DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 02/18/2026
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 with respect to rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant in page 8-9 of remarks argues,
“Schoeny et al. fails to disclose a sensing system including at least one flow sensor operably coupled with the product application system and configured to capture data indicative of a velocity of an agricultural product within the product application system, the at least one flow sensor positioned at least partially downstream of a portion of a nozzle assembly of the one or more nozzle assemblies, as set forth in amended claim 1. Schoeny et al. also fails to disclose a computing system communicatively coupled to the product application system and the sensing system, the computing system being configured to calculate a spray quality index based on data from the sensing system; detect a first pressure drop and a second pressure drop within the product application system based on the data indicative of the velocity of an agricultural product within the product application system; and generate an output based on at least one of the spray quality index and a detection of the first pressure drop and the second pressure drop in the product application system, wherein the output alters a component of the product application system to change an application rate of the agricultural product, as set forth in amended claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant submits that amended claim 1 is allowable over Schoeny et al. As amended claim 1 is now believed to be allowable, and is not obvious in view of the art of record, it stands that claims 2-4 and 6-9 are also allowable for at least the reason that each of these claims ultimately depends from an allowable base claim (amended claim 1). A notice to this effect is earnestly solicited.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As recited in the rejection below Schoeny (US20200196520A1) teaches the above identified limitations of claim 1. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 with respect to rejection Claim 10 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant in page 12 of remarks argues,
“Because the features set forth in amended claim 10 are not disclosed, suggested, or otherwise rendered obvious by either Van De Woestyne, Schoeny et al., or Wolgast, taken singly or in any combination, the Office should withdraw the § 103 rejection for at least this first, independent reason.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As recited in the rejection below Woestyne (US20210299692A1) modified in view of Schoeny (US20200196520A1) and further modified in view of Wolgast (US20140263706A1) teaches the identified limitations of claim 10. Applicant in his argument has pointed to each of the cited art individually and argued it doesn’t teach each of the limitations of the claim without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the reference that was cited for that limitation. Therefore, applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant in page 13 argues,
Here, the Office Action states, "one would have been motivated to modify Woestyne, Schoeny in view of Wolgast because doing so would allow an irrigation management system to monitor the water pressure in each of a plurality of irrigation systems and automatically adjust the production of a water pump associated with the irrigation systems to address fluctuations in the water pressure, as taught by Wolgast in ¶0006." Office Action, pp. 14. Even if Van De Woestyne, Schoeny et al., and Wolgast disclosed the claim elements for which they are cited, arguendo, the reasoning in the Office Action fails to explain why a POSITA at the time of the invention would have been motivated to modify the agricultural sprayer disclosed in Van De Woestyne to perform the functions of the liquid fertilizer distribution system as disclosed in Schoeny et al. and a center pivot irrigation method disclosed in Wolgast in the manner proposed in the Office Action.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As recited in the office action Woestyne, Schoeny and Wolgast are related to distribution of liquid in an agricultural application. The claimed invention is not specific to any specific type of liquid and the claimed aspect of controlling pressure of liquid being dispensed based on the quality of dispensing is not affected by the nature of the liquid neither is it affected by the equipment used to perform the dispensing (center pivot vs mobile vehicle). The motivation to combine these arts are related to aspects of spray/dispensing quality control and has been properly identified in the rejection below.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 with respect to rejection Claim 16 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
With regards to applicant’s argument in pages 14-16 regarding Wolgast in view of Schoeny et al. failing to teach all the limitations of claim 16, examiner agrees. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wolgast (US20140263706A1) in view of Schoeny (US20200196520A1) and further in view of Kocer (US20240306629A1).
Applicant in page 15-16 argues, “In the instant case, the Examiner has provided various features in the cited references and related that feature to the primary reference, thereby improperly disregarding the claimed invention set forth in amended claim 1 "as a whole." Thus, the Office Action says no more than a skilled artisan, once presented with Wolgast and Schoeny et al., would have understood that they could be combined ... [a]nd that is not enough [because] it does not imply a motivation to pick out various features from Wolgast and Schoeny et al. cited references and combine them to arrive at the claimed invention. Because the reasoning in the Office Action fails to explain why a POSITA at the time of the invention would have been motivated to modify Wolgast and Schoeny et al. in the manner proposed in the Office Action to arrive at the claimed invention, the Office should withdraw the § 103 rejection for at least this second, independent reason.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Office action as recited includes a motivation to combine the prior arts (Wolgast and Schoeny et al.). Applicant’s argument fails to specifically point out any deficiency in the recited motivation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schoeny (US20200196520A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Schoeny teaches, An agricultural system comprising:
a product application system including one or more nozzle assemblies; (¶0024 teaches, planter section 15 with a nozzle assembly 73)
a sensing system including at least one flow sensor operably coupled with the product application system and configured to capture data indicative of a velocity of an agricultural product within the product application system; and (¶0026 teaches, wet boom pressure sensors 81 which captures pressure data which is used to determine flow rate therefore the data is indicative of flow rate/ velocity)
the at least one flow sensor positioned at least partially downstream of a portion of a nozzle assembly of the one or more nozzle assemblies; and (Fig. 2 and ¶0026 teaches a pressure sensor 81 is positioned downstream of one of the nozzle assemblies 73 in the wet boom main tubes 67)
a computing system communicatively coupled to the product application system and the sensing system, the computing system being configured to: (Fig. 2 teaches control system 91 connected to control valves and pressure sensors)
calculate a spray quality index based on data from the sensing system; (¶0026 teaches Control system 91 evaluates pressure characteristics such as pressure drops by evaluating signals from pairs of wet boom pressure sensors 81 to determine corresponding application rate (spray quality index))
detect a first pressure drop and a second pressure drop within the product application system based on the data indicative of the velocity of an agricultural product within the product application system within the product application system; and (¶0029 teaches, As represented at block 109, pressure drop is measured across each individual row unit branch 71. The control system 91 does this by evaluating signals of the pressure sensors 55, 81 and comparing appropriate pairs of pressure sensors 55, 81 on opposite sides of each of the row unit branches 71 to determine the pressure drop across each row unit branch 71. ¶0029 also teaches “averaging the observed pressure drops”, therefore it teaches a plurality of pressure drops (first and second pressure drop). ¶0026 teaches data from pressure sensor is indicative of flow rate (velocity))
generate an output based on at least one of the spray quality index and a detection of the first pressure drop and the second pressure drop in the product application system, wherein the output alters a component of the product application system to change an application rate of the agricultural product. (¶0029 teaches control system 91 commands an adjustment to the sectional control valve 53 based on observed pressure drops and identifying any outliers with respect to the average pressure drop calculated by averaging the observed pressure drops for wet boom section 72. ¶0023 teaches sectional control valve 53 delivering liquid fertilizer 27 (FIG. 1) to a respective planter section 15 at a variable rate, which is controlled by adjusting the sectional control valve(s) 53, therefore the application rate is changed based on an adjustment to the sectional control valve)
Regarding claim 3,
Schoeny teaches, The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one flow sensor is operably coupled with a fluid conduit of the product application system. (Schoeny in ¶0023 teaches flow meter 47)
Regarding claim 6,
Schoeny teaches, The system of claim 1, wherein the component is a pump within the product application system. (Schoeny in ¶0030 teaches If the pressure drop is not acceptable, then the control system 91 tries to correct the flow error by adjusting RPM of a pump)
Regarding claim 7,
Schoeny teaches, The system of claim 1, wherein the component is a control valve within the product application system. (Schoeny in ¶0029 teaches control system 91 commands an adjustment to the sectional control valve 53 based on observed pressure drops and identifying any outliers with respect to the average pressure drop for wet boom section 72.)
Regarding claim 8,
Schoeny teaches, The system of claim 1, wherein the component is a control manifold within the product application system. (Schoeny in ¶0029 teaches control system 91 commands an adjustment to the sectional control valve 53 based on observed pressure drops and identifying any outliers with respect to the average pressure drop for wet boom section 72. ¶0023 teaches sectional control valve 53 is part of the manifold assembly 37)
Regarding claim 9,
Schoeny teaches, The system of claim 1, wherein the output displays a notification on a display operably coupled with the computing system. (Schoeny in ¶0030 teaches if the pressure drop is not acceptable, then the control system 91 generates and sends a user alert. The user alert may be, for example, an audible tone accompanied by a visual indication of a flow error or blockage condition through the interface system. ¶0027 teaches The interface system may be an AFS Pro 700 display)
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoeny (US20200196520A1) modified in view of Woestyne (US20210299692A1)
Regarding claim 2,
Schoeny doesn’t explicitly teach, The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more nozzle assemblies are positioned along a boom assembly and configured to selectively dispense an agricultural product therefrom and wherein the spray quality index representing a metric indicative of a spray operation coverage of a portion of a field. (Schoeny in ¶0024 teaches, each of the wet boom row unit branches 71 has a nozzle assembly 73, which may provide the connection mechanism between the wet boom main tube 67 and the wet boom row unit branch 71. Schoeny in ¶0026 teaches, control system 91 determines application rate (spray quality index). However it doesn’t teach, determining a spray quality index that represents a metric indicative of a spray operation coverage of a portion of a field. Woestyne in ¶0092 teaches Spray quality metric logic 354 generates various quality metrics indicative of the performance of the agricultural sprayer system. For example, logic 354 can generate quality metrics indicative of the coverage of pesticide/insecticide on corn silks and/or on pests, as identified by spray application logic 352.)
Woestyne is an art in the area of interest as it teaches, an agricultural sprayer (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Woestyne with Schoeny. One would have been motivated to do so because by doing so one can identify that quality of substance application by the agricultural sprayer system does not meet a quality threshold and generate control signals to adjust the operation of agricultural sprayer system 102, such that substance is applied more accurately, as taught by Woestyne in ¶0094.
Regarding claim 4,
Schoeny doesn’t explicitly teach, The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one flow sensor is operably coupled with at least one of the one or more nozzle assemblies. (Schoeny doesn’t explicitly teach flow sensor is operably coupled with at least one of the one or more nozzle assemblies. Woestyne in ¶0042 teaches sensor(s) 128 include substance operation sensor(s) 236. ¶0051 teaches Substance operation sensor(s) 236 are configured to sense a flow rate of the substance. ¶0032 teaches each vertical spray arm 114 (nozzle assembly) can include a number of spray nozzles 112 and sensors 128-4)
Woestyne is an art in the area of interest as it teaches, an agricultural sprayer (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Woestyne with Schoeny, to include flow sensors operably coupled with at least one of the one or more nozzle assemblies. One would have been motivated to do so because sensor signals can be received by a control system configured to generate control signals to adjust the application of the substance to be sprayed as well as other various operating parameters of sprayer system 102 and doing so would allow spraying the substance more accurately, as taught by Woestyne in ¶0024.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woestyne (US20210299692A1) modified in view of Schoeny (US20200196520A1) and further modified in view of Wolgast (US20140263706A1)
Regarding claim 10,
Woestyne teaches, A method for an agricultural application operation, the method comprising:
exhausting an agricultural product through nozzle assembly of a product application system; (¶0021 teaches a sprayer system to spray fluid through spray nozzles.)
calculating, with a computing system, a spray quality index; (¶0092 teaches Spray quality metric logic 354 generates various quality metrics indicative of the performance of the agricultural sprayer system. For example, logic 354 can generate quality metrics indicative of the coverage of pesticide/insecticide on corn silks and/or on pests, as identified by spray application logic 352.)
receiving, through a sensing system, data indicative of a flow condition within the product application system from …a second sensor within a nozzle assembly and downstream of the flow control device; (¶0032 teaches each vertical spray arm 114 (nozzle assembly) can include a number of spray nozzles 112 and sensors 128-4. ¶0042 teaches sensor(s) 128 include substance operation sensor(s) 236. ¶0051 teaches Substance operation sensor(s) 236 are configured to sense pressure of fluid within the conduits. ¶0021 teaches A fluid pump is configured to pump the liquid from tank 108 through the conduits and through spray nozzles. ¶0059 controllable valves can be placed along the fluid conduit (e.g. extending from the pump to the spray nozzle(s) 112. Therefore it teaches a pressure sensor downstream flow control device (valve) and within vertical spray arm (nozzle assembly))
generating, with the computing system, an output to alter an outlet pressure of the agricultural product from a pump of the product application system based at least in part on the spray quality index (¶0094 teaches For instance, upon determination that the quality of substance application by the agricultural sprayer system does not meet a quality threshold, spray application determination system 351 can generate control signals to adjust the operation of agricultural sprayer system 102. For example, spray application determination system 351 can generate a control signal to control the operation, spray characteristics, position, orientation (e.g., tilt), etc. of the spray nozzle(s) 112 such that they apply the substance to the corn silks more accurately. For instance, system 351 can generate control signals to control pump(s) 270 and/or substance tank(s) 272 to control the pressure at which the substance is sprayed by spray nozzle(s) 112.)
Woestyne doesn’t explicitly teach, receiving, through a sensing system, data indicative of a flow condition within the product application system from a first sensor positioned downstream of the pump and upstream of a flow control device, the flow control device upstream of a flow manifold,…; (Schoeny in ¶0026 teaches receiving data from pressure sensor from 55 and 81. ¶0028 and Fig. 2 teaches pressure sensor 55 is positioned downstream of pump 31 and “between flow meter 47 and control valve assembly 51”, therefore upstream of flow control device (control valve assembly). ¶0026 teaches pressure sensor 81 downstream of control valve assembly. Fig. 2 teaches, the control valves are upstream of manifold outlet tubes 63)
detecting, with the computing system, a presence of one or more pressure drops within the product application system; and (Schoeny in ¶0029 teaches, As represented at block 109, pressure drop is measured across each individual row unit branch 71. The control system 91 does this by evaluating signals of the pressure sensors 55, 81 and comparing appropriate pairs of pressure sensors 55, 81 on opposite sides of each of the row unit branches 71 to determine the pressure drop across each row unit branch 71.)
generating, with the computing system, an output based at least in part on …. the presence of one or more pressure drops within the product application system, the one or more pressure drops determined based on a deviation between the first sensor and the second sensor, (Schoeny in ¶0029 teaches control system 91 commands an adjustment to the sectional control valve 53 to increase flow to the particular wet boom system 61 based on observed pressure drops and identifying any outliers with respect to the average pressure drop calculated by averaging the observed pressure drops for wet boom section 72.)
Schoeny is an art in the area of interest as it teaches a liquid fertilizer distribution system of an agricultural implement (see Abstract). A combination of Schoeny and Woestyne would allow the system to determine pressure drop based on a deviation between a first and second sensor. Woestyne in ¶0051 already teaches the second pressure sensor. Schoeny in ¶0026 teaches a first and the second pressure sensors and ¶0029 teaches determining pressure drop based on the first and second pressure sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Schoeny with Wolgast. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow determining a compromised flow state and achieve an acceptable flow state as taught by Schoeny in ¶0007-¶0009
Woestyne and Schoeny doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein the outlet pressure generated is adjusted based on the following equation: Pa=Po + Pd, wherein Pa is an adjusted pressure of the agricultural product outputted by the pump, Po is the output pressure of the agricultural product outputted by the pump while the one or more pressure drops occur, and Pd is the detected pressure drop within the product application system and wherein Pd is equal to a largest of the one or more pressure drops within the product application system. (Wolgast in ¶0037 teaches detecting a negative pressure deviation based on an actual water pressure being less than the target water pressure. ¶0038 teaches, the control system 40 communicating the water pressure difference to the pump station controller 44 which in turn actuates the pump 42 to increase water production so that the actual water pressure measured at the irrigation system 38 is equal to or approximately equal to the target water pressure associated with the irrigation system 38. ¶0044 teaches, if the control system 40 identifies a negative deviation of five psi and the pre-determined period of time is ten minutes, the control system 40 may instruct the controller 44 to adjust the water production upward at a rate of one-half psi per minute. Therefore, if there is a negative pressure deviation the output of the pump is increased by the pressure deviation (Pd) amount. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation largest of one pressure drop, is the pressure drop itself. Therefore Wolgast teaches, wherein Pd is equal to a largest of the one or more pressure drops within the product application system. )
Wolgast is an art in the area of interest as it teaches, a monitoring system for an agricultural sprayer (see Abstract). A combination of Wolgast with Woestyne and Schoeny would allow the combined system to determine a pressure drop and adjust the pressure according to the claimed equation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Wolgast with Woestyne, Schoeny. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow an irrigation management system to monitor the water pressure in each of a plurality of irrigation systems and automatically adjust the production of a water pump associated with the irrigation systems to address fluctuations in the water pressure, as taught by Wolgast in ¶0006.
Regarding claim 11,
Woestyne, Schoeny and Wolgast teaches, The method of claim 10, further comprising: comparing, with the computing system, the calculated spray quality index to a defined range. (Woestyne in ¶0092 teaches, spray quality comparison logic 356 can compare the identified quality metrics indicative of performance to target/prescribed metrics indicative of target or prescribed performance of the agricultural sprayer system (e.g., target pesticide/insecticide coverage).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woestyne (US20210299692A1) modified in view of Schoeny (US20200196520A1) and further modified in view of Wolgast (US20140263706A1) and further in view Maurer (US20230023035A1).
Regarding claim 13,
Woestyne, Schoeny and Wolgast as combined doesn’t teach, The method of claim 11, wherein generating the output further includes displaying a notification on a display when the spray quality index is within the defined range and one or more pressure drops are detected. (Maurer in ¶0260-¶0261 teaches determining pressure below a target pressure threshold and display icons indicating which spray nozzles have measured pressures lower than the target pressure threshold. ¶0141 and Fig. 7 and 8, GUI 600, GUI 700 teaches displaying a warning icons 360, alarm icons 710 when pressure is below a threshold and ¶0115, Fig. 7 and 8, GUI 600, GUI 700 teaches Spray quality region 601 displays spray quality score information)
Maurer is an art in the area of interest as it teaches, a monitoring system for an agricultural sprayer (see Abstract). A combination of Maurer with Woestyne, Schoeny and Wolgast would allow the combined system to display a notification on a display when the spray quality index is within the defined range and one or more pressure drops are detected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Maurer with Woestyne, Schoeny and Wolgast. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would advantageously allow an operator to determine whether a spray nozzle should be replaced without disassembling spray system 10. An operator applying fluid to a field using spray system 10 can monitor wear of spray nozzles 32 using user interface 154, substantially increasing the ease and efficiency of monitoring spray nozzle wear over conventional techniques, as taught by Maurer in ¶0262.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woestyne (US20210299692A1) modified in view of Schoeny (US20200196520A1) and further modified in view of Wolgast (US20140263706A1) and further in view of Ricketts (US20210022302A1).
Regarding claim 15,
Woestyne, Schoeny and Wolgast teaches, The method of claim 10, further comprising: receiving location data associated with the spray quality index and the presence of one or more pressure drops within the product application system; and correlating the location data to the spray quality index and ….to generate or update a map associated with a field. (Woestyne in ¶0092 teaches, Additionally, spray quality metric logic 354 can provide the quality metrics to model/map generator 378. Generator 378 can correlate the quality metric values to geographic locations and generate a map indicative of a quality of the spraying operation across the field.)
Woestyne, Schoeny and Wolgast doesn’t teach, correlating the location data to …the presence of one or more pressure drops within the product application system. (Ricketts in ¶0059 teaches determining calibration maps based on measured data. ¶0065 teaches calibration maps can also be used to detect abnormally low system water pressures)
Ricketts is an art in the area of interest as it teaches, an irrigation system (see Abstract). A combination of Ricketts with Woestyne, Schoeny and Wolgast would allow the combined system to correlating location data to pressure drops. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Ricketts with Woestyne, Schoeny and Wolgast. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow controlling operation of the irrigation system in accordance with the map to more accurately compensate for the flow rate variations, as taught by Ricketts in ¶0007.
Claim(s) 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolgast (US20140263706A1) in view of Schoeny (US20200196520A1) and further in view of Kocer (US20240306629A1)
Regarding claim 16,
Wolgast teaches, An agricultural system comprising:
a product application system including one or more nozzle assemblies; (¶0024 teaches a plurality of sprinkler heads, spray guns, drop nozzles, or other fluid-emitting devices are spaced along the conduit sections 26A-D to apply water and/or other fluids to an area beneath the irrigation system)
a flow sensor operably coupled with the product application system and configured to capture data indicative of a flow condition within the product application system; and (According to published specification ¶0038 flow sensor can be a pressure sensor. ¶0028 teaches, The water pressure sensor 32 is configured to measure the pressure of water in the irrigation system 10 and to communicate water pressure information to the controller 30. The water pressure sensor 32 may include a pressure transducer that extends through a wall of a pipe section or conduit on which it is mounted and is exposed to the water inside the pipe section.)
a computing system communicatively coupled to the product application system and the flow sensor, the computing system being configured to: (¶0031 teaches control system 40 receives water pressure data and ¶0035 teaches control system 40 adjusts operation of the pump station 36)
detect a first pressure drop…. and a second pressure drop…. based on the data indicative of the flow condition within the product application system; and (¶0042 teaches, control system 40 determines that one or more of the irrigation systems 38 is operating at a negative water pressure deviation, it determines which of the systems 38 is operating at the greatest negative water pressure deviation.. Therefore it teaches determining more than one deviation (first and second pressure drop)
generate a first output based on the detection of the first pressure drop and the second pressure drop in the product application system, wherein the first output includes increasing the pressure of agricultural product transferred through the product application system, to an adjusted pressure from a first pressure, the adjusted pressure defined by a greater difference between the first pressure drop from a first defined pressure and a second pressure drop from a second defined pressure; and (¶0042 teaches, The control system 40 first determines if a negative deviation (an actual water pressure that is less than the target water pressure) exists at one or more of the operating irrigation systems 38. If the control system 40 determines that one or more of the irrigation systems 38 is operating at a negative water pressure deviation, it determines which of the systems 38 is operating at the greatest negative water pressure deviation. The control system 40 then adjusts operation of the pump station 36 to resolve the greatest negative deviation by increasing water production of the pump station 36. The increased production increases pressure in all of the irrigation systems 38 until the greatest negative deviation is resolved.)
Wolgast doesn’t teach, detect a first pressure drop at a first nozzle assembly of the one or more nozzle assemblies and a second pressure drop at a second nozzle assembly of the one or more nozzle assemblies (Schoeny in ¶0026 teaches, detecting pressure drops at a plurality of nozzle assemblies 73)
Schoeny is an art in the area of interest as it teaches a liquid fertilizer distribution system of an agricultural implement (see Abstract). A combination of Schoeny and Wolgast would allow the system to determine pressure drop at a nozzle assembly. Wolgast already teaches determining first and second pressure drops and adjusting in the irrigation system. However it didn’t explicitly teach the pressure drop was detected at nozzle assemblies. Schoeny teaches detecting pressure drop at the nozzle assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Schoeny with Wolgast. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow row by row or per-row error detection and flow rate monitoring and also allow section by section or per-section error detection and flow rate monitoring as taught by Schoeny in ¶0026.
Wolgast and Schoeny doesn’t explicitly teach, generate a second output based on the adjusted pressure causing a spray quality index to deviate from a defined range, the second output including at least one of altering a powertrain control system, a steering system, or a vehicle suspension supporting the product application system. (Kocer in ¶0118 and ¶0119 teaches, autonomous control system that provides automated control via interface 1008, 1020 or 1028 to control vehicle speed based on spray profile deviations from specified spray profile.)
Kocer is an art in the area of interest as it relates to sprayed application of agricultural products (fluid or gaseous) (¶0003). A combination of Kocer with Wolgast and Schoeny would allow providing a second output based on a spray quality index to deviate from a defined range, the second output including altering a powertrain control system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Kocer with Wolgast and Schoeny. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow address uncorrected spray profile deviations to achieve a spray profile that provides adequate coverage to a target, as taught by Kocer in ¶0119.
Regarding claim 19,
Wolgast, Schoeny and Kocer teaches, The agricultural system of claim 16, wherein the flow sensor is positioned within a conduit fluidly coupled with a tank upstream of the one or more nozzle assemblies.. (Wolgast in ¶0028 teaches, The water pressure sensor 32 is configured to measure the pressure of water in the irrigation system 10 and to communicate water pressure information to the controller 30. The water pressure sensor 32 may include a pressure transducer that extends through a wall of a pipe section or conduit on which it is mounted and is exposed to the water inside the pipe section. Fig. 2 shows the pressure sensor mounted on a conduit on a central pivot. ¶0021 teaches, The central pivot 12 has access to a well, water tank. Fig. 1 and ¶0024 teaches, the central pivot is upstream from the nozzle assemblies.)
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolgast (US20140263706A1) in view of Schoeny (US20200196520A1) and further in view of Kocer (US20240306629A1) and further modified in view of Sibley (US20220183208A1).
Regarding claim 18,
Wolgast, Schoeny and Kocer as combined doesn’t teach, The agricultural system of claim 16, wherein the first output includes altering a position of a solenoid to change a volume of the agricultural product provided to the nozzle assembly from a first volume to a second volume. (Sibley in ¶0298 teaches detecting a pressure drop and controlling a solenoid based on determining the pressure drop. ¶0298 teaches, The system may generate instructions to change voltages sent to the solenoid so to maintain the same droplet size and/or fluid volume. The amount by which the solenoid opens each time may be slightly different so as to maintain the same trajectory, volume and/or droplet for the size emitted fluid projectile (thereby accounted for the differences in the psi for each burst or shot of the fluid because the pressure pushing at the wall is different)
Sibley is an art in the area of interest as it teaches, robotic implementation of agricultural activities (see Abstract). A combination of Sibley with Wolgast, Schoeny and Kocer would allow the combined system to generating an output to alter a position of a solenoid to change a volume of the agricultural product provided to the nozzle assembly from a first volume to a second volume when pressure drop is detected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Sibley with Wolgast, Schoeny and Kocer. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow maintaining stream of fluid from the pump to the treatment unit 470 at a desired pressure without pressure drops from the release of pressurized fluid, as taught by Sibley in ¶0142.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolgast (US20140263706A1) in view of Schoeny (US20200196520A1) and further in view of Kocer (US20240306629A1) and further modified in view of Woestyne (US20210299692A1).
Regarding claim 20,
Wolgast, Schoeny and Kocer doesn’t teach, The agricultural system of claim 16, wherein the flow sensor is positioned within the one or more nozzle assemblies. (Woestyne in ¶0042 teaches sensor(s) 128 include substance operation sensor(s) 236. ¶0051 teaches Substance operation sensor(s) 236 are configured to sense a flow rate of the substance. ¶0032 teaches each vertical spray arm 114 (nozzle assembly) can include a number of spray nozzles 112 and sensors 128-4)
Woestyne is an art in the area of interest as it teaches, an agricultural sprayer (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Woestyne with Wolgast, Schoeny and Kocer, to include flow sensors operably coupled with at least one of the one or more nozzle assemblies. One would have been motivated to do so because sensor signals can be received by a control system configured to generate control signals to adjust the application of the substance to be sprayed as well as other various operating parameters of sprayer system 102 and doing so would allow spraying the substance more accurately, as taught by Woestyne in ¶0024.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bremer (US20220272959A1) in ¶0018-¶0019 teaches pressure sensor within a nozzle assembly.)
Feldhaus (US20160368011A1) in ¶0007 teaches, comparing, the determined overlap region with a pre-determined overlap, and taking corrective action automatically by changing the vehicle travel speed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISTIAQUE AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-7087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 10AM -6PM and alternate Fridays.
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, Kenneth M Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/ISTIAQUE AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/CHAD G ERDMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116