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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 6th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed February 6th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9, 16-17, and 19-26 remain pending in the application.
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 computing system in claims 1 and 16, and a flow rate system in claim 7.
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 computing system is a processor and associated memory configured to perform a variety of computer-implemented functions, a controller, a microcontroller, a microcomputer, a programmable logic controller (PLC), an application specific integrated circuit, and other programmable circuits in light of the specification. It will be interpreted that a flow rate system is one or more pressure sensors in light 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 § 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (US 20160175869 A1) in view of Kremmer et al. (US 20180281798 A1) and Roth et al. (US 20220338429 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sullivan discloses a system (20, Fig. 1) for an agricultural vehicle (shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0014), the system (20, Fig. 1) comprising:
a boom arm (32, 50, Fig. 1);
a nozzle assembly (60, Fig. 2) positioned along the boom arm (32, 50, shown in Figs. 1-2);
a position sensor (36, Figs. 1, 3) associated with the boom arm (32, 50, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0021-0022);
a field sensor (76a, 76b, Fig. 3) associated with the nozzle assembly (60, Fig, 2, Paragraph 0034); and
a computing system (34, Figs. 1, 3) operably coupled with the nozzle assembly (60, Fig. 2), the position sensor (36, Figs. 1, 3), and the field sensor (76a, 76b, shown in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0019), the computing system (34, Figs. 1, 3) configured to:
detect a target within a field based on data from the field sensor (76a, 76b, Fig. 3, Paragraph 0020); and
activate the nozzle assembly to apply an agricultural product to the target at a first flow rate at a first time (particular target outflow rates from nozzles 60 are determined for a particular operation or operating condition, which can include determining a first flow rate for a first time, Paragraphs 0050-0051, 0059, 0062) and at a second flow rate at a second time (particular target outflow rates from nozzles 60 are determined for a particular operation or operating condition, which can include determining a second flow rate for a second time, Paragraphs 0050-0051, 0059, 0062), the first flow rate is varied from the second flow rate (flow rates may be non-uniform based on flow settings for a particular operation or operating condition, which can include that the second flow rate is non-uniform to the first flow rate, Paragraphs 0050-0051, 0059, 0062).
However, Sullivan does not disclose the computing system is configured to determine a boom deflection model based on data from the position sensor, wherein the boom deflection model defines a projected number of instances that the target will pass through an application region due to oscillation of the boom arm in a fore-aft direction; and
activate the nozzle assembly to apply an agricultural product to the target at a first flow rate at a first time with the boom arm accelerating at a first acceleration based on a speed of the vehicle operably coupled with the boom arm and the boom deflection model from a position aft of a default axis towards the default axis and at a second flow rate at a second time with the boom arm accelerating at a second acceleration based on a speed of a vehicle operably coupled with the boom arm and the boom deflection model from a position fore of the default axis towards the default axis based on the boom deflection model.
Kremmer teaches a system (12, Fig. 1) for an agricultural vehicle (10, Fig. 1), the system (12, Fig. 1) comprising:
a computing system (32, 34, 36, 62, Figs. 1-2) operably coupled with the nozzle assembly (42, Fig. 1), the position sensor (40, Fig. 1), and the field sensor (70, 72, Figs. 1-2), the computing system (32, 34, 36, 62, Figs. 1-2) configured to:
determine a boom deflection model based on data from the position sensor (interpreting boom deflection model as a system of postulates, data, and inferences presented as a mathematical description of a deflection of a boom, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, sensors 70, 72, can be used to determine current deflection of the sprayer boom in any manner and data from the sensors 70, 72 can be used to determine how the controller controls the tractor 10 and spraying machine 12, shown in Figs. 2, 4, Paragraphs 0033-0034), the boom deflection model defines a projected number of instances that the target will pass through an application region due to oscillation of the boom arm in a fore-aft direction (controller detects an oscillation of a sprayer boom in a forward direction, or movement of at least one part of the sprayer boom about a vertical axis, through a sensor, and user determines a planned path across the field 58 through the controller 36, which creates an application region, shown in Figs. 2, 4, Paragraphs 0012, 0027, 0030, 0033-0034); and
activate the nozzle assembly to apply an agricultural product to the target at a first flow rate at a first time with the boom arm accelerating at a first acceleration based on a speed of a vehicle operably coupled with the boom arm and the boom deflection model from a position aft of a default axis towards the default axis and at a second flow rate at a second time with the boom arm accelerating at a second acceleration based on a speed of the vehicle operably coupled with the boom arm and the boom deflection model from a position fore of the default axis towards the default axis based on the boom deflection model, and the first flow rate is varied from the second flow rate (interpreting fore as forward, and aft as rearward, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, controller can be connected to a sensor to detect an oscillation of a sprayer boom 44 in a forward direction, or movement of at least one part of the sprayer boom 44 about a vertical axis which can include a rearward direction, that is caused by an acceleration or deceleration of the tractor 10, and triggers an actuator based on that detected oscillation, which is connected to nozzles 42 and controls the flow rate coming out of nozzles 42, and response of the sprayer boom 44 to the change of speed of the tractor 10 can be determined by theoretical calculations or experiments on the spraying machine 12 and can be programmed into the controller 36 to derive control parameters for the controller 36, shown in Figs. 2, 4, Paragraphs 0012, 0014, 0028, 0032-0033, 0036).
Sullivan and Kremmer are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems for agricultural vehicles. 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 computing system taught in Kremmer’s system to Sullivan’s system, to have the computing system is configured to determine a boom deflection model based on data from the position sensor, wherein the boom deflection model defines a projected number of instances that the target will pass through an application region due to oscillation of the boom arm in a fore-aft direction, and activate the nozzle assembly to apply an agricultural product to the target at a first flow rate at a first time with the boom arm accelerating at a first acceleration based on a speed of a vehicle operably coupled with the boom arm and the boom deflection model from a position aft of a default axis towards the default axis and at a second flow rate at a second time with the boom arm accelerating at a second acceleration based on a speed of the vehicle operably coupled with the boom arm and the boom deflection model from a position fore of the default axis towards the default axis based on the boom deflection model. Doing so helps to reduce undesired consequences caused by oscillating movements of the boom (Kremmer, Paragraph 0010).
However, Sullivan and Kremmer do not teach the first time and second time both occur during a common pass along the field. Roth teaches a system (210, Fig. 1) comprising a computing system (405, Fig. 4) configured to have the first time and second time both occur during a common pass along the field (the machine includes spans that correspond when they cover the same area of a field, but not at the same time, Paragraph 0049).
Sullivan, Kremmer, and Roth 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 computing system taught in Roth’s system to
Sullivan’s system, as modified by Kremmer, to have the first time and second time both occur during a common pass along the field. Doing so optimizes liquid deployments to maximize crop yields and provides in all-in one solution to optimize irrigation control (Roth, Paragraphs 0009, 0017).
With respect to claim 2, Sullivan, as modified by Kremmer and Roth, discloses the system of claim 1 above. Kremmer further teaches the boom deflection model predicts a boom curvature (there are reference points 44’ and 44’’ that show the deflection with respect to the starting boom position and oscillation behavior of the boom can be calculated or predetermined with respect to the speed, shown in Figs. 2, 4, Paragraphs 0030, 0033-0034) and a speed of movement of the nozzle assembly relative to a chassis of the vehicle (speed changes affecting the sprayer boom 44 and nozzles 42 relative to the chassis can be predetermined through calculations or experiments and programmed into the memory of the controller 36, shown in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0033).
With respect to claim 3, Sullivan, as modified by Kremmer and Roth, discloses the system of claim 1 above. Sullivan further discloses the nozzle assembly (60, Fig. 2) is activated at the first flow rate when the nozzle assembly (60, Fig. 2) is deflected from the default axis by a first magnitude (there is a given flow rate based on a tilt of the boom or boom sections and nozzles, Paragraphs 0007, 0016, 0060).
Regarding claim 4, Sullivan, as modified by Kremmer and Roth, discloses the system of claim 3 above. Sullivan further discloses the computing system (34, Figs. 1, 3) is further configured to:
activate the nozzle assembly (60, Fig. 2) to apply the agricultural product to the target at a second flow rate determining that the boom arm is deflected from the default axis by a second magnitude (there is a given flow rate based on a tilt of the boom or boom sections and nozzles, Paragraphs 0007, 0016, 0060), which as modified in view of Redden above regarding claim 1 would result in activating the nozzle assembly to apply the agricultural product to the target at a second flow rate based on the boom deflection model.
In regards to claim 7, Sullivan, as modified by Kremmer and Roth, discloses the system of claim 4 above. Sullivan further discloses a flow rate system (78, Fig. 3) operably coupled with the nozzle assembly (60, Fig. 2) and configured to capture data indicative of the first flow rate and the second flow rate through the nozzle assembly (60, Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0034, 0038).
With respect to claim 8, Sullivan, as modified by Kremmer and Roth, discloses the system of claim 1 above. Sullivan further discloses the application region defines an area of the field that is contacted by the agricultural product when a valve (72a, 72b, Fig. 3) of the nozzle assembly (60, Fig. 2) is activated (shown in Fig. 5, Paragraphs 0020, 0032, 0050).
Claims 5-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (US 20160175869 A1) in view of Kremmer et al. (US 20180281798 A1) and Roth et al. (US 20220338429 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Serrat et al. (US 20200045953 A1).
In regards to claim 5, Sullivan, as modified by Kremmer and Roth, discloses the system of claim 1 above. However, Sullivan, Kremmer, and Roth do not teach the computing system is further configured to determine an application period. Serrat teaches a system (40, Fig. 2) for an agricultural vehicle (10, Fig. 1) comprising a computing system (44, Fig. 2) is configured to:
determine an application period in which the target will be within the application region (Paragraphs 0014, 0023).
Sullivan, Kremmer, Roth, and Serrat are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems for agricultural vehicles. 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 computing system taught in Serrat’s system to Sullivan’s system, as modified by Kremmer and Roth above, to have the computing system is configured to have the computing system is further configured to determine an application period in which the target will be within the application region. Doing so allows the user to determine spraying times in a precise and reliable manner, while limiting the product applied to prevent overuse (Serrat, Paragraphs 0004, 0008).
In regards to claim 6, Sullivan, as modified by Kremmer, Roth, and Serrat, discloses the system of claim 5 above. Sullivan further discloses the computing system (34, Figs. 1, 3) is further configured to:
alter the first flow rate to a rate greater than the nominal flow rate (flow settings can update based on at least one updated flow control parameter and predetermined flow settings, Paragraphs 0007, 0016, 0060) and a default period (“default control parameters”, Paragraphs 0017, 0048, 0055-0056), which as modified in view of Kremmer and Serrat above regarding claim 5 would result in altering the first flow rate to a rate greater than a nominal flow rate if the application period is less than a default period.
With respect to claim 9, Sullivan, as modified by Kremmer, and Roth, discloses the system of claim 1 above. Kremmer teaches the boom deflection model (shown in Figs. 2, 4, Paragraphs 0033-0034). However, Sullivan, Kremmer, and Roth do not teach the computing system is further configured to determine an upcoming nozzle activation time based on the boom deflection model. Serrat teaches a system (40, Fig. 2) for an agricultural vehicle (10, Fig. 1) comprising a computing system (44, Fig. 2) is configured to:
determine an upcoming nozzle activation time (Paragraphs 0014, 0023).
Sullivan, Kremmer, Roth, and Serrat are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems for agricultural vehicles. 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 computing system taught in Serrat’s system to Sullivan’s system, as modified by Kremmer and Roth above, to have the computing system is configured to have the computing system is further configured to determine an upcoming nozzle activation time based on the boom deflection model. Doing so allows the user to determine spraying times in a precise and reliable manner, while limiting the product applied to prevent overuse (Serrat, Paragraphs 0004, 0008).
Claims 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (US 20160175869 A1) in view of Kremmer et al. (US 20180281798 A1), Crinklaw et al. (US 20190090472 A1), and Sibley et al. (US 20220183208 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Sullivan discloses a system (20, Fig. 1) for an agricultural vehicle (shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0014), the system (20, Fig. 1) comprising:
a boom assembly (32, 50, Fig. 1) cantilevered (interpreting as a projecting beam or member supported at only one end, Merriam-Webster Dictionary) from the agricultural vehicle (each boom section 50 of each boom assembly 32 projects from the vehicle, with one end being free and the other end connected to the vehicle, shown in Fig. 1);
a nozzle assembly (60, Fig. 2) positioned along the boom assembly (32, 50, shown in Figs. 1-2);
a position sensor (36, Figs. 1, 3) associated with the boom assembly (32, 50, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0021-0022); and
a computing system (34, Figs. 1, 3) operably coupled with the nozzle assembly (60, Fig. 2) and the position sensor (36, shown in Figs. 1, 3, Paragraph 0019), the computing system (34, Figs. 1, 3) configured to:
receive data from the position sensor (Paragraph 0021); and
determine a flow rate of agricultural product to be exhausted from the nozzle assembly towards the defined target (particular target outflow rates from nozzles 60 are determined for a particular operation or operating condition, Paragraphs 0007, 0016, 0048, 0060, 0069).
However, Sullivan does not disclose the computing system configured to determine a boom deflection model based on data from the position sensor, determine a flow rate of agricultural product to be exhausted from the nozzle assembly towards the defined target based on the boom deflection model, wherein the flow rate is at least partially based on a maximum deflection of the nozzle assembly within the boom deflection model, and activate the nozzle assembly to apply an agricultural product to the target the flow rate based on the boom deflection model and an acceleration of the nozzle assembly relative to the target when the target enters the application region.
Kremmer teaches a system (12, Fig. 1) for an agricultural vehicle (10, Fig. 1), the system (12, Fig. 1) comprising:
a computing system (32, 34, 36, 62, Figs. 1-2) operably coupled with the nozzle assembly (42, Fig. 1) and the position sensor (40, Fig. 1), the computing system (32, 34, 36, 62, Figs. 1-2) configured to:
receive data from the position sensor (40, Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0024-0025, 0027);
determine a boom deflection model based on data from the position sensor (sensors 70, 72, can be used to determine current deflection of the sprayer boom in any manner and data from the sensors 70, 72 can be used to determine how the controller controls the tractor 10 and spraying machine 12, shown in Figs. 2, 4, Paragraphs 0033-0034);
determine a flow rate of agricultural product to be exhausted from the nozzle assembly towards the defined target based on the boom deflection model, wherein the flow rate is at least partially based on a maximum deflection of the nozzle assembly within the boom deflection model (actuators are triggered based on detected oscillation which controls the rate the nozzles 42 discharge an agent from the supply container, and the discharge rate can be controlled position specifically at a specific location on the field, there are reference points 44’ and 44’’ that show the deflection with respect to the starting boom position and oscillation behavior of the boom can be calculated or predetermined with respect to the speed, shown in Figs. 2, 4, Paragraphs 0014, 0028, 0030, 0033-0034); and
activate the nozzle assembly to apply an agricultural product to the target the flow rate based on the boom deflection model and an acceleration of the nozzle assembly relative to the target when the target enters the application region (actuators are triggered based on detected oscillation and an acceleration of the sprayer boom 44, caused by change in direction of the chassis 16, and control the rate the nozzles 42 discharge an agent from the supply container, and the discharge rate can be controlled position specifically at a specific location on the field, there are reference points 44’ and 44’’ that show the deflection with respect to the starting boom position and oscillation behavior of the boom can be calculated or predetermined with respect to the speed or change in direction, shown in Figs. 2, 4, Paragraphs 0014, 0028, 0030, 0033-0034, 0036).
Sullivan and Kremmer are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention
because they are in the same field of systems for agricultural vehicles. 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 computing system taught in Kremmer’s system to
Sullivan’s system, to have the computing system is configured to determine a boom deflection
model based on data from the position sensor, determine a flow rate of agricultural product to be exhausted from the nozzle assembly towards the defined target based on the boom deflection model, wherein the flow rate is at least partially based on a maximum deflection of the nozzle assembly within the boom deflection model, and activate the nozzle assembly to apply an agricultural product to the target the flow rate based on the boom deflection model and an acceleration of the nozzle assembly relative to the target when the target enters the application region. Doing so helps to reduce undesired consequences caused by oscillating movements of the boom (Kremmer, Paragraph 0010).
However, Sullivan and Kremmer do not teach the boom deflection model determines a magnitude of fore-aft deflection of the boom assembly. Crinklaw teaches a system (100, Fig. 1) for an agricultural vehicle (110, Fig. 1) comprising determining a magnitude of fore-aft deflection (system includes a fore and aft GPS which provides magnitudes of fore and aft through horizontal and vertical positioning, Paragraph 0040).
Sullivan, Kremmer, and Crinklaw are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems for agricultural vehicles. 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 determining a magnitude of fore-aft deflection relative to the vehicle taught in Crinklaw’s system to Sullivan’s system, as modified by Kremmer above, to have the boom deflection model determines a magnitude of fore-aft deflection of the boom assembly. Doing so provides more precise positioning of the components of the system (Crinklaw, Paragraph 0040).
However, Sullivan, Kremmer, and Crinklaw do not teach the boom deflection model determines a speed of movement relative to a defined target while the target is external to an application region of the nozzle assembly, wherein the boom deflection model further defines a projected number of instances that the defined target will pass through the application region due to oscillation of the boom assembly in a fore-aft direction during a common pass along the field.
Sibley teaches a system (10400, Fig. 32A) for an agricultural vehicle (onsite platform 10400 may be mounted on an agricultural vehicle) comprising determining a speed of movement relative to a defined target while the target is external to an application region of the nozzle assembly (an appropriate orientation pointing to a future position where a target object will be is determined, and real-time processing engine 20000 estimates a speed of relative movement between the vehicle and the onsite platform 10400 and the target object to predict a position of the object when the sprayed liquid reaches the target object, Paragraph 0335), wherein the boom deflection model further defines a projected number of instances that the defined target will pass through the application region due to oscillation of the boom assembly in a fore-aft direction during a common pass along the field (image processing or computer vision algorithms can be used to predict future position of a target object at some number of frame times in the future, relative to a moving vehicle, and pose determination may be applied to any part of the vehicle or system, such as a boom assembly, Paragraphs 0266, 0335-0336).
Sullivan, Kremmer, Crinklaw, and Sibley are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems for agricultural vehicles. 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 taught in Sibley’s system to Sullivan’s system, as modified by Kremmer and Crinklaw above, to have the boom deflection model determines a speed of movement relative to a defined target while the target is external to an application region of the nozzle assembly, wherein the boom deflection model further defines a projected number of instances that the defined target will pass through the application region due to oscillation of the boom assembly in a fore-aft direction during a common pass along the field. Doing so provides applying a treatment more efficiently to a target by selectively activating the treatment mechanism based on a result of determining the target (Sibley, Paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 17, Sullivan, as modified by Kremmer, Crinklaw, and Sibley, discloses the system of claim 16 above. Sullivan further discloses a field sensor (76a, 76b, Fig. 3) associated with the nozzle assembly (60, Fig, 2, Paragraph 0034), the computing system (34, Figs. 1, 3) is further operably coupled with the field sensor (76a, 76b, Fig. 3, Paragraph 0019), and the computing system (34, Figs. 1, 3) is further configured to:
detect the target within a field based on data from the field sensor (Paragraph 0020).
With respect to claim 20, Sullivan, as modified by Kremmer, Crinklaw, and Sibley, discloses the system of claim 17 above. Sullivan further discloses the flow rate of the agricultural product is varied while the nozzle assembly exhausts the agricultural product towards the target (Paragraphs 0007, 0016, 0048, 0060, 0069).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (US 20160175869 A1) in view of Kremmer et al. (US 20190357520 A1), Crinklaw et al. (US 20190090472 A1), and Sibley et al. (US 20220183208 A1) as applied to claims 16 and 17 above, and further in view of Serrat et al. (US 20200045953 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Sullivan, as modified by Kremmer, Crinklaw, and Sibley, discloses the system of claim 17 above. Sullivan further discloses the computing system is further configured to:
alter, through the flow rate system (78, Fig. 3), a flow rate of the agricultural product (Paragraph 0060).
However, Sullivan, Kremmer, Crinklaw, and Sibley do not teach the computing system is further configured to determine an application period and alter, through a flow rate system, a flow rate of the agricultural product based at least partially on the application period. Serrat teaches a system (40, Fig. 2) for an agricultural vehicle (10, Fig. 1) comprising a computing system (44, Fig. 2) is configured to:
determine an application period (Paragraphs 0014, 0023).
Sullivan, Kremmer, Crinklaw, Sibley, and Serrat are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems for agricultural vehicles. 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 computing system taught in Serrat’s system to Sullivan’s system, as modified by Kremmer, Crinklaw, and Sibley above, to have the computing system is configured to have the computing system is further configured to determine an application period, and alter, through a flow rate system, a flow rate of the agricultural product based at least partially on the application period. Doing so allows the user to determine spraying times in a precise and reliable manner, while limiting the product applied to prevent overuse (Serrat, Paragraphs 0004, 0008).
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (US 20160175869 A1) in view of Kremmer et al. (US 20180281798 A1) and Redden et al. (US 20190357520 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Sullivan discloses a system (20, Fig. 1) for an agricultural vehicle (shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0014), the system (20, Fig. 1) comprising:
a boom arm (32, 50, Fig. 1) extending in a cantilevered manner (interpreting as a projecting beam or member supported at only one end, Merriam-Webster Dictionary) along a default axis (axis of the boom assembly 32, each boom section 50 of each boom assembly 32 projects from the vehicle, with one end being free and the other end connected to the vehicle, shown in Fig. 1);
a nozzle assembly (60, Fig. 2) positioned along the boom arm (32, 50, shown in Figs. 1-2);
a position sensor (36, Figs. 1, 3) associated with the boom arm (32, 50, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0021-0022);
a field sensor (76a, 76b, Fig. 3) associated with the nozzle assembly (60, Fig, 2, Paragraph 0034); and
a computing system (34, Figs. 1, 3) operably coupled with the nozzle assembly (60, Fig. 2), the position sensor (36, Figs. 1, 3), and the field sensor (76a, 76b, shown in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0019), the computing system (34, Figs. 1, 3) configured to:
detect a target within a field based on data from the field sensor (76a, 76b, Fig. 3, Paragraph 0020); and
activate the nozzle assembly to apply an agricultural product to the target at a first flow rate (particular target outflow rates from nozzles 60 are determined for a particular operation or operating condition which can include having a first flow rate, Paragraphs 0050-0051, 0059, 0062).
However, Sullivan does not disclose the computing system is configured to determine a boom deflection model based on data from the position sensor, the boom deflection model defining a boundary of an application region of the nozzle assembly having a first geometric shape that defines a first area at a defined distance from the nozzle assembly when the nozzle assembly is traveling at a first speed and a second geometric shape that defines a second area at the defined distance from the nozzle assembly when the nozzle assembly is traveling at a second speed, the first area different than the second area and the first speed different from the second speed, the boom deflection model further defining an asymmetrical position of the first geometric shape and the second geometric shape relative to the default axis due to fore-aft deflection of the boom arm; and
activate the nozzle assembly to apply an agricultural product to the target at a first flow rate based on a deflection magnitude and a position of the target relative to the defined boundary of the application region of the nozzle assembly, wherein the first flow rate is varied from a nominal flow rate if the boom arm is deflected when the target is within the application region of the nozzle assembly and the application region is asymmetric to the default axis.
Kremmer teaches a system (12, Fig. 1) for an agricultural vehicle (10, Fig. 1), the system (12, Fig. 1) comprising:
a computing system (32, 34, 36, 62, Figs. 1-2) operably coupled with the nozzle assembly (42, Fig. 1), the position sensor (40, Fig. 1), and the field sensor (70, 72, Figs. 1-2), the computing system (32, 34, 36, 62, Figs. 1-2) configured to:
determine a boom deflection model based on data from the position sensor (sensors 70, 72, can be used to determine current deflection of the sprayer boom in any manner and data from the sensors 70, 72 can be used to determine how the controller controls the tractor 10 and spraying machine 12, shown in Figs. 2, 4, Paragraphs 0033-0034), the boom deflection model defining a boundary of an application region of the nozzle assembly that defines a first area at a defined distance from the nozzle assembly when the nozzle assembly is traveling at a first speed and a second area at the defined distance from the nozzle assembly when the nozzle assembly is traveling at a second speed, the boom deflection model further defining an asymmetrical position of the first geometric shape and the second geometric shape relative to the default axis (there are certain areas within the field 58 with an uneven ground profile that can induce oscillations of the boom which affect speed changes and the deflection points of the boom 44, as indicated by points 44’ and 44’’, which includes having a first area and a second area at these different points, speed changes affecting the sprayer boom 44 and nozzles 42 can be predetermined through calculations or experiments and programmed into the memory of the controller 36, shown in Figs. 2-4, Paragraphs 0030, 0033-0034), the first area different than the second area and the first speed different from the second speed (there are various speeds for different profiles within the field, which can include a first area being different from a second area and a first speed different from a second speed, shown in Fig. 3, Paragraphs 0033-0034); and
activate the nozzle assembly to apply an agricultural product to the target at a first flow rate based on a deflection magnitude, wherein the first flow rate is varied from a nominal flow rate if the boom arm is deflected when the target is within the application region of the nozzle assembly and the application region is asymmetric to the default axis (controller can be connected to a sensor to detect an oscillation that detects an oscillation of a sprayer boom in a forward direction, or movement of at least one part of the sprayer boom about a vertical axis, to trigger an actuator based on the detected oscillation, which are connected to nozzles 42 and controls the flow rate of nozzles 42, which can vary from a predetermined or current rate, shown in Figs. 2, 4, Paragraphs 0012, 0014, 0028).
Sullivan and Kremmer are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention
because they are in the same field of systems for agricultural vehicles. 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 computing system taught in Kremmer’s system to
Sullivan’s system, to have the computing system configured to determine a boom deflection model based on data from the position sensor, the boom deflection model defining a boundary of an application region of the nozzle assembly that defines a first area at a defined distance from the nozzle assembly when the nozzle assembly is traveling at a first speed and a second area at the defined distance from the nozzle assembly when the nozzle assembly is traveling at a second speed, the first area different than the second area and the first speed different from the second speed, activate the nozzle assembly to apply an agricultural product to the target at a first flow rate based on a deflection magnitude, wherein the first flow rate is varied from a nominal flow rate if the boom arm is deflected when the target is within an application region of the nozzle assembly. Doing so helps to reduce undesired consequences caused by oscillating movements of the boom (Kremmer, Paragraph 0010).
However, Sullivan and Kremmer do not teach the boom deflection model defining a boundary of an application region of the nozzle assembly having a first geometric shape that defines a first area at a defined distance from the nozzle assembly when the nozzle assembly is traveling at a first speed and a second geometric shape that defines a second area at the defined distance from the nozzle assembly when the nozzle assembly is traveling at a second speed, the boom deflection model further defining an asymmetrical position of the first geometric shape and the second geometric shape relative to the default axis due to fore-aft deflection of the boom arm, and activate the nozzle assembly to apply an agricultural product to the target at a first flow rate based on a position of a target relative to the defined boundary of the application region of the nozzle assembly, wherein the first flow rate is varied from a nominal flow rate if the boom arm is deflected when the target is within the application region of the nozzle assembly and the application region is asymmetric to the default axis. Redden teaches a system (100, 200, Figs. 1-2) for an agricultural vehicle (shown in Figs. 1-2, Paragraph 0035), the system (200, Fig. 2) comprising:
a computing system (800, Fig. 8) operably coupled with the nozzle assembly, the position sensor, and the field sensor (Paragraph 0134), the computing system (800, Fig. 8) configured to:
determine a boom model based on data from the position sensor (the machine generates a machine learned model that automatically determines actions to affect components of the machine based on measurements collected from sensors, such as tilt sensors, which help the spray boom assembly to determine the angle of each segment relative to the ground, Paragraphs 0018, 0046, 0057, 0073, 0075), the boom model defining a boundary of the application region having a first geometric shape that defines a first area at a defined distance from the nozzle assembly when the nozzle assembly is traveling at a first speed (Paragraphs 0085-0086) and a second geometric shape that defines a second area at the defined distance from the nozzle assembly when the nozzle is traveling at a second speed (boundary can be located at different places for different purposes operating at once, Paragraphs 0085-0086), the first area is different than the second area (size of the boundary can be adjusted and boundary can be located at different places for different purposes operating at once, Paragraphs 0085-0086), the boom model further defining an asymmetrical position of the first geometric shape and the second geometric shape relative to the default axis due to fore-aft deflection of the boom arm (axis of the booms 220, 222, boundary can be located at different places for different purposes operating at once, which may be asymmetrical to the axis of the boom, which can dependent based on movement of the boom, including fore-aft deflection, shown in Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0040-0041, 0085-0086); and
activate the nozzle assembly to apply an agricultural product to the target at a first flow rate based on a position of a target relative to the defined boundary of the application region of the nozzle assembly and the application region is asymmetric to the default axis (axis of the booms 220, 222, an actuator is configured to position and activate each component 120, which can be a spray nozzle, so that the component 120 is controlled to manipulate the plant when instructed, the component 120 can perform various functions, such as spraying a particular amount of treatment fluid at a specific flow rate in a specific active area, boundary can be located at different places for different purposes operating at once, which may be asymmetrical to the axis of the boom, shown in Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0026-0027, 0085-0086).
Sullivan, Kremmer, and Redden are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems for agricultural vehicles. 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 computing system taught in Redden’s system to Sullivan’s system, as modified by Kremmer above, to have the boom deflection model defining a boundary of an application region of the nozzle assembly having a first geometric shape that defines a first area at a defined distance from the nozzle assembly when the nozzle assembly is traveling at a first speed and a second geometric shape that defines a second area at the defined distance from the nozzle assembly when the nozzle assembly is traveling at a second speed, the first area different than the second area and the first speed different from the second speed, the boom deflection model further defining an asymmetrical position of the first geometric shape and the second geometric shape relative to the default axis due to fore-aft deflection of the boom arm, and activate the nozzle assembly to apply an agricultural product to the target at a first flow rate based on a position of a target relative to the defined boundary of an application region of the nozzle assembly, wherein the first flow rate is varied from a nominal flow rate if the boom arm is deflected when the target is within an application region of the nozzle assembly and the application region is asymmetric to the default axis. Doing so helps to improve the performance of the machine by using data recognition and reinforcement learning and prevents ineffective and non-productive spraying operation (Redden, Paragraphs 0018, 0041).
With respect to claim 22, Sullivan, as modified by Kremmer and Redden, discloses the system of claim 21 above. Kremmer further teaches the boom deflection model predicts a boom curvature (there are reference points 44’ and 44’’ that show the deflection with respect to the starting boom position and oscillation behavior of the boom can be calculated or predetermined with respect to the speed, shown in Figs. 2, 4, Paragraphs 0030, 0033-0034) and a speed of movement of the nozzle assembly relative to a chassis of the vehicle (speed changes affecting the sprayer boom 44 and nozzles 42 relative to the chassis can be predetermined through calculations or experiments and programmed into the memory of the controller 36, shown in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0033).
In regards to claim 23, Sullivan, as modified by Kremmer and Redden, discloses the system of claim 21 above. Kremmer further teaches the nozzle assembly is activated at the first flow rate when the nozzle assembly is deflected from a default axis by a first magnitude (controller can be connected to a sensor to detect an oscillation that detects an oscillation of a sprayer boom in a forward direction, or movement of at least one part of the sprayer boom about a vertical axis, to trigger an actuator based on the detected oscillation, which are connected to nozzles 42 and controls the flow rate of nozzles 42, shown in Figs. 2, 4, Paragraphs 0012, 0014, 0028).
Regarding claim 24, Sullivan, as modified by Kremmer and Redden, discloses the system of claim 23 above. Kremmer further teaches the computing system (32, 34, 36, 62, Figs. 1-2) is further configured to:
activate the nozzle assembly to apply the agricultural product to the target at a second flow rate based on the boom deflection model determining that the boom arm is deflected from the default axis by a second magnitude (controller can be connected to a sensor to detect an oscillation that detects an oscillation of a sprayer boom in a forward direction, or movement of at least one part of the sprayer boom about a vertical axis, to trigger an actuator based on the detected oscillation, which are connected to nozzles 42 and controls the flow rate of nozzles 42, shown in Figs. 2, 4, Paragraphs 0012, 0014, 0028).
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (US 20160175869 A1) in view of Kremmer et al. (US 20180281798 A1) and Redden et al. (US 20190357520 A1) as applied to claim 21, and further in view of Serrat et al. (US 20200045953 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Sullivan, as modified by Kremmer and Redden, discloses the system of claim 21 above. However, Sullivan, Kremmer, and Redden do not teach the computing system is further configured to determine an application period. Serrat teaches a system (40, Fig. 2) for an agricultural vehicle (10, Fig. 1) comprising a computing system (44, Fig. 2) is configured to:
determine an application period in which the target will be within the application region (Paragraphs 0014, 0023).
Sullivan, Kremmer, Redden, and Serrat are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems for agricultural vehicles. 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 computing system taught in Serrat’s system to Sullivan’s system, as modified by Kremmer and Redden above, to have the computing system is configured to have the computing system is further configured to determine an application period in which the target will be within the application region. Doing so allows the user to determine spraying times in a precise and reliable manner, while limiting the product applied to prevent overuse (Serrat, Paragraphs 0004, 0008).
With respect to claim 26, Sullivan, as modified by Kremmer, Redden, and Serrat, discloses the system of claim 25 above. Sullivan further discloses the computing system (34, Figs. 1, 3) is further configured to:
alter the first flow rate to a rate greater than the nominal flow rate (flow settings can update based on at least one updated flow control parameter and predetermined flow settings, Paragraphs 0007, 0016, 0060) and a default period (“default control parameters”, Paragraphs 0017, 0048, 0055-0056), which as modified in view of Kremmer, Redden, and Serrat above regarding claim 25 would result in altering the first flow rate to a rate greater than a nominal flow rate if the application period is less than a default period.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references in independent claim 1, see Remarks, pg. 8-16, 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, Kremmer provides a motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the features taught in Kremmer to Sullivan’s system because Kremmer states doing so helps to reduce undesired consequences caused by oscillating movements of the boom (Kremmer, Paragraph 0010).
Further, Roth provides a motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the features taught in Roth to Sullivan’s system, as modified by Kremmer above, because doing so optimizes liquid deployments to maximize crop yields and provides in all-in one solution to optimize irrigation control (Roth, Paragraphs 0009, 0017).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references in independent claim 16, see Remarks, pg. 16-21, 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, Kremmer provides a motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the features taught in Kremmer to Sullivan’s system because doing so helps to reduce undesired consequences caused by oscillating movements of the boom (Kremmer, Paragraph 0010).
Additionally, Crinklaw provides a motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the features taught in Crinklaw to Sullivan’s system, as modified by Kremmer above, because doing so provides more precise positioning of the components of the system (Crinklaw, Paragraph 0040).
Sibley provides a motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the features taught in Sibley to Sullivan’s system, as modified by Kremmer and Crinklaw above, because doing so provides applying a treatment more efficiently to a target by selectively activating the treatment mechanism based on a result of determining the target (Sibley, Paragraph 0006).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references in independent claim 21, see Remarks, pg. 21-24, 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, Kremmer provides a motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the features taught in Kremmer to Sullivan’s system because Kremmer states doing so helps to reduce undesired consequences caused by oscillating movements of the boom (Kremmer, Paragraph 0010).
Redden provides a motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the features taught in Redden to Sullivan’s system, as modified by Kremmer above, because doing so helps to improve the performance of the machine by using data recognition and reinforcement learning (Redden, Paragraph 0018).
Conclusion
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
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights