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 response filed on January 27th, 2026 is acknowledged. Six pages of amended claims were received on 1/27/2026. Claims 1, 21, and 23 have been amended. Claim 25 has been cancelled and Claims 30-31 are newly presented.
The claims have been amended to overcome previous claim objections in the non-final rejection mailed 10/27/2025. Claims 23-24 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted below. Claim 31 is objected to as noted below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/27/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 31 Line 5 “the default axis” should be revised to “a default axis” to ensure clarity in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
The “airflow detection system” in Claims 1, 8, and 21; and
The “computing system” in Claims 1, 8, 21-23, and 27-28.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations:
The “airflow detection system” in Claims 1, 8, and 21 corresponds to the disclosure in Paragraph 00102 of the Specification which states, “In various examples, the airflow detection system can include a first nozzle sensor configured to capture data indicative of one or more airflow sources associated with the first nozzle assembly and a second nozzle sensor configured to capture data indicative of one or more airflow sources associated with the second nozzle assembly. Additionally or alternatively, the airflow detection system can include a position sensor positioned along the boom assembly that is configured to capture data indicative of a deflection of the boom assembly.” Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “airflow detection system” in Claims 1, 8, and 21 to be sensors and equivalents thereof.
The “computing system” in Claims 1, 8, 21-23, and 27-28 corresponds to the disclosure in Paragraph 0059 of the Specification which states, “In general, the computing system 102 may comprise any suitable processor- based device, such as a computing device or any suitable combination of computing devices. Thus, in several embodiments, the computing system 102 may include one or more processors 104 and associated memory 106 configured to perform a variety of computer-implemented functions.” Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “computing system” in Claims 1, 8, 21-23, and 27-28 to be a combination of a processor and a memory, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 23-24 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2016/0368011 A1 to Feldhaus et al. (“Feldhaus”) in view of US PGPUB 2019/0150357 A1 to Wu et al. (“Wu”).
As to Claim 23, Feldhaus discloses an agricultural system (See Fig. 1) comprising:
a first nozzle assembly (See “Nozzle 1” in Fig. 1E) positioned along a boom assembly (#30) and configured to selectively dispense an agricultural product therefrom (See Paragraphs 0047-0048 and 0082);
an airflow detection system configured to capture data indicative of one or more airflow sources (See Paragraph 0008 disclosing a plurality of sensors to sense vehicle travel speed, vehicle travel direction, wind speed, and wind direction), wherein the airflow detection system comprises one or more nozzle sensors configured to capture data indicative of the one or more airflow sources associated with the first nozzle assembly (See Feldhaus Paragraph 0008 disclosing a sensor that senses wind speed and wind direction, which is applicable in an area that the first nozzle assembly is in and is thus associated with the first nozzle assembly);
a position sensor, the position sensor configured to capture data indicative of a deflection of the boom assembly (See Paragraph 0008 disclosing a sensor that senses a height of a first nozzle from a ground surface, which is equivalent to data indicative of deflection of #30. Furthermore see Paragraph 0032 disclosing height of the spray boom or height of the nozzles, along with dip angle of the boom); and
a computing system (See Paragraph 0006 disclosing a controller having a processor and a memory) communicatively coupled to the first nozzle assembly and the airflow detection system (See Paragraph 0008), the computing system being configured to:
receive, from the airflow detection system, the data associated with the one or more airflow sources (See Paragraph 0033);
generate a first nozzle assembly vector for the first nozzle assembly based on the data from the airflow detection system and a deflection of the boom assembly as detected by the position sensor (See Paragraphs 0076-0080 and See Fig. 8A), wherein a magnitude of the first nozzle assembly vector is based on a magnitude of deflection of the first nozzle assembly relative to a default position (See Paragraphs 0076-0080 and See Fig. 8A. The height of the nozzle, which is equivalent to a position of the nozzle relative to some original position, is taken into account when calculating the first nozzle assembly vector); and
alter a flow rate of the first nozzle assembly based on the magnitude of the first nozzle assembly vector (See Paragraph 0080 disclosing automatically applying corrective actions based on a calculation. The calculation is based at least partially on the magnitude of the first nozzle assembly vector. See Paragraph 0051 disclosing adjusting fluid pressure as a corrective action. Adjusting fluid pressure correlates to adjusting a flow rate of a nozzle assembly, thus the flow rate of the first nozzle assembly is adjusted based at least partially on the magnitude of the first nozzle assembly vector).
Regarding Claim 23, Feldhaus does not specifically disclose wherein the position sensor is positioned along the boom assembly, wherein the position sensor is configured to capture data indicative of a deflection of the boom assembly in a fore-aft direction, and wherein a magnitude of the first nozzle assembly vector is based on a magnitude of deflection in the fore-aft direction of the first nozzle assembly relative to a default position (See Paragraphs 0032, 0055, 0076 disclosing boom and nozzle height being detected, but boom deflection in a fore-aft direction is not specifically disclosed. Feldhaus does not specifically disclose position sensors being on the boom. Paragraph 0084 discloses that disclosed directions are arbitrary designations.). Furthermore, Feldhaus does not disclose the system comprising a user interface (Paragraph 0054 discloses computer memory, but a user interface is not specifically disclose).
However, Wu discloses, in the same field of endeavor of agricultural spraying (See Paragraph 0004), an agricultural system (See Fig. 3) comprising a computing system (See Paragraph 0184 disclosing a main computer), a user interface that the computing system is communicatively coupled to (See #82 in Fig. 7 and See Paragraph 0111), and a position sensor (See #50 in Fig. 3, which per Paragraphs 0045 and 0103 is an imaging sensor unit. Image sensors are equivalent to position sensors because images are indicative of positions.) positioned along a boom assembly (See #30 “spray boom” in Fig. 3 of Wu) configured to capture data indicative of a deflection of the boom assembly in a fore-aft direction (See Paragraph 0103 disclosing that #50 “has good peripheral or fore-aft view” with snapshots taken over intervals, and See Paragraph 0168 and Fig. 8 showing x-y plots of sprays being detected and compared to an expected pattern. Images of sprayed fluid captured over an x-y plane are data indicative of deflection of #30 in a fore-aft direction, as deflection of #30 in the fore-aft direction can cause changes in the captured images.), wherein the computing system determines a magnitude of a first nozzle assembly vector based on a magnitude of deflection in the fore-aft direction of the first nozzle assembly relative to a default position (See Paragraph 0168 and Fig. 8. The images detected by sensor #50 are used to calculate vectors that are projected along the fore-aft direction and the side-to-side direction. A magnitude of the first nozzle assembly vector will be affected by a magnitude of a deflection in the fore-aft direction of the first nozzle assembly relative to a default position since the sensor #50 detects sprayed fluid over the fore-aft direction relative to a default position.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Feldhaus as applied to Claim 23 above to utilize the position sensor of Wu positioned along the boom assembly, the position sensor configured to capture at least spray image data indicative of a deflection of the boom assembly in a fore-aft direction, while having a magnitude of the first nozzle assembly vector be based on a magnitude of deflection in the fore-aft direction of the first nozzle assembly relative to a default position, since doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to check validity of predicted performance compared to actual performance under different environmental conditions in two dimensions (See Wu Paragraph 0168 and Fig. 8). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Feldhaus as applied to Claim 23 above to have a user interface that is screen #82 of Wu which the computing system of Feldhaus is communicatively coupled to, since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing a user to visually check operation of the system (See Wu Paragraph 0111).
As to Claim 24, in reference to the system of Feldhaus in view of Wu as applied to Claim 23 above, Feldhaus further discloses wherein the first nozzle assembly vector represents a speed and direction of airflow proximate to the first nozzle assembly (See Feldhaus Paragraph 0077).
As to Claim 26, in reference to the system of Feldhaus in view of Wu as applied to Claim 23 above, Feldhaus further discloses the system comprising:
a weather station configured to provide data indicative of an environmental airflow source (See Feldhaus Paragraph 0079 disclosing a weather station that at least provides temperature and humidity data for environmental air).
As to Claim 27, in reference to the system of Feldhaus in view of Wu as applied to Claim 23 above, Feldhaus further discloses wherein the computing system is further configured to calculate a spray quality index based at least in part on the first nozzle assembly vector, the spray quality index representing a metric indicative of a spray operation coverage of a portion of a field (See Feldhaus Paragraph 0080 disclosing calculating a percent difference between spray areas and desired spray region, which is determined at least partially from the first nozzle assembly vector)..
As to Claim 28, in reference to the system of Feldhaus in view of Wu as applied to Claim 23 above, Feldhaus discloses the system further comprising a second nozzle assembly positioned along the boom assembly (See “Nozzle 2” in Fig. 1E) and configured to selectively dispense the agricultural product therefrom (See Paragraphs 0047-0048 and 0082), wherein the computing system is communicatively coupled to the second nozzle assembly (See Paragraph 0008 disclosing sensors for sensing a height of the second nozzle from the ground surface) and is further configured to generate a second nozzle assembly vector for the second nozzle assembly based at least in part on the data captured from the airflow detection system (See Paragraphs 0041 disclosing computing a predicted spray for each nozzle, thus vectors are generated for each nozzle based on sensed data from the controller).
As to Claim 29, in reference to the system of Feldhaus as applied to Claim 28 above, Feldhaus modified by Wu further discloses wherein the first nozzle assembly vector is varied from the second nozzle assembly vector in direction or magnitude when the boom assembly is deflected from a default axis (See Wu Paragraph 0162 and See Wu Fig. 8. Deflecting the boom assembly of Feldhaus from a default axis shown in Annotated Fig. 1 over various terrains will cause changes in the first nozzle assembly vector relative to the second nozzle assembly vector, at least in direction.).
Regarding Claim 30, in reference to the system of Feldhaus in view of Wu as applied to Claim 29 above, Feldhaus modified by Wu does not explicitly disclose wherein the airflow detection system also comprises one or more second nozzle sensors configured to capture data indicative of the one or more airflow sources associated with the second nozzle assembly (Paragraph 0008 discloses “a plurality of sensors to sense vehicle travel speed, vehicle travel direction, wind speed, wind direction, a height of a first nozzle from a ground surface, and a height of a second nozzle from the ground surface”, however a second wind sensor is not specifically disclosed).
However, Feldhaus does disclose a plurality of sensors (See Paragraph 0008), and, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Feldhaus in view of Wu as applied to Claim 29 above to duplicate the one or more first nozzle sensors such that the airflow detection system also comprises one or more second nozzle sensors configured to capture data indicative of the one or more airflow sources associated with the second nozzle assembly, since doing so would yield the predictable result of detecting wind data indicative of conditions close to each nozzle assembly.
PNG
media_image1.png
759
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-9, and 21-22 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art fails to teach, disclose, or suggest, in combination with other limitations recited in independent Claim 1: “the movement airflow vector defined as a combination of a boom deflection airflow caused by movement of a boom arm relative to a chassis of a work vehicle and a work vehicle movement airflow caused by movement of the work vehicle relative to a ground surface at the first nozzle assembly”.
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the prior art of Feldhaus in view of Wu as applied above, Feldhaus as modified by Wu discloses a first nozzle assembly vector that is a combination of an environmental vector and a movement airflow vector (See Wu Paragraph 0077 and Fig. 8A disclosing a vector based on vehicle travel and wind). However, Feldhaus as modified by Wu does not disclose wherein the movement airflow vector is defined as a combination of a boom deflection airflow caused by movement of a boom arm relative to a chassis of a work vehicle and a work vehicle movement airflow caused by movement of the work vehicle relative to a ground surface at the first nozzle assembly as required by Claim 1 (See Wu Paragraph 0077 disclosing a vector accounting for vehicle travel, but the vector accounting for boom deflection due to movement of a boom arm relative to a chassis is not disclosed). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not be motivated to reconfigure the system of Feldhaus in view of Wu such that a movement airflow vector is defined as a combination of a boom deflection airflow caused by movement of a boom arm relative to a chassis of a work vehicle and a work vehicle movement airflow caused by movement of the work vehicle relative to a ground surface at the first nozzle assembly as required by Claim 1, since such a modification would change how the system of Feldhaus in view of Wu functions and there is no prior teaching in Feldhaus, Wu, or other prior art that indicates that making such a modification would be an obvious design choice without utilizing improper hindsight.
Claims 2-3, 5, and 8-9 depend from Claim 1, therefore Claims 2-3, 5, and 8-9 are also allowed.
The prior art also fails to teach, disclose, or suggest, in combination with other limitations recited in independent Claim 21: “the first movement airflow vector defined as a combination of a boom deflection airflow caused by movement of a boom arm relative to a chassis of a work vehicle and a work vehicle movement airflow caused by movement of the work vehicle relative to a ground surface at the first nozzle assembly, the environmental vector defined by a direction and a speed of airflow caused by environmental or ambient factors” and “the second movement airflow vector defined as a combination of the boom deflection airflow caused by movement of the boom arm relative to the chassis of the work vehicle and the work vehicle movement airflow caused by movement of the work vehicle relative to the ground surface at the second nozzle assembly, the environmental vector defined by the direction and the speed of airflow caused by environmental or ambient factors”.
Regarding Claim 21, in reference to the prior art of Feldhaus in view of Wu as applied above, Feldhaus as modified by Wu discloses nozzle assembly vectors that are a combination of an environmental vector and a movement airflow vector (See Paragraph Wu 0077 and Fig. 8A disclosing a vector based on vehicle travel and wind). However, Feldhaus as modified by Wu does not disclose wherein movement airflow vectors are defined as a combination of a boom deflection airflow caused by movement of a boom arm relative to a chassis of a work vehicle and a work vehicle movement airflow caused by movement of the work vehicle relative to a ground surface at the nozzle assemblies as required by Claim 21 (See We Paragraph 0077 disclosing a vector accounting for vehicle travel, but the vector accounting for boom deflection due to movement of a boom arm relative to a chassis is not disclosed). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not be motivated to reconfigure the system of Feldhaus in view of Wu such that movement airflow vectors are defined as a combination of a boom deflection airflow caused by movement of a boom arm relative to a chassis of a work vehicle and a work vehicle movement airflow caused by movement of the work vehicle relative to a ground surface at the nozzle assemblies as required by Claim 21, since such a modification would change how the system of Feldhaus in view of Wu functions and there is no prior teaching in Feldhaus, Wu, or other prior art that indicates that making such a modification would be an obvious design choice without utilizing improper hindsight.
Claim 22 depends from Claim 21, therefore Claim 22 is also allowed
Claim 31 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art also fails to teach, disclose, or suggest, in combination with other limitations recited in dependent Claim 31: “wherein the magnitude of deflection in the fore-aft direction of the first nozzle assembly is determined based on a lateral position of the first nozzle assembly along the boom assembly and the position sensor data, the magnitude of deflection characterized by a known position of the first nozzle assembly in the fore-aft direction relative to the default axis”.
Regarding Claim 31, in reference to the prior art of Feldhaus in view of Wu as applied to Claim 23 above, Wu as modified by Feldhaus discloses nozzle assembly vectors that are a combination of an environmental vector and a movement airflow vector (See Paragraph 0077 of Wu and Fig. 8A disclosing a vector based on vehicle travel and wind). However, Feldhaus does not disclose wherein the magnitude of deflection in the fore-aft direction of the first nozzle assembly is determined based on a lateral position of the first nozzle assembly along the boom assembly and the position sensor data, the magnitude of deflection characterized by a known position of the first nozzle assembly in the fore-aft direction relative to a default axis as required by Claim 21 (See Wu Paragraph 0077 disclosing a vector accounting for vehicle travel, but magnitude of deflection being determined based on a lateral position of the first nozzle assembly along the boom assembly and the position sensor data and being characterized by a known position of the first nozzle assembly in the fore-aft direction relative to a default axis is not disclosed). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not be motivated to reconfigure the system of Feldhaus in view of Wu as applied to Claim 23 above such that the magnitude of deflection in the fore-aft direction of the first nozzle assembly is determined based on a lateral position of the first nozzle assembly along the boom assembly and the position sensor data, with the magnitude of deflection being characterized by a known position of the first nozzle assembly in the fore-aft direction relative to a default axis as required by Claim 31, since such a modification would change how the system of Feldhaus in view of Wu functions and there is no prior teaching in Feldhaus, Wu, or other prior art that indicates that making such a modification would be an obvious design choice without utilizing improper hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 regarding Claim 23 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldhaus in view of Wu have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 23 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, the applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood Feldhaus or Wu to teach the recitations of amended claim 23, because neither Feldhaus nor Wu teach an airflow detection system configured to capture data indicative of one or more airflow sources, wherein the airflow detection system comprises one or more nozzle sensors configured to capture data indicative of the one or more airflow sources associated with the first nozzle assembly. Applicant also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not discern from either of the cited prior art references a position sensor configured to capture data indicative of a deflection of the boom assembly in a fore-aft direction and subsequently use that boom deflection data as a partial basis for determining a first assembly vector, and that neither Feldhaus nor Wu teach wherein a magnitude of the first nozzle assembly vector is based on a magnitude of deflection in the fore-aft direction of the first nozzle assembly relative to a default position. Applicant argues that Feldhaus discloses a plurality of sensors that detect features such as vehicle travel speed and wind speed, but does not state that the airflow detection system comprises one or more nozzle sensors. Applicant also argues that while the spray pattern detected on the ground disclosed in Wu may be indicative of boom deflection due to the pattern differing from an expected pattern, Wu does not teach or suggest that the imaging sensor is being used to detect boom deflection as a separate variable.
These arguments are not found persuasive. In accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Furthermore, the claimed invention need not be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the applied references, taken as a whole, would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) and In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). A prima facie case of obviousness is established by presenting evidence indicating that the reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having those teachings before him to make the proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore, it has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969). In response to Applicant's piecemeal analysis of the references, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.
As to Claim 23, Feldhaus does disclose altering a flow rate of the first nozzle assembly based on the magnitude of the first nozzle assembly vector (See Paragraph 0080 disclosing automatically applying corrective actions based on a calculation. The calculation is based at least partially on the magnitude of the first nozzle assembly vector. See Paragraph 0051 disclosing adjusting fluid pressure as a corrective action. Adjusting fluid pressure correlates to adjusting a flow rate of a nozzle assembly, thus the flow rate of the first nozzle assembly is adjusted based at least partially on the magnitude of the first nozzle assembly vector). Furthermore, the nozzle sensors disclosed in Paragraph 0008 of Feldhaus capture wind data for the agricultural system of Feldhaus, thus the sensors disclosed in Paragraph 0008 capture data that is indicative of airflow sources associated with the first nozzle assembly at least to some extent. Regarding Claim 23, Feldhaus does not specifically disclose wherein the position sensor is positioned along the boom assembly, wherein the position sensor is configured to capture data indicative of a deflection of the boom assembly in a fore-aft direction, and wherein a magnitude of the first nozzle assembly vector is based on a magnitude of deflection in the fore-aft direction of the first nozzle assembly relative to a default position (See Paragraphs 0032, 0055, 0076 disclosing boom and nozzle height being detected, but boom deflection in a fore-aft direction is not specifically disclosed. Feldhaus does not specifically disclose position sensors being on the boom. Paragraph 0084 discloses that disclosed directions are arbitrary designations.). However, Wu discloses, in the same field of endeavor of agricultural spraying (See Paragraph 0004), an agricultural system (See Fig. 3) comprising a computing system (See Paragraph 0184 disclosing a main computer), a user interface that the computing system is communicatively coupled to (See #82 in Fig. 7 and See Paragraph 0111), and a position sensor (See #50 in Fig. 3, which per Paragraphs 0045 and 0103 is an imaging sensor unit. Image sensors are equivalent to position sensors because images are indicative of positions.) positioned along a boom assembly (See #30 “spray boom” in Fig. 3 of Wu) configured to capture data indicative of a deflection of the boom assembly in a fore-aft direction (See Paragraph 0103 disclosing that #50 “has good peripheral or fore-aft view” with snapshots taken over intervals, and See Paragraph 0168 and Fig. 8 showing x-y plots of sprays being detected and compared to an expected pattern. Images of sprayed fluid captured over an x-y plane are data indicative of deflection of #30 in a fore-aft direction, as deflection of #30 in the fore-aft direction can cause changes in the captured images.), wherein the computing system determines a magnitude of a first nozzle assembly vector based on a magnitude of deflection in the fore-aft direction of the first nozzle assembly relative to a default position (See Paragraph 0168 and Fig. 8. The images detected by sensor #50 are used to calculate vectors that are projected along the fore-aft direction and the side-to-side direction. A magnitude of the first nozzle assembly vector will be affected by a magnitude of a deflection in the fore-aft direction of the first nozzle assembly relative to a default position since the sensor #50 detects sprayed fluid over the fore-aft direction relative to a default position.). Therefore, based on the combined teachings of Feldhaus and Wu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Feldhaus as applied to Claim 23 above to utilize the position sensor of Wu positioned along the boom assembly, the position sensor configured to capture at least spray image data indicative of a deflection of the boom assembly in a fore-aft direction, while having a magnitude of the first nozzle assembly vector be based on a magnitude of deflection in the fore-aft direction of the first nozzle assembly relative to a default position, since doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to check validity of predicted performance compared to actual performance under different environmental conditions in two dimensions (See Wu Paragraph 0168 and Fig. 8). While Wu does not explicitly teach that the imaging sensor is being used to detect boom deflection as a separate variable, the imaging sensor of Wu still captures images that are indicative of boom deflection, thus the teachings of Feldhaus and Wu as a whole would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the agricultural system of Claim 23 as noted above.
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.
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 on (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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 February 19, 2026