponding to a block and pulling rod
In claim 14:
“opening regulation mechanism” – corresponding to a pin post and limiting base (disclosed in par. 193);
In claim 15:
“landing regulation mechanism” - corresponding to a first guiding part and a second guiding part (disclosed in claim 15);
“switching part” – corresponding to a moveable frame (disclosed in par. 195);
“opening regulation mechanism” – corresponding to a pin post and limiting base (disclosed in par. 193);
In claim 17:
“a locking mechanism, … configured to be switchable between following two stations” corresponding to limiting pin, locking base, limiting groove, guiding unit, locking hole, elastic member (disclosed in claims 19-20)
In claim 18:
“a triggering mechanism… to drive the locking mechanism to switch between the locking station and the releasing station” - corresponding to a pedal (par. 175).
“transmission mechanism to drive the locking mechanism to switch between the locking station and the releasing station” - corresponding to a connection rod (par. 175).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
2) This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” or generic placeholder (device, unit, mechanism, part) but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“shielding mechanism” in claim 16; however claim 16 also recites “the shielding mechanism comprises a blocking plate arranged on at least one side of the spreading plate”, which appears to be sufficient structure.
“guiding unit…provided with a guiding surface…and a locking hole” in claim 20, which appears to be sufficient structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-20 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.
In claim 1, limitation “walking device”, “spreading device”, “spraying device” have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because multiple components are described to be associated with these limitations, it is unclear if each limitation mentioned here encompassed one, two, or all of the components listed in the Claim Interpretation section above. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Other claim(s) listed in the rejection title is/are indefinite due to its/their dependency upon the rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cook (US20160318549).
Regarding claim 1, Cook discloses a spreader sprayer (fig. 1), comprising:
a frame (102; par. 31),
a walking device (engine 104 and wheels 106, 108) mounted on the frame (see fig. 1; par. 32), the walking device comprising a walking driving part (engine 104 and/or drive wheels 106, 108; par. 32: “One or both drive wheels 106 may be powered…may propel the vehicle 100 over the ground surface 105”);
a spreading device (114; par. 39) mounted on the frame (see fig. 1), the spreading device comprising a spreading driving part (motor 130; par. 40; fig. 4);
a spraying device (liquid sprayer 118, nozzles 117, and reservoir 120; par. 39) mounted on the frame, the spraying device comprising a spraying driving part (pump 128; par. 41);
a controller assembly (control station 110, 111, 202, 204; par. 35-36) mounted on the frame; (see fig. 1), the controller assembly being electrically connected (par. 51: electronic control and control signal via a microprocessor-based controller 321) with the walking driving part (engine and wheels), the spreading driving part (motor) and the spraying driving part (pump) respectively, and the walking driving part, the spreading driving part and the spraying driving part are electric actuators respectively (engine, motor, and pump are electric actuators/devices); and
a power battery (132; figs. 1 and 5) arranged on the frame, the power battery being configured to provide electrical energy to the walking driving part, the spreading driving part and the spraying driving part (par. 40).
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.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US20160318549) in view of Kinkead (US20200113114).
Regarding claim 2, Cook discloses the spreader sprayer according to claim 1, the spraying device (117, 118, 120) further comprising:
a vehicle-mounted chemical tank (120) used to store working fluid (par. 39);
a vehicle-mounted spraying assembly (117) mounted on the frame, the vehicle-mounted spraying assembly comprising a plurality of spray nozzles (nozzles 117 at front end 103 of the frame; see fig. 1);
a hand-held spraying gun (122);
Cook is silent regarding a main pipeline, one end of the main pipeline being communicated with the vehicle-mounted chemical tank, and the spraying driving part being connected in series to the main pipeline; and a water divider valve assembly, the water divider valve assembly comprising a liquid inlet end and a plurality of liquid outlet ends, the liquid inlet end being communicated with the main pipeline, and each of the liquid outlet ends being respectively communicated with each spray nozzle of the vehicle-mounted spraying assembly and the hand-held spraying gun.
However, Kinkead discloses a comparable spraying system (see figs. 12-13) having chemical tank 312, a main pipeline 316, one end (bottom end) of the main pipeline being communicated with the vehicle-mounted chemical tank, and the spraying driving part (pump 332; par. 55) being connected in series to the main pipeline 316; and a water divider valve assembly (valve 318), the water divider valve assembly comprising a liquid inlet end (one end connected to pump 332; see fig. 13) and a plurality of liquid outlet ends (one end connected to reel 336 and wand 328; another end connected to hose 322 and sprayer 324), the liquid inlet end (via the pump 332) being communicated with the main pipeline 316, and each of the liquid outlet ends being respectively communicated with each spray nozzle of the vehicle-mounted spraying assembly and the hand-held spraying gun (see nozzles at 324 and 328 fig. 13).
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 Cook to incorporate the teachings of Kinkead to provide a main pipeline, one end of the main pipeline being communicated with the vehicle-mounted chemical tank, and the spraying driving part being connected in series to the main pipeline; and a water divider valve assembly, the water divider valve assembly comprising a liquid inlet end and a plurality of liquid outlet ends, the liquid inlet end being communicated with the main pipeline, and each of the liquid outlet ends being respectively communicated with each spray nozzle of the vehicle-mounted spraying assembly and the hand-held spraying gun. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating flow control to the desired sprayer(s) when it is necessary to spray areas within or outside reach of the vehicle mounted sprayer, as suggested in paragraph 56 of Kinkead.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US20160318549) in view of Kinkead (US20200113114), further in view of Rich (US20200114715).
Regarding claim 7, Cook discloses the spreader sprayer according to claim 2, wherein, the walking device comprises at least two driving wheels (rear wheels 106, 108 adjacent reservoir 120; see fig. 1; par. 25, and 31), the at least two driving wheels are arranged on two sides of the frame (see fig. 1),
Cook does not show the sprayer having two tanks mounted respectively above the two drive wheels (figs. 1 and 5 show one tank/reservoir 120 mounted above one wheel).
However, Rich discloses a comparable spreader sprayer system having two tanks 150 mounted above two drive wheels 132, 142 (see fig. 4). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technical capabilities to utilize two tanks for additional supply of the same fluid for longer spraying duration or different fluids for versatility. No inventive effort would have been required. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the chemical tank for more efficient/longer spraying duration or versatility, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US20160318549) in view of Kinkead (US20200113114) and Rich (US20200114715), further in view of LeMay (US 20230284608).
Regarding claim 8, Cook, as modified above, discloses the spreader sprayer according to claim 7, wherein, Cook discloses the walking driving part comprises 108 may turn about their respective steer axes, thereby allowing the vehicle to change heading (e.g., execute a turn)”) or a rear end of the frame.
Cook also discloses rear drive wheels 106 (par. 33-34), but is silent regarding a hub motor arranged in a rim of the driving wheel.
However, LeMay discloses an agricultural vehicle with wheels 14a-14d, provided with hub motor/drive motor 26 arranged in a rim of the driving wheel, allowing each wheel to be driving independently to propel the applicator 10 (par. 41; fig. 1 shows the wheels and motor assembled; fig. 2 shows motor 26 with the wheels removed).
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 Cook to incorporate the teachings of LeMay to provide a hub motor arranged in a rim of the driving wheel. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating independent control of the drive wheels for customization of propulsion and steering functions to improve versatility of the vehicle.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US20160318549) in view of Moore (US20220314862).
Regarding claim 13, Cook discloses the spreader sprayer according to claim 1, wherein, the spreading device is mounted on the frame (see fig. 1) but is silent regarding a flip bracket is hinged to the frame; a hopper is mounted on the flip bracket; and a limiting mechanism is arranged between the flip bracket and the frame, and the limiting mechanism is configured to limit a flipping angle of the flip bracket between a first angle and a second angle; wherein the hopper is configured such that a feeding port of the hopper faces upward when the flip bracket is located at the first angle, the feeding port of the hopper faces downward when the flip bracket is located at the second angle.
However, Moore discloses a comparable spreader sprayer having
a flip bracket 230 is hinged (via 232) to the frame 130;
a hopper 210 is mounted on the flip bracket 230; and
a limiting mechanism (pivot limiting structures) is arranged between the flip bracket and the frame (par. 44), and the limiting mechanism is configured to limit a flipping angle of the flip bracket between a first angle (angle shown in fig. 4, at operating position) and a second angle (angle shown in fig. 3, at maintenance position; par. 44: “a strap, lanyard, or rod can be positioned to physically obstruct pivoting of the hopper 210 beyond the maintenance position. The pivot limiting structure accommodates pivoting of the hopper assembly 200 from the operating position to the maintenance position”);
wherein the hopper is configured such that a feeding port (upper opening of the hopper) of the hopper faces upward when the flip bracket is located at the first angle (see fig. 4), the feeding port of the hopper faces downward when the flip bracket is located at the second angle (Par. 42 describes various angle of the maintenance position relative to the operating position, including ranges between 100-120; fig. 3 shows approximately 90degree angle, but when maintenance position is between 100-120 degrees from the operating position, feed port/upper opening will face toward the ground, i.e. downward).
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 Cook to incorporate the teachings of LeMay to provide a flip bracket is hinged to the frame; a hopper is mounted on the flip bracket; and a limiting mechanism is arranged between the flip bracket and the frame, and the limiting mechanism is configured to limit a flipping angle of the flip bracket between a first angle and a second angle; wherein the hopper is configured such that a feeding port of the hopper faces upward when the flip bracket is located at the first angle, the feeding port of the hopper faces downward when the flip bracket is located at the second angle. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating easy cleaning, repair and/or replacement of parts.
Claims 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US20160318549) in view of Papke (US 20170094890).
Regarding claim 14, Cook discloses the spreader sprayer according to claim 1, wherein, the spreading device comprises:
a hopper (116), an upper end of the hopper is provided with a feeding port (upper opening of hopper), and a lower end of the hopper is provided with a discharging port (above spreader plate 114; see fig. 4 of Cook); and a spreading plate (114) located below the discharging port, the spreading plate is rotatably arranged relative to the hopper and is connected with the spreading driving part (via motor 130).
Cook is silent regarding a movable door mounted at the discharging port, and the movable door is movably arranged relative to the hopper to enable the movable door to open or close the discharging port; an opening regulation mechanism mounted between the movable door and the hopper, and the opening regulation mechanism is configured to limit and regulate a moving path of the movable door to control an opening size of the discharging port.
Papke discloses a comparable system, having a movable door (gate 125) mounted at the discharging port (120 at lower end of hopper), and the movable door (125) is movably arranged relative to the hopper to enable the movable door to open or close the discharging port (120; par. 31); an opening regulation mechanism (201) mounted between the movable door and the hopper, and the opening regulation mechanism is configured to limit and regulate a moving path of the movable door to control an opening size of the discharging port (par. 31: “the gate 125 may be selectively positioned to completely close the opening 120 when desired as is shown in FIG. 7”).
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 Cook to incorporate the teachings of Papke to provide a movable door mounted at the discharging port, and the movable door is movably arranged relative to the hopper to enable the movable door to open or close the discharging port; an opening regulation mechanism mounted between the movable door and the hopper, and the opening regulation mechanism is configured to limit and regulate a moving path of the movable door to control an opening size of the discharging port. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating the desired flow for spreading.
Regarding claim 15, Cook discloses the spreader sprayer according to claim 14, Papke further discloses a landing regulation mechanism 118 (figs. 5A, 5B), wherein, the landing regulation mechanism comprises a first guiding part (right side of 118 as shown in figs. 5A-5B) and a second guiding part (left/another side of 118), the first guiding part is configured to guide materials discharged from the discharging port to a front half part of the spreading plate (when 118 is in position shown in fig. 5B), the second guiding part is configured to guide the materials discharged from the discharging port to a rear half part of the spreading plate (when 118 is in position shown in fig. 5A; par. 31), the first guiding part and the second guiding part are mounted on a switching part (222, 202; par. 32), and the switching part is configured to be switchable between following two positions:
position a (fig. 5A), the first guiding part being located on a discharging path of the discharging port when the switching part is in the position a; and
position b (fig. 5B), the second guiding part being located on the discharging path of the discharging port when the switching part is in the position b.
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 Cook to incorporate the teachings of Papke to provide the landing regulation mechanism as claimed. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating the desired flow for spreading.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 9-12, 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The most relevant prior arts include King (US 20210105933), Cook (US20160318549), Papke (US 20170094890), Moore (US20220314862), Kinkead (US20200113114), Rich (US20200114715), LeMay (US 20230284608), . The combination of the prior arts teaches various features of the claimed invention, as presented above, but fail to teach or suggest the limitations of the objected 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