DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 11, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s reply filed November 11, 2025, including amendments to each of independent claims 1, 8 and 10, is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 17 remain pending and are addressed below.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redden et al., International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2016/144795 A1, in view of De Baerdemaeker et al., International Patent Application Publication No. WO 00/49866 A1.
As to claim 1, Redden (see Figs. 1-3) shows and describes an agricultural system for applying fluid to a field (see paragraph [0015]) comprising: a fluid line (see paragraphs [0043]-[0044]) in fluid communication with a plurality of nozzles (see paragraph [0042]), wherein each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles comprises a nozzle and a valve combination as a single unit (implicit, based on the expressly disclosed “solenoid-controlled spray nozzles” discussed in paragraph [0042]); a plurality of control modules (“modules” described throughout Redden document) in signal communication with each other (see the last sentence in paragraph [0073]); each control module controlling a flow of fluid to at least two nozzles of the plurality of nozzles (see paragraph [0038]; and see again, paragraph [0042]), wherein each control module can be controlled separately from other control modules to provide individual flow control (see paragraphs [0043] and [0071]); and each control module further including an accelerometer (see paragraph [0040]) and a port (several port elements can be seen on the exemplary module shown in Fig. 3, which are disclosed for connection to various instruments) for controlling an instrument (see again, paragraphs [0038] and [0040]). However, Redden is silent as to the/each accelerometer measuring vertical acceleration of each respective control module, wherein each control module uses data collected by the respective accelerometer to determine a height of at least one of the at least two nozzles off the ground. It should be noted, one having ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that existing accelerometers are generally known to be one of either a single-axis accelerometer (i.e., measures vertical or horizontal acceleration) or a multi-axis accelerometer. Also, although Redden does not expressly state that the accelerometers necessarily measure vertical acceleration, at least paragraph [0040] describes the need to determine the height of each control module relative to the ground; and thus, each accelerometer respectively associated with each of the control modules obtains data corresponding to the respective control module. Further, it should be noted that it was known in the art before the instant application was filed to use vertical acceleration data from an accelerometer to, at least in part, determine height. Moreover, it is noted that paragraph [0042] of Redden expressly states that the nozzles of the system may be like those disclosed in US Patent Application No. 14/444,897, which published as US 2015/0027040 (previously made of record in the instant application file). Still further, it should be noted that many references to determining nozzle height relative to a substrate/ground surface, as well as relative to intended targets to be sprayed with the nozzles, are made in the aforementioned US publication, which are determined using data from various sensors, including accelerometer data (see, for example, paragraphs [0064], [0068] and [0083]).
Regardless, De Baerdemaeker shows an agricultural system for applying fluid to a field, which is expressly designed to apply the fluid in a more precise manner than previously known (see page 3, lines 6-7), facilitated at least in part by inclusion of a control system (50) which uses data collected by various sensor units to determine, among other parameters, a height of nozzles of the agricultural system relative to the ground (see page 5). More specifically, De Baerdemaeker teaches inclusion of accelerometers which measure vertical acceleration, the data from which is used (at least in part) to determine nozzle height relative to the ground (see lines 22-30 on page 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the accelerometers of the Redden system to measure vertical acceleration of each of the control modules, whereby each control module, at least in part, uses data collected by the respective accelerometer to determine a height of at least one of the at least two nozzles off the ground, as taught by De Baerdemaeker, in order to facilitate fluid application in a more precise manner.
As to claim 8, Redden (see Figs. 1-3) shows and describes an agricultural system for applying fluid to a field (see paragraph [0015]) comprising: a fluid line (see paragraphs [0043]-[0044]) in fluid communication with a plurality of nozzles (see paragraph [0042]); a plurality of control modules (“modules” described throughout Redden document) in signal communication with each other (see the last sentence in paragraph [0073]); each control module controlling a flow of fluid to at least two nozzles of the plurality of nozzles (see paragraph [0038]; and see again, paragraph [0042]), wherein each control module can be controlled separately from other control modules to provide individual flow control (see paragraphs [0043] and [0071]); and each control module further including an accelerometer (see paragraph [0040]) and a port (several port elements can be seen on the exemplary module shown in Fig. 3, which are disclosed for connection to various instruments) for controlling an instrument (see again, paragraphs [0038] and [0040]), wherein the system is disposed on an agricultural sprayer (see Fig. 1), wherein the sprayer comprises a transverse boom arm (“frame” described in at least paragraph [0045]) and the plurality of control modules are disposed across the boom arm. However, Redden is silent as to the/each accelerometer measuring vertical acceleration of each respective control module, wherein each control module uses data collected by the respective accelerometer to determine a height of at least one of the at least two nozzles off the ground. It should again be noted, one having ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that existing accelerometers are generally known to be one of either a single-axis accelerometer (i.e., measures vertical or horizontal acceleration) or a multi-axis accelerometer. Also, although Redden does not expressly state that the accelerometers necessarily measure vertical acceleration, at least paragraph [0040] describes the need to determine the height of each control module relative to the ground; and thus, each accelerometer respectively associated with each of the control modules obtains data corresponding to the respective control module. Further, it should again be noted that it was known in the art before the instant application was filed to use vertical acceleration data from an accelerometer to, at least in part, determine height. Moreover, it is again noted that paragraph [0042] of Redden expressly states that the nozzles of the system may be like those disclosed in US Patent Application No. 14/444,897, which published as US 2015/0027040 (previously made of record in the instant application file). Still further, it should again be noted that many references to determining nozzle height relative to a substrate/ground surface, as well as relative to intended targets to be sprayed with the nozzles, are made in the aforementioned US publication, which are determined using data from various sensors, including accelerometer data (see, for example, paragraphs [0064], [0068] and [0083]).
Regardless, De Baerdemaeker shows an agricultural system for applying fluid to a field, which is expressly designed to apply the fluid in a more precise manner than previously known (see page 3, lines 6-7), facilitated at least in part by inclusion of a control system (50) which uses data collected by various sensor units to determine, among other parameters, a height of nozzles of the agricultural system relative to the ground (see page 5). More specifically, De Baerdemaeker teaches inclusion of accelerometers which measure vertical acceleration, the data from which is used (at least in part) to determine nozzle height relative to the ground (see lines 22-30 on page 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the accelerometers of the Redden system to measure vertical acceleration of each of the control modules, whereby each control module, at least in part, uses data collected by the respective accelerometer to determine a height of at least one of the at least two nozzles off the ground, as taught by De Baerdemaeker, in order to facilitate fluid application in a more precise manner.
As to claim 10, Redden (see Figs. 1-3) shows and describes an agricultural system for applying fluid to a field (see paragraph [0015]) comprising: a fluid line (see paragraphs [0043]-[0044]) in fluid communication with a plurality of nozzles (see paragraph [0042]), wherein each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles comprises a nozzle and a valve combination as a single unit (implicit, based on the expressly disclosed “solenoid-controlled spray nozzles” discussed in paragraph [0042]); a plurality of control modules (“modules” described throughout Redden document) in signal communication with each other (see the last sentence in paragraph [0073]); each control module controlling a flow of fluid to at least two nozzles of the plurality of nozzles (see paragraph [0038]; and see again, paragraph [0042]), wherein each control module can be controlled separately from other control modules to provide individual flow control (see paragraphs [0043] and [0071]); and each control module further including an accelerometer (see paragraph [0040]) and a port (several port elements can be seen on the exemplary module shown in Fig. 3, which are disclosed for connection to various instruments) for controlling various instruments, including a camera (see again, paragraphs [0038] and [0040]). However, Redden is silent as to the/each accelerometer measuring vertical acceleration of each respective control module, wherein each control module uses data collected by the respective accelerometer to determine a height of at least one of the at least two nozzles off the ground. It should again be noted, one having ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that existing accelerometers are generally known to be one of either a single-axis accelerometer (i.e., measures vertical or horizontal acceleration) or a multi-axis accelerometer. Also, although Redden does not expressly state that the accelerometers necessarily measure vertical acceleration, at least paragraph [0040] describes the need to determine the height of each control module relative to the ground; and thus, each accelerometer respectively associated with each of the control modules obtains data corresponding to the respective control module. Further, it should again be noted that it was known in the art before the instant application was filed to use vertical acceleration data from an accelerometer to, at least in part, determine height. Moreover, it is again noted that paragraph [0042] of Redden expressly states that the nozzles of the system may be like those disclosed in US Patent Application No. 14/444,897, which published as US 2015/0027040 (previously made of record in the instant application file). Still further, it should again be noted that many references to determining nozzle height relative to a substrate/ground surface, as well as relative to intended targets to be sprayed with the nozzles, are made in the aforementioned US publication, which are determined using data from various sensors, including accelerometer data (see, for example, paragraphs [0064], [0068] and [0083]).
Regardless, De Baerdemaeker shows an agricultural system for applying fluid to a field, which is expressly designed to apply the fluid in a more precise manner than previously known (see page 3, lines 6-7), facilitated at least in part by inclusion of a control system (50) which uses data collected by various sensor units to determine, among other parameters, a height of nozzles of the agricultural system relative to the ground (see page 5). More specifically, De Baerdemaeker teaches inclusion of accelerometers which measure vertical acceleration, the data from which is used (at least in part) to determine nozzle height relative to the ground (see lines 22-30 on page 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the accelerometers of the Redden system to measure vertical acceleration of each of the control modules, whereby each control module, at least in part, uses data collected by the respective accelerometer to determine a height of at least one of the at least two nozzles off the ground, as taught by De Baerdemaeker, in order to facilitate fluid application in a more precise manner.
As to claim 12, modified Redden shows and/or describes the system of claim 10, and wherein the camera is disposed to view an agricultural field to detect a plant, a weed, or a plant and a weed (see Redden: Fig. 3; and see, at least, paragraphs [0013] and [0030]).
As to claim 13, modified Redden shows and/or describes the system of claim 12, wherein each of the plurality of nozzles can selectively spray (the “solenoid-controlled” disclosure clearly implies selective control of spraying) the plant or the weed (see Redden: @ at least, paragraph [0042]).
As to claim 17, modified Redden shows and/or describes the system of claim 1, and wherein each control module has an inlet port and an outlet port, wherein the signal communication is connected from the outlet port from one control module to the inlet port of a next control module (see Redden: @ the last sentence in paragraph [0073], which expressly states that the individual control modules can be communicatively coupled to each other via an “intermediate Ethernet connection or CAN bus”, which thus clearly implies inclusion of an inlet port and an outlet port on each control module to facilitate such connection; and, see also paragraph [0039], which essentially states that the control modules can be communicatively coupled to each other using data connectors).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redden et al., as modified by De Baerdemaeker et al. and applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lombrozo, US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0193688.
Modified Redden shows and/or describes all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 10. However, Redden does not expressly disclose the system as further comprising a gas dispenser or a fan disposed to flow a gas across the camera to keep a view of the camera unobstructed.
It should first be noted that it was well known in the art of systems which include one or more optical/image sensors, such as cameras, to include a provision for keeping the sensor(s)/camera(s) clean, particularly when the system is designed to be used in a location where adhered dirt or other debris/contamination may negatively affect the function(s) of such sensor(s)/camera(s). It should also be noted that the system of Redden is clearly designed to be used in a location (i.e., a farm field) where dirt and/or other debris/contamination may adhere to the cameras located on the respective control modules. Indeed, Lombrozo shows (see, for example, Fig. 7C) and describes at least one arrangement for cleaning dirt and/or other debris/contamination off of various types of optical/image sensors (100), including cameras (see paragraph [0043]). Lombrozo also discloses (see paragraphs [0001] and [0041]) that this/these cleaning arrangements are “particularly useful” on “any type of vehicle” having such sensor(s)/camera(s), including “farm equipment” (i.e., agricultural equipment). Further, one or more of the aforementioned cleaning arrangements of Lombrozo are shown and described so as to comprise a gas dispenser (701) and/or a fan (420) disposed to flow a gas (705) across the camera to keep a view of the camera unobstructed (see, at least paragraphs [0049], [0050] and [0061]), thereby blowing away any dirt, debris or other contamination that may have adhered to the camera. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Redden, to further comprise a gas dispenser or a fan disposed to flow a gas across the respective camera(s) to keep a view of the camera(s) unobstructed, as taught by Lombrozo, thereby including a provision to clear/blow away any dirt, debris or other adhered contamination from the camera(s) that may otherwise negatively affect the functions of the camera(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see the section under the heading “Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103” on page 4 of the “Remarks” portion of the response filed November 11, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to each of independent claims 1, 8 and 10, Applicant asserts that the newly-added limitation of, “each control module can be controlled separately from other control modules to provide individual flow control” is subject matter “not taught by either Redden or De Baerdemaeker”. This Office does not agree. As stated on that last three lines of paragraph [0043] of Redden, the “treatment material” (i.e., the “fluid”) can be supplied directly or indirectly to “individual modules”, which implicitly meets the aforementioned newly-added limitation, particularly in the context of the inclusion in each module of one or more “solenoid-controlled spray nozzles” (see paragraph [0042]), and also in the context of the specified “treatment to the individual plants” discussed in the last two sentences of paragraph [0071]). The rejection is therefore maintained.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publications to Kocer, Sullivan et al. and Pickett et al., are cited as of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752