Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/591,952

SMART SPRAYER SYSTEMS AND METHODS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 03, 2022
Examiner
HEDRICK, TYLER DEAN
Art Unit
2115
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
92%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 92% — above average
92%
Career Allow Rate
77 granted / 84 resolved
+36.7% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+16.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
103
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
16.3%
-23.7% vs TC avg
§103
59.1%
+19.1% vs TC avg
§102
15.4%
-24.6% vs TC avg
§112
7.5%
-32.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 84 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Status of Claims Claims 1-3 are pending in the application. Claims 4-25 have been withdrawn from consideration. Response to Amendment The amendment filed December 20th, 2022 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al. (WO 2017/178666 A1, foreign translation provided in previous office action) in view of Booher et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0156100 A1) and Wonderlich et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0037519 A1). Regarding Claim 1: Perez et al. teaches a computer-implemented method for controlling a sprayer used for spraying an agricultural area, the computer-implemented method comprising: ... classifying, via the one or more computer processors, one or more active spray zones of the one or more spray zones to be activated in response to the one or more active spray zones having at least one of a height for the plurality of points satisfying a height requirement or a number of points for the plurality of points satisfying a point number requirement; (Page 12, detection and identification of plant species is performed to determine whether and which agrochemicals should be sprayed, height measurements of the crops are taken in real time) and for each of the one or more active spray zones determining, via the one or more computer processors, a delay to execute an activation of the active spray zone based at least in part on a speed of the sprayer …, (Page 16-17, speed of the spray vehicle is used to determine the moment of activation) and after an amount of time based at least in part on the delay, triggering the activation of the active spray zone to cause spraying of at least a portion of the range of the agricultural area. (Page 16-17, corresponding valve is activated to spray the agrochemical) Perez et al. does not teach filtering, via one or more computer processors, one or more light detection and ranging (LiDAR) readings collected from a scan of the agricultural area to obtain a plurality of points pertaining to objects located inside a defined range of the agricultural area; classifying, via the one or more computer processors and based on the one or more LiDAR readings, the plurality of points into one or more spray zones and a cycle time for the valve used in the active spray zone. However, Booher et al. teaches filtering, via one or more computer processors, one or more light detection and ranging (LiDAR) readings collected from a scan of the agricultural area to obtain a plurality of points pertaining to objects located inside a defined range of the agricultural area; (Paragraph [0009], calculate in real time whether an object is within a pre-defined distance from the spray nozzle using LiDAR sensor; Additionally Paragraph [0070], maximum sensed horizontal distance away from the spray nozzles) classifying, via the one or more computer processors and based on the one or more LiDAR readings, the plurality of points into one or more spray zones. (Paragraph [0079], sense and record location of spray region) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Perez et al.'s determining whether and how much to spray crops automatically with Booher et al.'s LiDAR sensor in order to determine the spraying of crops using a lidar sensor. One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to have a smart sprayer that is inexpensive and easy to implement (Booher et al. Paragraph [0010]). The combination of Perez et al. and Booher et al. does not teach determining, via the one or more computer processors, a delay to execute an activation of the active spray zone based at least in part on … a cycle time for the valve used in the active spray zone. However, Wonderlich et al. teaches determining, via the one or more computer processors, a delay to execute an activation of the active spray zone based at least in part on … a cycle time for the valve used in the active spray zone. (Paragraph [0050] and [0051], time delay between when the control signal controls the valve to open or close and when the pressure signal indicates that the valve is actually opened or closed (can be based on the general valve characteristics) is measured and then used to determine when the valves should be actuated to dispense liquid material where desired) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Perez et al. and Booher et al.’s determining the spraying of crops using a lidar sensor with Wonderlich et al.’s determining a time delay based on valve characteristics in order to spray the correct area at the correct time when taking into account valve characteristics. One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to ensure material is sprayed where desired (Wonderlich et al. Paragraph [0051]). Regarding Claim 2: The combination of Perez et al., Booher et al. and Wonderlich et al. additionally teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the delay is determined based at least in part on a distance between a LiDAR sensor used in obtaining the one or more LiDAR readings minus a spray buffer before the active spray zone. (Perez et al. Page 16-17, speed of the spray vehicle and the distance from the chamber to the ground are used to determine the moment of activation) Regarding Claim 3: The combination of Perez et al., Booher et al. and Wonderlich et al. additionally teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein a duration of time for the activation of the active spray zone is determined as a spray buffer after the active spray zone plus a spray buffer before the active spray zone, and wherein the duration of time is further determined based at least in part on the speed of the sprayer. (Perez et al. Page 16-17, speed of the spray vehicle and the distance from the chamber to the ground are used to determine the moment of activation ensuring that the agrochemical only applies to the identified plant) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER DEAN HEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-5803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm. 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, Thomas Lee can be reached at (571) 272-3667. 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. /T.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2115 /VINCENT H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 03, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 16, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 21, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 24, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 01, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12580073
METHOD OF IDENTIFYING DENTAL CONSUMABLES EQUIPPED INTO A DENTAL TOOL MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12556001
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING A PLURALITY OF POWER GENERATORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12547145
HUMAN ACTION RECOGNITION AND ASSISTANCE TO AR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12538449
ELECTRONIC APPARATUS, DYNAMIC CONTROL HEAT DISSIPATION METHOD AND DYNAMIC HEAT DISSIPATION CONTROL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12517498
ANALYSIS APPARATUS, ANALYSIS METHOD AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
92%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+16.7%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 84 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month