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 § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Posselius et al. (US Pub No 2018/0154384 A1).
Re claim 1, Posselius et al. show a liquid distribution system (Figs. 1-5) for a crop sprayer, comprising:
a main tank (16) for containing a carrier liquid;
a chemicals tank (24) for containing chemicals to be mixed with the carrier liquid;
a set of outlet nozzles (26) carried by a boom (22);
a first conduit arrangement (30) for transferring the carrier liquid (16) from the main tank to the outlet nozzles (26);
a second conduit arrangement (32) for transferring chemicals from the chemicals tank (24) to the outlet nozzles (26);
a main pump (paragraph 0022) for delivering the carrier liquid from the main tank (16) to the set of outlet nozzles (26) via the first conduit arrangement (30); and
a chemicals pump (paragraph 0023) arrangement for delivering chemicals from the chemicals tank (24) to the set of outlet nozzles (26) via the second conduit arrangement (32),
wherein each outlet nozzle (Fig. 3) comprises:
a nozzle body (70/76) having an inlet (78a/78b) to which the first conduit arrangement (30) connects and an exit nozzle (72);
a shutoff valve (74) between the inlet (78a/78b) and the exit nozzle (72); and
a mixing unit (42/90) for locally mixing the carrier liquid and the chemicals delivered to the outlet nozzle (paragraphs 0035 & 0036), each mixing unit comprising a coaxial tube defining a first bore (94/100) between the inlet (78a/78b) and an input (into 74) to the shutoff valve (74) and a second bore (inside 70) between an exit (98) from the shutoff valve (74) and the exit nozzle (72).
Re claim 2, Posselius et al. show the mixing unit (42/90) is between the nozzle body (70/76) and the shutoff valve (74).
Re claim 4, Posselius et al. show the first bore (94/100) is the outer bore (94) and the second conduit arrangement (32) terminates (104a) in the first bore.
Re claim 6, Posselius et al. show a first flow meter (164) for measuring and the flow along the first conduit arrangement (30) from the main tank (16) and a second flow meter arrangement (160) for measuring the flow along the second conduit arrangement (32) from the chemicals tank (24).
Re claim 7, Posselius et al. show the second flow meter arrangement (160) comprises a plurality of nozzle flow meters for measuring the flow along the second conduit arrangement (32) to the individual outer nozzles (76).
Re claim 8, Posselius et al. show a flow regulator (152) or valve in series with each nozzle flow meter (160).
Re claim 9, Posselius et al. show a plurality of chemicals tanks (24), and a plurality of second conduit arrangements (32) each for transferring chemicals from a respective chemicals tank to the outlet nozzles (76).
Re claim 10, Posselius et al. show the mixing unit (42/90) comprises a baffle arrangement (92/96; paragraphs 0035 & 0036) to promote mixing of the chemicals with the carrier liquid.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Posselius et al. (US Pub No 2018/0154384 A1).
Re claim 5, Posselius et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the second conduit arrangement terminates in the second bore. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second conduit arrangement terminate in the second bore, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70. Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed limitation.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Posselius et al. (US Pub No 2018/0154384 A1) in view of Peterson (US Pub No 2012/0248227 A1).
Re claim 11, Posselius et al. show all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach the baffle arrangement comprises a series of semi-circular discs that are angularly offset relative to each other.
However, Peterson show a liquid distribution system for a crop sprayer (Fig. 1) including a mixing unit (212) with a baffle arrangement (420/425) comprising a series of semi-circular discs (Figs. 4B & 4C) that are angularly offset relative to each other (paragraph 0027).
The substitution of one known element (baffle arrangement in Posselius) for another (baffle arrangement as shown in Peterson) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the baffle arrangement shown in Peterson would have yielded predictable results, namely, a baffle arrangement in Posselius et al. to provide a path through the mixing chamber to mix the first and second fluids (Posselius – paragraph 0011) and to better mix the fluids (Peterson – paragraph 0027).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-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, 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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
