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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed October 28th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 8, 10-13, 17, 19, and 21-22 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 28th, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 22 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 11. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
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 that is coupled with functional language 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: a switching element in claim 3, ln. 2-3 and claim 12, ln. 2-3.
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. It will be interpreted that a switching element is a local circuit, as described in Paragraph 0018 of the specification.
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.
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 21-22 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “a sensor configured to capture data indicative of the presence of a nitrogen deficiency within the field” in ln. 2-3. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant is referring to the sensor previously recited in claim 1 or the applicant is introducing a new feature. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the sensor is the same sensor previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “a sensor configured to capture data indicative of the presence of a nitrogen deficiency within the field” in ln. 2-3. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant is referring to the sensor previously recited in claim 11 or the applicant is introducing a new feature. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the sensor is the same sensor previously recited in claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4, 8, 11-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al. (US 20210007344 A1), Funseth et al. (US 20150375247 A1), and Engelbrecht et al. (US 20180369851 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fisher discloses an agricultural sprayer (10, Fig. 1), comprising:
a frame (60, Fig. 1);
a tank (30, 40, 50, Fig. 1) supported on the frame (60, shown in Fig. 1), the tank (30, 40, 50, Fig. 1) configured to store an agricultural fluid (Paragraph 0012);
a boom assembly (65, Fig. 1) coupled to the frame (60, shown in Fig. 1), the boom assembly (65, Fig. 1) including a nozzle assembly (15, Figs. 1-2) configured to dispense the agricultural fluid onto an underlying field (25, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0013), the nozzle assembly (15, 70, 70a, 70b, Figs. 1-2) including a nozzle body (body of 70, 70a, and 70b, shown in Figs. 1-2), a valve (95, Fig. 2) moveably positioned within the nozzle body (body of 70, 70a, and 70b, shown in Fig. 2, Paragraph 0013);
a sensor (130, 130a, 130b, optic transmitters can be sensors, Figs. 1-2, Paragraph 0015) configured to capture data indicative of a presence of a weed or a presence of a nitrogen deficiency within the field (Paragraph 0015); and
a spray controller (135, Figs. 2-3) positioned outside of the nozzle body (body of 70, 70a, and 70b, shown in Figs. 1-2, Paragraph 0016) and communicatively coupled to the sensor (130, 130a, 130b, shown in Figs. 2-3, Paragraph 0016) via a first communicative link (140, shown in Fig. 3, Paragraphs 0016-0017, 0022);
wherein the spray controller (135, Figs. 2-3):
receives the data indicative of the presence of the weed or the presence of the nitrogen deficiency within the field (optic transmitters 130 capture images of the agricultural surface showing images of weeds, which is communicated to the control processor 135, Paragraphs 0015-0016);
identifies the presence of the weed based on the received data (images from optic transmitters 130 are communicated to the control processor 135 to detect and determine previously defined plant matter that can include unwanted plant matter such as weeds, Paragraphs 0015-0017);
when it is determined that the weed or nitrogen deficiency is not present (images from optic transmitters 130 are communicated to the control processor 135 to detect and determine previously defined plant matter that can include harvestable plant matter, Paragraphs 0015-0017), transmits control signals to the nozzle controller via the first communicative link using a first communications protocol (based on the particular plant matter captured by optic transmitters 130, the control processor 135 determines an appropriate mixed solution to be dispensed and sends signals to the spray nozzle 70a, Paragraph 0017); and
when it is determined that weed is present determine that the weed is present (images from optic transmitters 130 are communicated to the control processor 135 to detect and determine previously defined plant matter that can include unwanted plant matter such as weeds, Paragraphs 0015-0017).
However, Fisher does not disclose an actuator, a nozzle controller, a spray controller positioned outside of the nozzle body and communicatively coupled to the sensor, the nozzle controller via a first communicative link, wherein the nozzle controller is communicatively coupled to the actuator via a third communicative link as claimed, and the spray controller when it is determined that the weed or the nitrogen deficiency is not present, transmits control signals to the nozzle controller via the first communicative link using a first communications protocol such that, upon receipt of the control signals, the nozzle controller controls an operation of the actuator via the third communicative link as claimed. Funseth teaches an agricultural sprayer (500, Fig. 1) comprising an actuator (not explicitly shown, but actuators can be part of the valves 30 and 32, shown in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0076) configured to move a valve (30, 32, Fig. 3) within a nozzle body (300 in Fig. 1, 100, in Fig. 2, entire structure in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0075) between an opened position and a closed position (Paragraph 0076);
a nozzle controller (not explicitly shown, but each individual nozzle 100 has a local nozzle controller, Paragraph 0073) positioned within the nozzle body (300 in Fig. 1, 100, in Fig. 2, entire structure in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0073);
a spray controller (620, Fig. 2) positioned outside of the nozzle body (300 in Fig. 1, 100, in Fig. 2, entire structure in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0072) and the spray controller (620, Fig. 2) being communicatively coupled to the nozzle controller (not explicitly shown, but each individual nozzle 100 has a local nozzle controller that is connected to the master spray controller 620, Paragraphs 0072-0073) via a first communicative link (master spray controller 620 coordinates activities all of the nozzles 100 and 300 through the CAN bus by sending a master clock signal to each nozzle through programmed instructions, Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0072-0073),
wherein the nozzle controller (not explicitly shown, but each individual nozzle 100 has a local nozzle controller, Paragraph 0073) is communicatively coupled to the actuator (not explicitly shown, but actuators can be part of the valves 30 and 32, shown in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0076) via a third communicative link (each individual nozzle 100 has a local nozzle controller circuit that modulates pulse width duration of signals to control the opening and closing of valves of each nozzle 100, which actuators are a part of, Paragraphs 0072-0073); and
wherein the spray controller (620, Fig. 2):
transmits control signals to the nozzle controller via the first communicative link using a first communications protocol (master spray controller 620 coordinates activities all of the nozzles 100 and 300 through the CAN bus by sending a master clock signal to each nozzle through programmed instructions, Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0072-0073) such that, upon receipt of the control signals, the nozzle controller controls an operation of the actuator via the third communicative link (signal of master clock is relayed from one nozzle to another and each individual nozzle 100 has a local nozzle controller circuit that modulates pulse width duration of signals to control the opening and closing of valves of each nozzle 100, which actuators are a part of, Paragraphs 0072-0073).
Fisher and Funseth are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the actuator and the nozzle controller taught in Funseth’s agricultural sprayer to Fisher’s agricultural sprayer, to have an actuator configured to move the valve within the nozzle body between an opened position and a closed position, a nozzle controller positioned within the nozzle body, a spray controller positioned outside of the nozzle body and communicatively coupled to the sensor, the nozzle controller via a first communicative link, wherein the nozzle controller is communicatively coupled to the actuator via a third communicative link, and the spray controller when it is determined that the weed or the nitrogen deficiency is not present, transmits control signals to the nozzle controller via the first communicative link using a first communications protocol such that, upon receipt of the control signals, the nozzle controller controls an operation of the actuator via the third communicative link. Doing so provides individual control of the nozzles for various spray operations (Funseth, Paragraphs 0006, 0072-0073).
However, Fisher and Funseth do not teach the spray controller communicatively coupled to the actuator via a second communicative link, and the spray controller when it is determined that weed is present determine that the weed is present, directly controls the operation of the actuator via the second communicative link using a second communications protocol that is different from the first communications protocol and independently of the nozzle controller as claimed. Engelbrecht teaches an agricultural sprayer (200, Figs. 1-2) comprising a spray controller (450, Fig. 2) communicatively coupled to an actuator via a second communicative link (controller 450 may be in electronic, hydraulic, mechanical, or other communication with various actuators, and valve 246 has an actuator, Paragraph 0036, 0048),
the spray controller (450, Fig. 2):
directly controls the operation of the actuator via the second communicative link (controller 450 may be in electronic, hydraulic, mechanical, or other communication with various actuators, and valve 246 has an actuator, Paragraph 0036, 0048) using a second communications protocol (controller 450 may be connected to various actuators through a CAN bus, wireless or hydraulic communication means, or otherwise, Paragraphs 0036, 0038) that is different from the first communications protocol and independently of the nozzle controller (controller 450 may be connected to various actuators in various known ways such as through a CAN bus, wireless or hydraulic communication means, or otherwise, which can include having the second communications protocol being different than a first communications protocol, Paragraphs 0036, 0038).
Fisher, Funseth, and Engelbrecht are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the spray controller taught in Engelbrecht’s agricultural sprayer to Fisher’s agricultural sprayer, as modified by Funseth above, to have the spray controller communicatively coupled to the actuator via a second communicative link, and the spray controller when it is determined that weed is present determine that the weed is present, directly controls the operation of the actuator via the second communicative link using a second communications protocol that is different from the first communications protocol and independently of the nozzle controller. Doing so provides another way to operate the spray system and direct control of the actuator (Engelbrecht, Paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 2, Fisher, as modified by Funseth and Engelbrecht above, discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 1. Fisher further discloses the nozzle assembly (15, 70, 70a, 70b, Figs. 1-2) corresponds to a first nozzle assembly (70, Figs. 1-2), the boom assembly (65, Fig. 1) further including a second nozzle assembly (70a, Figs. 1-2) configured to dispense the agricultural fluid onto the underlying field (25, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0013), the second nozzle assembly including a nozzle body (body of 70a, shown in Figs. 1-2), a valve (95, Fig. 2) moveably positioned within the nozzle body (body of 70a, shown in Figs. 1-2, Paragraph 0013).
Funseth further teaches an actuator (not explicitly shown, but actuators can be part of the valves 30 and 32, shown in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0076) configured to move the valve (30, 32, Fig. 3) within the nozzle body (300 in Fig. 1, 100, in Fig. 2, entire structure in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0075) between an opened position and a closed position (Paragraph 0076).
Engelbrecht further teaches the spray controller (450, Fig. 2) is further communicatively coupled to the actuator (controller 450 may be in electronic, hydraulic, mechanical, or other communication with various actuators, and valve 246 has an actuator, Paragraph 0036, 0048) of the second nozzle assembly via the second communicative link such that the spray controller (450, Fig. 2) directly controls the operation of the actuator (controller 450 may be in electronic, hydraulic, mechanical, or other communication with various actuators, and valve 246 has an actuator, Paragraph 0036, 0048) of the second nozzle assembly via the second communicative link (controller 450 may be connected to various actuators through a CAN bus, wireless or hydraulic communication means, or otherwise, Paragraph 0036).
In regards to claim 3, Fisher, as modified by Funseth and Engelbrecht above, discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 1. Funseth further teaches the actuator (not explicitly shown, but actuators can be part of the valves 30 and 32, shown in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0076) comprises a solenoid (Paragraph 0076) configured to move the valve between the opened position and the closed position (Paragraph 0076) and a switching element configured to control a supply of power to the solenoid (Paragraph 0076).
Regarding claim 4, Fisher, as modified by Funseth and Engelbrecht above, discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 3. Funseth further teaches the spray controller (620, Fig. 2) directly controls an operation of the switching element via a second communicative link (Paragraph 0102).
Regarding claim 8, Fisher, as modified by Funseth and Engelbrecht above, discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 1. Fisher further discloses the sensor (130, 130a, 130b, optic transmitters can be sensors, Figs. 1-2, Paragraph 0015) comprises an imaging device (Paragraph 0015).
With respect to claim 11, Fisher discloses a system (10, Fig. 1) for controlling nozzle operation of an agricultural sprayer (20, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0011), the system (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a nozzle assembly (15, Figs. 1-2) configured to dispense the agricultural fluid onto an underlying field (25, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0013), the nozzle assembly (15, 70, 70a, 70b, Figs. 1-2) including a nozzle body (body of 70, 70a, and 70b, shown in Figs. 1-2), a valve (95, Fig. 2) moveably positioned within the nozzle body (body of 70, 70a, and 70b, shown in Fig. 2, Paragraph 0013);
a sensor (130, 130a, 130b, optic transmitters can be sensors, Figs. 1-2, Paragraph 0015) configured to capture data indicative of a presence of a weed or a presence of a nitrogen deficiency within the field (Paragraph 0015); and
a spray controller (135, Figs. 2-3) positioned outside of the nozzle body (body of 70, 70a, and 70b, shown in Figs. 1-2, Paragraph 0016) and communicatively coupled to the sensor (130, 130a, 130b, shown in Figs. 2-3, Paragraph 0016) via a first communicative link (140, shown in Fig. 3, Paragraphs 0016-0017, 0022);
wherein the spray controller (135, Figs. 2-3):
receives the data indicative of the presence of the weed or the presence of the nitrogen deficiency within the field (optic transmitters 130 capture images of the agricultural surface showing images of weeds, which is communicated to the control processor 135, Paragraphs 0015-0016);
identifies the presence of the weed based on the received data (images from optic transmitters 130 are communicated to the control processor 135 to detect and determine previously defined plant matter that can include unwanted plant matter such as weeds, Paragraphs 0015-0017);
when it is determined that the weed or nitrogen deficiency is not present (images from optic transmitters 130 are communicated to the control processor 135 to detect and determine previously defined plant matter that can include harvestable plant matter, Paragraphs 0015-0017), transmits control signals to the nozzle controller via the first communicative link using a first communications protocol (based on the particular plant matter captured by optic transmitters 130, the control processor 135 determines an appropriate mixed solution to be dispensed and sends signals to the spray nozzle 70a, Paragraph 0017); and
when it is determined that weed is present determine that the weed is present (images from optic transmitters 130 are communicated to the control processor 135 to detect and determine previously defined plant matter that can include unwanted plant matter such as weeds, Paragraphs 0015-0017).
However, Fisher does not disclose an actuator, a nozzle controller, a spray controller positioned outside of the nozzle body and communicatively coupled to the sensor, the nozzle controller via a first communicative link, wherein the nozzle controller is communicatively coupled to the actuator via a third communicative link as claimed, and the spray controller when it is determined that the weed or the nitrogen deficiency is not present, transmits control signals to the nozzle controller via the first communicative link using a first communications protocol such that, upon receipt of the control signals, the nozzle controller controls an operation of the actuator via the third communicative link as claimed. Funseth teaches a system (500, Fig. 1) comprising an actuator (not explicitly shown, but actuators can be part of the valves 30 and 32, shown in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0076) configured to move a valve (30, 32, Fig. 3) within a nozzle body (300 in Fig. 1, 100, in Fig. 2, entire structure in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0075) between an opened position and a closed position (Paragraph 0076);
a nozzle controller (not explicitly shown, but each individual nozzle 100 has a local nozzle controller, Paragraph 0073) positioned within the nozzle body (300 in Fig. 1, 100, in Fig. 2, entire structure in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0073);
a spray controller (620, Fig. 2) positioned outside of the nozzle body (300 in Fig. 1, 100, in Fig. 2, entire structure in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0072) and the spray controller (620, Fig. 2) being communicatively coupled to the nozzle controller (not explicitly shown, but each individual nozzle 100 has a local nozzle controller that is connected to the master spray controller 620, Paragraphs 0072-0073) via a first communicative link (master spray controller 620 coordinates activities all of the nozzles 100 and 300 through the CAN bus by sending a master clock signal to each nozzle through programmed instructions, Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0072-0073),
wherein the nozzle controller (not explicitly shown, but each individual nozzle 100 has a local nozzle controller, Paragraph 0073) is communicatively coupled to the actuator (not explicitly shown, but actuators can be part of the valves 30 and 32, shown in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0076) via a third communicative link (each individual nozzle 100 has a local nozzle controller circuit that modulates pulse width duration of signals to control the opening and closing of valves of each nozzle 100, which actuators are a part of, Paragraphs 0072-0073); and
wherein the spray controller (620, Fig. 2):
transmits control signals to the nozzle controller via the first communicative link using a first communications protocol (master spray controller 620 coordinates activities all of the nozzles 100 and 300 through the CAN bus by sending a master clock signal to each nozzle through programmed instructions, Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0072-0073) such that, upon receipt of the control signals, the nozzle controller controls an operation of the actuator via the third communicative link (signal of master clock is relayed from one nozzle to another and each individual nozzle 100 has a local nozzle controller circuit that modulates pulse width duration of signals to control the opening and closing of valves of each nozzle 100, which actuators are a part of, Paragraphs 0072-0073).
Fisher and Funseth are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the actuator and the nozzle controller taught in Funseth’s system to Fisher’s system, to have an actuator configured to move the valve within the nozzle body between an opened position and a closed position, a nozzle controller positioned within the nozzle body, a spray controller positioned outside of the nozzle body and communicatively coupled to the sensor, the nozzle controller via a first communicative link, wherein the nozzle controller is communicatively coupled to the actuator via a third communicative link, and the spray controller when it is determined that the weed or the nitrogen deficiency is not present, transmits control signals to the nozzle controller via the first communicative link using a first communications protocol such that, upon receipt of the control signals, the nozzle controller controls an operation of the actuator via the third communicative link. Doing so provides individual control of the nozzles for various spray operations (Funseth, Paragraphs 0006, 0072-0073).
However, Fisher and Funseth do not teach the spray controller communicatively coupled to the actuator via a second communicative link, and the spray controller when it is determined that weed is present determine that the weed is present, directly controls the operation of the actuator via the second communicative link using a second communications protocol that is different from the first communications protocol and independently of the nozzle controller as claimed. Engelbrecht teaches a system (200, Figs. 1-2) comprising a spray controller (450, Fig. 2) communicatively coupled to an actuator via a second communicative link (controller 450 may be in electronic, hydraulic, mechanical, or other communication with various actuators, and valve 246 has an actuator, Paragraph 0036, 0048),
the spray controller (450, Fig. 2):
directly controls the operation of the actuator via the second communicative link (controller 450 may be in electronic, hydraulic, mechanical, or other communication with various actuators, and valve 246 has an actuator, Paragraph 0036, 0048) using a second communications protocol (controller 450 may be connected to various actuators through a CAN bus, wireless or hydraulic communication means, or otherwise, Paragraphs 0036, 0038) that is different from the first communications protocol and independently of the nozzle controller (controller 450 may be connected to various actuators in various known ways such as through a CAN bus, wireless or hydraulic communication means, or otherwise, which can include having the second communications protocol being different than a first communications protocol, Paragraphs 0036, 0038).
Fisher, Funseth, and Engelbrecht are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the spray controller taught in Engelbrecht’s system to Fisher’s system, as modified by Funseth above, to have the spray controller communicatively coupled to the actuator via a second communicative link, and the spray controller when it is determined that weed is present determine that the weed is present, directly controls the operation of the actuator via the second communicative link using a second communications protocol that is different from the first communications protocol and independently of the nozzle controller. Doing so provides another way to operate the spray system and direct control of the actuator (Engelbrecht, Paragraph 0036).
In regards to claim 12, Fisher, as modified by Funseth and Engelbrecht above, discloses the system of claim 11. Funseth further teaches the actuator (not explicitly shown, but actuators can be part of the valves 30 and 32, shown in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0076) comprises a solenoid (Paragraph 0076) configured to move the valve between the opened position and the closed position (Paragraph 0076) and a switching element configured to control a supply of power to the solenoid (Paragraph 0076).
In regards to claim 13, Fisher, as modified by Funseth and Engelbrecht above, discloses the system of claim 12. Funseth further teaches the spray controller (620, Fig. 2) directly controls an operation of the switching element via a second communicative link (Paragraph 0102).
In regards to claim 17, Fisher, as modified by Funseth and Engelbrecht above, discloses the system of claim 11. Fisher further discloses the sensor (130, 130a, 130b, optic transmitters can be sensors, Figs. 1-2, Paragraph 0015) comprises an imaging device (Paragraph 0015).
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al. (US 20210007344 A1), Funseth et al. (US 20150375247 A1), and Engelbrecht et al. (US 20180369851 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Karki et al. (US 20220287227 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Fisher, as modified by Funseth and Engelbrecht above, discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 1. Fused further teaches the first communications protocol is CAN bus (Paragraphs 0072-0073).
However, Fisher, Funseth, and Engelbrecht do not teach the second communications protocol comprises Modbus. Karki teaches a communications protocol comprises Modbus (Paragraph 0041).
Fisher, Funseth, Engelbrecht, and Karki are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the communications protocol taught in Karki’s system to Fisher’s system, as modified by Funseth and Engelbrecht above, to have the second communications protocol comprises Modbus. Doing so enables communication to be transmitted wirelessly (Karki, Paragraph 0041).
In regards to claim 19, Fisher, as modified by Funseth and Engelbrecht above, discloses the system of claim 11. Funseth further teaches the first communications protocol is CAN bus (Paragraphs 0072-0073).
However, Fisher, Funseth, and Engelbrecht do not teach the second communications protocol comprises Modbus. Karki teaches a communications protocol comprises Modbus (Paragraph 0041).
Fisher, Funseth, Engelbrecht, and Karki are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the communications protocol taught in Karki’s system to Fisher’s system, as modified by Funseth and Engelbrecht above, to have the second communications protocol comprises Modbus. Doing so enables communication to be transmitted wirelessly (Karki, Paragraph 0041).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al. (US 20210007344 A1), Funseth et al. (US 20150375247 A1), and Engelbrecht et al. (US 20180369851 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 20190150357 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Fisher, as modified by Funseth and Engelbrecht, discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 1. However, Fisher, Funseth, and Engelbrecht do not explicitly teach a sensor configured to capture data indicative of the presence of a nitrogen deficiency within the field. Wu teaches a sensor (50, Fig. 1) configured to capture data indicative of the presence of a nitrogen deficiency within the field (Paragraph 0108).
Fisher, Funseth, Engelbrecht, and Wu are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the sensor taught in Wu’s system to Fisher’s system, as modified by Funseth and Engelbrecht above, to have a sensor configured to capture data indicative of the presence of a nitrogen deficiency within the field, and the spray controller receives the data indicative of the presence of the nitrogen deficiency within the field, identifies the presence of the nitrogen deficiency based on the received data, when it is determined that the nitrogen deficiency is not present, transmits control signals to the nozzle controller via the first communicative link using the first communications protocol such that, upon receipt of the control signals, the nozzle controller controls the operation of the actuator via the third communicative link, and when it is determined that the nitrogen deficiency is present, directly controls the operation of the actuator via the second communicative link using the second communications protocol that is different from the first communications protocol and independently of the nozzle controller. Doing so provides a bank of methods to manage crops and detect crop and field problems, to determine best practices to improve crop yield, preserve land, save water, and reduce the use of harmful chemicals (Wu, Paragraph 0004).
In regards to claim 22, Fisher, as modified by Funseth and Engelbrecht, discloses the system of claim 11. However, Fisher, Funseth, and Engelbrecht do not explicitly teach a sensor configured to capture data indicative of the presence of a nitrogen deficiency within the field. Wu teaches a sensor (50, Fig. 1) configured to capture data indicative of the presence of a nitrogen deficiency within the field (Paragraph 0108).
Fisher, Funseth, Engelbrecht, and Wu are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the sensor taught in Wu’s system to Fisher’s system, as modified by Funseth and Engelbrecht above, to have a sensor configured to capture data indicative of the presence of a nitrogen deficiency within the field, and the spray controller receives the data indicative of the presence of the nitrogen deficiency within the field, identifies the presence of the nitrogen deficiency based on the received data, when it is determined that the nitrogen deficiency is not present, transmits control signals to the nozzle controller via the first communicative link using the first communications protocol such that, upon receipt of the control signals, the nozzle controller controls the operation of the actuator via the third communicative link, and when it is determined that the nitrogen deficiency is present, directly controls the operation of the actuator via the second communicative link using the second communications protocol that is different from the first communications protocol and independently of the nozzle controller. Doing so provides a bank of methods to manage crops and detect crop and field problems, to determine best practices to improve crop yield, preserve land, save water, and reduce the use of harmful chemicals (Wu, Paragraph 0004).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 28th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Fisher, Funseth, and Engelbrecht do not teach the limitations of claims 1 and 11, see Remarks, pg. 9-10, Fisher, as modified by Funseth and Engelbrecht, does disclose these features. 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, Funseth teaches an actuator (not explicitly shown, but actuators can be part of the valves 30 and 32, shown in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0076) configured to move a valve (30, 32, Fig. 3) within a nozzle body (300 in Fig. 1, 100, in Fig. 2, entire structure in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0075) between an opened position and a closed position (Paragraph 0076);
a nozzle controller (not explicitly shown, but each individual nozzle 100 has a local nozzle controller, Paragraph 0073) positioned within the nozzle body (300 in Fig. 1, 100, in Fig. 2, entire structure in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0073);
a spray controller (620, Fig. 2) positioned outside of the nozzle body (300 in Fig. 1, 100, in Fig. 2, entire structure in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0072) and the spray controller (620, Fig. 2) being communicatively coupled to the nozzle controller (not explicitly shown, but each individual nozzle 100 has a local nozzle controller that is connected to the master spray controller 620, Paragraphs 0072-0073) via a first communicative link (master spray controller 620 coordinates activities all of the nozzles 100 and 300 through the CAN bus by sending a master clock signal to each nozzle through programmed instructions, Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0072-0073),
wherein the nozzle controller (not explicitly shown, but each individual nozzle 100 has a local nozzle controller, Paragraph 0073) is communicatively coupled to the actuator (not explicitly shown, but actuators can be part of the valves 30 and 32, shown in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0076) via a third communicative link (each individual nozzle 100 has a local nozzle controller circuit that modulates pulse width duration of signals to control the opening and closing of valves of each nozzle 100, which actuators are a part of, Paragraphs 0072-0073); and
wherein the spray controller (620, Fig. 2):
transmits control signals to the nozzle controller via the first communicative link using a first communications protocol (master spray controller 620 coordinates activities all of the nozzles 100 and 300 through the CAN bus by sending a master clock signal to each nozzle through programmed instructions, Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0072-0073) such that, upon receipt of the control signals, the nozzle controller controls an operation of the actuator via the third communicative link (signal of master clock is relayed from one nozzle to another and each individual nozzle 100 has a local nozzle controller circuit that modulates pulse width duration of signals to control the opening and closing of valves of each nozzle 100, which actuators are a part of, Paragraphs 0072-0073).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these features to Fisher’s agricultural sprayer to yield the result of having an actuator configured to move the valve within the nozzle body between an opened position and a closed position, a nozzle controller positioned within the nozzle body, a spray controller positioned outside of the nozzle body and communicatively coupled to the sensor, the nozzle controller via a first communicative link, wherein the nozzle controller is communicatively coupled to the actuator via a third communicative link, and the spray controller when it is determined that the weed or the nitrogen deficiency is not present, transmits control signals to the nozzle controller via the first communicative link using a first communications protocol such that, upon receipt of the control signals, the nozzle controller controls an operation of the actuator via the third communicative link, because doing so provides individual control of the nozzles for various spray operations (Funseth, Paragraphs 0006, 0072-0073).
Additionally, Engelbrecht teaches the spray controller (450, Fig. 2) communicatively coupled to an actuator via a second communicative link (controller 450 may be in electronic, hydraulic, mechanical, or other communication with various actuators, and valve 246 has an actuator, Paragraph 0036, 0048),
the spray controller (450, Fig. 2):
directly controls the operation of the actuator via the second communicative link (controller 450 may be in electronic, hydraulic, mechanical, or other communication with various actuators, and valve 246 has an actuator, Paragraph 0036, 0048) using a second communications protocol (controller 450 may be connected to various actuators through a CAN bus, wireless or hydraulic communication means, or otherwise, Paragraphs 0036, 0038) that is different from the first communications protocol and independently of the nozzle controller (controller 450 may be connected to various actuators in various known ways such as through a CAN bus, wireless or hydraulic communication means, or otherwise, which can include having the second communications protocol being different than a first communications protocol, Paragraphs 0036, 0038).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these features to Fisher’s agricultural sprayer, as modified by Funseth, to yield the result of having the spray controller communicatively coupled to the actuator via a second communicative link, and the spray controller when it is determined that weed is present determine that the weed is present, directly controls the operation of the actuator via the second communicative link using a second communications protocol that is different from the first communications protocol and independently of the nozzle controller, because doing so provides another way to operate the spray system and direct control of the actuator (Engelbrecht, Paragraph 0036).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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 O 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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752