DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 16 January 2026 has been entered.
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, 3-5, 7-9, and 11-20 are pending in this application.
Claims 2, 6, and 10 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are amended.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, and 11-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 16 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) second paragraph have been fully considered, and the rejection is withdrawn.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Publication 2013/0219877 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hughes teaches an agricultural system, comprising: a plurality of components including a target component, wherein the target component comprises a hydraulic cylinder; a plurality of valve, wherein each valve of the plurality of valves is configured to control fluid flow to a respective component of the plurality of components to control actuation of the respective component via the fluid flow (Hughes: Para. 27; hydraulic cylinder; supplied with pressurized hydraulic fluid from the pump through the supply valve; fluid from the hydraulic cylinder may be drained into the tank through the drain valve); and a controller comprising a processor and a memory (Hughes: Para. 31; controller may run one or more software programs or applications stored in a memory location), wherein the controller is configured to perform operations comprising: operating the agricultural system in a calibration mode (Hughes: Para. 32; controller may receive input(s) e.g., to calibrate valves), comprising: outputting respective control signals to the plurality of valves to adjust the fluid flows to the plurality of components (Hughes: Para. 32; send out output commands (e.g., current commands) to one or more of the actuators of the valves 24, 26 and 32 for actuating the hydraulic cylinder; one or more of the actuators may apply a varying force to controllably move their respective valve spools to achieve a desired displacement of the valves for controlling fluid flow through the hydraulic cylinder); identifying corresponding actuation of a respective component of the plurality of components caused by the output of each respective control signal (Hughes: Para. 33; the supply valve and the drain valve may be calibrated one at a time); associating a respective valve of the plurality of valves with each respective component of the plurality of components based on the corresponding actuation of the respective component caused by the output of the respective control signal (Hughes: Para. 33; setting a desired fluid flow and a target pressure parameter and adjusting the solenoid current value (of the actuators of the supply and the drain valves) to correspond to the target pressure parameter; values of the adjusted solenoid current, the pump fluid flow output and the target pressure parameter may then be utilized to look-up valve spool displacement and valve spool area from a valve characterization map for accurately controlling the flow of fluid through the supply valve and the drain valve; the supply valve and the drain valve may be calibrated one at a time); and determining a calibration based on associating the association of each respective valve of the plurality of valves with the actuation control of the respective components component (Hughes: Para. 44; determine one calibration point for each of the supply valve and the drain valve; in at least some embodiments, more than one calibration point may need to be determined in order to calibrate those valves; to determine an "X" number of calibration points, the steps 60-72 may be repeated "X" number of times); receiving an indication to actuate a target component of the plurality of components (Hughes: Para. 39; to calibrate the supply valve, both the supply valve and the drain valve may be opened by applying a current to their respective solenoid actuators); and outputting an additional control signal to a valve of the plurality of valves associated with the target component based on the calibration in response to receipt of receiving the indication (Hughes: Para. 42; current command issued by the controller to the supply valve may be gradually reduced to gradually close the supply valve until the valve spool of the supply valve reaches the target pressure parameter), wherein the additional control signal causes the valve associated with the target component to direct the fluid flow to move a piston of the hydraulic cylinder to cause actuation of the target component (Hughes: Para. 42; current command issued by the controller to the supply valve may be gradually reduced to gradually close the supply valve until the valve spool of the supply valve reaches the target pressure parameter).
Regarding claim 3, Hughes teaches the agricultural system of claim 1, comprising a sensor communicatively coupled to the controller and configured to monitor the corresponding actuation each component of the plurality of components, wherein the controller is configured to identify the corresponding actuation of each component of the plurality of components based on data received from the sensor (Hughes: Para. 29; the pressure sensor 48 may be employed to determine the pressure (Ppump) in fluid passageway 52 at the outlet of the pump; the pressure sensor 50 may be employed to determine the pressure (Pport) at the work port 22, which physically connects an outlet port of the supply valve 24 to the hydraulic cylinder and also connects the hydraulic cylinder to an inlet port of the drain valve 26).
Regarding claim 4, Hughes teaches the agricultural system of claim 3, wherein the sensor comprises a position sensor, a pressure sensor, a force sensor, a movement sensor, a flow sensor, or any combination thereof (Hughes: Para. 17; on-board pressure sensors, pump displacement sensors).
Regarding claim 8, Hughes teaches the agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to receive the indication to actuate the target component via a user input (Hughes: Para. 32; controller may receive input(s) (e.g., to calibrate valves, move the implement system, etc.) from an operator and may send out output commands (e.g., current commands) to one or more of the actuators of the valves 24, 26 and 32 for actuating the hydraulic cylinder).
Regarding claim 16, Hughes teaches an agricultural system, comprising: an agricultural implement comprising a plurality of components (Hughes: Para. 27; hydraulic cylinder; supplied with pressurized hydraulic fluid from the pump through the supply valve; fluid from the hydraulic cylinder may be drained into the tank through the drain valve); a work vehicle comprising a fluid reservoir and a plurality of valves, wherein each valve of the plurality of the valves is configured to direct fluid flow between the fluid reservoir and a respective component of the plurality of components to control actuation of the respective component via the fluid flow (Hughes: Para. 23; each of the valves 24 and 26 may be an independent metering valve (IMV) capable of independent operation and configured to communicate fluid between a pump and a tank); a controller configured to perform operations comprising: outputting respective control signals to the plurality of valves to adjust the fluid flows directed between the fluid reservoir and the plurality of components (Hughes: Para. 32; send out output commands (e.g., current commands) to one or more of the actuators of the valves 24, 26 and 32 for actuating the hydraulic cylinder; one or more of the actuators may apply a varying force to controllably move their respective valve spools to achieve a desired displacement of the valves for controlling fluid flow through the hydraulic cylinder); identifying corresponding actuation of a respective component of the plurality of the components caused by the output of each respective control signal (Hughes: Para. 33; the supply valve and the drain valve may be calibrated one at a time); associating a respective valve of the plurality of valves with each respective component of the plurality of components based on the corresponding actuation of the respective component caused by the output of the respective control signal (Hughes: Para. 33; setting a desired fluid flow and a target pressure parameter and adjusting the solenoid current value (of the actuators of the supply and the drain valves) to correspond to the target pressure parameter; values of the adjusted solenoid current, the pump fluid flow output and the target pressure parameter may then be utilized to look-up valve spool displacement and valve spool area from a valve characterization map for accurately controlling the flow of fluid through the supply valve and the drain valve; the supply valve and the drain valve may be calibrated one at a time); determining a calibration based on the association of each respective valve of the plurality of valves with the respective component (Hughes: Para. 44; determine one calibration point for each of the supply valve and the drain valve; in at least some embodiments, more than one calibration point may need to be determined in order to calibrate those valves; to determine an "X" number of calibration points, the steps 60-72 may be repeated "X" number of times); receiving an indication to actuate a target component of the plurality of components (Hughes: Para. 39; to calibrate the supply valve, both the supply valve and the drain valve may be opened by applying a current to their respective solenoid actuators), wherein the target component comprises a hydraulic cylinder (Hughes: Para. 27; hydraulic cylinder); and outputting an additional control signal to a valve of the plurality of valves associated with the target component based on the calibration in response to receiving the indication (Hughes: Para. 42; current command issued by the controller to the supply valve may be gradually reduced to gradually close the supply valve until the valve spool of the supply valve reaches the target pressure parameter), wherein the additional control signal causes the valve associated with the target component to direct the fluid flow to move a piston of the hydraulic cylinder to cause actuation of the target component (Hughes: Para. 42; current command issued by the controller to the supply valve may be gradually reduced to gradually close the supply valve until the valve spool of the supply valve reaches the target pressure parameter).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 9, 12-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Publication 2013/0219877 A1) in view of Salah et al. (US Publication 2023/0167918 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Hughes teaches the agricultural system of claim 1, comprising a fluid reservoir and a plurality of connectors configured to fluidly couple the fluid reservoir to the plurality of components, wherein the plurality of valves are configured to control fluid flow to the plurality of components via the plurality of connectors (Hughes: Para. 23; each of the valves 24 and 26 may be an independent metering valve (IMV) capable of independent operation and configured to communicate fluid between a pump and a tank).
Hughes doesn’t explicitly teach the controller is configured to operate the agricultural system in the calibration mode in response to a detection of an adjustment of an arrangement of the plurality of connectors.
Salah teaches the controller is configured to operate the agricultural system in the calibration mode in response to a detection of an adjustment of an arrangement of the plurality of connectors (Salah: Para. 65; the sensor signals to the controller that the external current supply is faulty).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calibration of a hydraulic valve (Hughes: Para. 7) for a series of four hydraulic valves (Salah: Para. 63) with a reasonable expectation of success because when the calibration has been lost, the valve slide can then be brought selectively into the calibration position so that the position of the valve slide is subsequently known again in the controller (Salah: Para. 24).
Regarding claim 9, Hughes teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by processing circuitry, are configured to cause the processing circuitry to perform operations comprising: operating an agricultural system in a calibration mode, (Hughes: Para. 32; controller may receive input(s) e.g., to calibrate valves), wherein each valve of a plurality of valves is configured to control fluid flow to a respective component of a plurality of components to control actuation of the respective component via the fluid flow (Hughes: Para. 27; hydraulic cylinder; supplied with pressurized hydraulic fluid from the pump through the supply valve; fluid from the hydraulic cylinder may be drained into the tank through the drain valve), wherein operating the agricultural system in the calibration mode comprises; outputting respective control signals to the plurality of valves to adjust the fluid flows to the plurality of components (Hughes: Para. 32; send out output commands (e.g., current commands) to one or more of the actuators of the valves 24, 26 and 32 for actuating the hydraulic cylinder; one or more of the actuators may apply a varying force to controllably move their respective valve spools to achieve a desired displacement of the valves for controlling fluid flow through the hydraulic cylinder); identifying corresponding actuation of a respective component of the plurality of components caused by the output of each respective control signal (Hughes: Para. 33; the supply valve and the drain valve may be calibrated one at a time); associating a respective valve of the plurality of valves with each respective component of the plurality of components based on the corresponding actuation of the respective component caused by the output of the respective control signal (Hughes: Para. 33; setting a desired fluid flow and a target pressure parameter and adjusting the solenoid current value (of the actuators of the supply and the drain valves) to correspond to the target pressure parameter; values of the adjusted solenoid current, the pump fluid flow output and the target pressure parameter may then be utilized to look-up valve spool displacement and valve spool area from a valve characterization map for accurately controlling the flow of fluid through the supply valve and the drain valve; the supply valve and the drain valve may be calibrated one at a time); and determining a calibration based on the association of each respective valve of the plurality of valves with the respective component (Hughes: Para. 44; determine one calibration point for each of the supply valve and the drain valve; in at least some embodiments, more than one calibration point may need to be determined in order to calibrate those valves; to determine an "X" number of calibration points, the steps 60-72 may be repeated "X" number of times); …….. receiving an indication to actuate a target component of the plurality of components of the agricultural system (Hughes: Para. 39; to calibrate the supply valve, both the supply valve and the drain valve may be opened by applying a current to their respective solenoid actuators), wherein the target component comprises a hydraulic cylinder (Hughes: Para. 27; hydraulic cylinder); and outputting an additional control signal to a valve of the plurality of valves associated with the target component based on the calibration in response to receiving the indication (Hughes: Para. 42; current command issued by the controller to the supply valve may be gradually reduced to gradually close the supply valve until the valve spool of the supply valve reaches the target pressure parameter), wherein the additional control signal causes the valve associated with the target component to direct the fluid flow to move a piston of the hydraulic cylinder to cause actuation of the target component (Hughes: Para. 42; current command issued by the controller to the supply valve may be gradually reduced to gradually close the supply valve until the valve spool of the supply valve reaches the target pressure parameter).
Hughes doesn’t explicitly teach operating the agricultural system in a normal operating mode, comprising.
However Salah, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches operating the agricultural system in a normal operating mode, comprising (Salah: Para. 63; pilot control unit is supplied with power during normal operation via an external current supply).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calibration of a hydraulic valve (Hughes: Para. 7) for a series of four hydraulic valves (Salah: Para. 63) with a reasonable expectation of success because when the calibration has been lost, the valve slide can then be brought selectively into the calibration position so that the position of the valve slide is subsequently known again in the controller (Salah: Para. 24).
Regarding claim 12, Hughes doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, are configured to cause the processing circuitry to operate the agricultural system in the calibration mode in response to receiving a user input, sensor data indicative of an operating parameter of the agricultural system, or both.
However Salah, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, are configured to cause the processing circuitry to operate the agricultural system in the calibration mode in response to receiving a user input, sensor data indicative of an operating parameter of the agricultural system, or both (Salah: Para. 24; a calibration is lost due to slippage in the actuator/motor and the current position of the valve slide is not exactly known in a controller).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calibration of a hydraulic valve (Hughes: Para. 7) for a series of four hydraulic valves (Salah: Para. 63) with a reasonable expectation of success because when the calibration has been lost, the valve slide can then be brought selectively into the calibration position so that the position of the valve slide is subsequently known again in the controller (Salah: Para. 24).
Regarding claim 13, Hughes doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, are configured to cause the processing circuitry to perform operations comprising: receiving a request indicative of suspending operation of the agricultural system in the calibration mode; and suspending operation of the agricultural system in the calibration mode in response to receiving the request.
However Salah, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, are configured to cause the processing circuitry to perform operations comprising: receiving a request indicative of suspending operation of the agricultural system in the calibration mode (Salah: Para. 24; a stepper motor is used in the actuator/motor, where a loss of step may also occur; in such a situation where the calibration has been lost, the valve slide can then be brought selectively into the calibration position); and suspending operation of the agricultural system in the calibration mode in response to receiving the request (Salah: Para. 24; brought selectively into the calibration position so that the position of the valve slide is subsequently known again in the controller; the deactivation position is preferably also a calibration position, which is actuated or can be actuated with the valve slide for calibration).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calibration of a hydraulic valve (Hughes: Para. 7) for a series of four hydraulic valves (Salah: Para. 63) with a reasonable expectation of success because when the calibration has been lost, the valve slide can then be brought selectively into the calibration position so that the position of the valve slide is subsequently known again in the controller (Salah: Para. 24).
Regarding claim 17, Hughes teaches the agricultural system of claim 16, wherein the controller is configured to perform operations comprising: ……… identifying corresponding actuation of a first component of the plurality of components in response to output of the first control signal to the first valve (Hughes: Para. 33; the supply valve and the drain valve may be calibrated one at a time); ………. associating the first valve with the first component based on the corresponding actuation of the first component in response to the output of the first control signal to the first valve (Hughes: Para. 33; setting a desired fluid flow and a target pressure parameter and adjusting the solenoid current value (of the actuators of the supply and the drain valves) to correspond to the target pressure parameter; values of the adjusted solenoid current, the pump fluid flow output and the target pressure parameter may then be utilized to look-up valve spool displacement and valve spool area from a valve characterization map for accurately controlling the flow of fluid through the supply valve and the drain valve; the supply valve and the drain valve may be calibrated one at a time).
Hughes doesn’t explicitly teach outputting a first control signal of the respective control signals to a first valve of the plurality of valves and a second control signal of the respective control signals to a second valve of the plurality of valves; ……. identifying corresponding actuation of a second component of the plurality of components in response to output of the second control signal to the second valve; ……….. associating the second valve with the second component based on the corresponding actuation of the second component in response to output of the second control signal to the second valve; and determining the calibration based on the association of the first valve with the first component and the association of the second valve with the second component.
However Salah, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches outputting a first control signal of the respective control signals to a first valve of the plurality of valves and a second control signal of the respective control signals to a second valve of the plurality of valves (Salah: Para. 63; four hydraulic valves, each of which is assigned an actuator which is set up to move the valve slide; data supply line provides signals for controlling the valves); ……. identifying corresponding actuation of a second component of the plurality of components in response to output of the second control signal to the second valve (Salah: Para. 25; the position marker can be detected with the controller and the actuator based on an anomaly in the displacement-force relationship or the force curve of the movement of the valve slide; position markers are possible that are detected or sensed with appropriate sensors); ……….. associating the second valve with the second component based on the corresponding actuation of the second component in response to output of the second control signal to the second valve (Salah: Para. 63; four hydraulic valves, each of which is assigned an actuator which is set up to move the valve slide; data supply line provides signals for controlling the valves); and determining the calibration based on the association of the first valve with the first component and the association of the second valve with the second component (Salah: Para. 24, 63; a calibration is lost due to slippage in the actuator/motor and the current position of the valve slide is not exactly known in a controller; four hydraulic valves, each of which is assigned an actuator which is set up to move the valve slide).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calibration of a hydraulic valve (Hughes: Para. 7) for a series of four hydraulic valves (Salah: Para. 63) with a reasonable expectation of success because when the calibration has been lost, the valve slide can then be brought selectively into the calibration position so that the position of the valve slide is subsequently known again in the controller (Salah: Para. 24).
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Publication 2013/0219877 A1) in view of Sibley et al. (US Publication 2022/0118555 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hughes doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the plurality of valves comprises an electro-hydraulic remote valve.
However Sibley, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the plurality of valves comprises an electro-hydraulic remote valve (Sibley: Para. 141; compute unit can calculate a direction, orientation, and pressurization of the treatment unit such that when the treatment unit activates and opens a valve; remote commands from a user).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calibration of a hydraulic valve (Hughes: Para. 7) adding the remotely user controlled four fluid tanks, four pumps and four separate solenoid valves (Sibley: Para. 141, 206) with a reasonable expectation of success because an autonomous agricultural treatment vehicle system moving along a path that detects and sprays a weed with weed killer from one tank and distributes nutrients to the remaining crops in a controlled manner from a second tank is described in Sibley (Sibley: Para. 135).
Regarding claim 19, Hughes doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the work vehicle comprises a first plurality of flow paths configured to enable fluid flow into and out of the fluid reservoir, the agricultural implement comprises a second plurality of flow paths configured to enable fluid flow into and out of the plurality of components, and the agricultural system comprises a plurality of connectors fluidly coupling the first plurality of flow paths and the second plurality of flow paths to one another to enable fluid flow between the fluid reservoir and the plurality of components.
However Sibley, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the work vehicle comprises a first plurality of flow paths configured to enable fluid flow into and out of the fluid reservoir (Sibley: Para. 206; four pumps may be utilized, each of which can be fluidly interconnected with a respective tank and a separate solenoid valve), the agricultural implement comprises a second plurality of flow paths configured to enable fluid flow into and out of the plurality of components (Sibley: Para. 206; four pumps may be utilized, each of which can be fluidly interconnected with a respective tank and a separate solenoid valve), and the agricultural system comprises a plurality of connectors fluidly coupling the first plurality of flow paths and the second plurality of flow paths to one another to enable fluid flow between the fluid reservoir and the plurality of components (Sibley: Para. 141, 206; one chemical tank, a chemical pump, a chemical regulator, a chemical and a chemical accumulator, in series, linking connecting a pathway for a desired chemical or liquid to travel; four pumps may be utilized, each of which can be fluidly interconnected with a respective tank and a separate solenoid valve).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calibration of a hydraulic valve (Hughes: Para. 7) adding the remotely user controlled four fluid tanks, four pumps and four separate solenoid valves (Sibley: Para. 141, 206) with a reasonable expectation of success because an autonomous agricultural treatment vehicle system moving along a path that detects and sprays a weed with weed killer from one tank and distributes nutrients to the remaining crops in a controlled manner from a second tank is described in Sibley (Sibley: Para. 135).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Publication 2013/0219877 A1) in view of Salah et al. (US Publication 2023/0167918 A1) and in further view of Sibley et al. (US Publication 2022/0118555 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hughes and Salah don’t explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, are configured to cause the processing circuitry to transition from the calibration mode to the normal operating mode upon determining the calibration.
However Sibley, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, are configured to cause the processing circuitry to transition from the calibration mode to the normal operating mode upon determining the calibration (Sibley: Para. 274, Fig. 20; step 2080, the agricultural observation and treatment system can realign the treatment unit; step 2090, the agricultural observation and treatment system can active treatment unit).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calibration of a hydraulic valve (Hughes: Para. 7) for a series of four hydraulic valves (Salah: Para. 63), and adding the remotely user controlled four fluid tanks, four pumps and four separate solenoid valves (Sibley: Para. 141, 206) with a reasonable expectation of success because an autonomous agricultural treatment vehicle system moving along a path that detects and sprays a weed with weed killer from one tank and distributes nutrients to the remaining crops in a controlled manner from a second tank is described in Sibley (Sibley: Para. 135).
Claim 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Publication 2013/0219877 A1) in view of Salah et al. (US Publication 2023/0167918 A1), in view of Sibley et al. (US Publication 2022/0118555 A1), and in further view of Wu et al. (US Publication 2019/0150357 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Hugues and Salah don’t explicitly teach determining whether an external object is within a threshold distance of the agricultural system.
However Sibley, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining whether an external object is within a threshold distance of the agricultural system (Sibley: Para. 210-211; determine the target object to be a weed; emit the projectile fluid in a stream-like manner where the fluid is kept together in a stream to impact a target object in a focused area).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calibration of a hydraulic valve (Hughes: Para. 7) for a series of four hydraulic valves (Salah: Para. 63), and adding the remotely user controlled four fluid tanks, four pumps and four separate solenoid valves (Sibley: Para. 141, 206) with a reasonable expectation of success because an autonomous agricultural treatment vehicle system moving along a path that detects and sprays a weed with weed killer from one tank and distributes nutrients to the remaining crops in a controlled manner from a second tank is described in Sibley (Sibley: Para. 135).
Hughes, Salah, and Sibley don’t explicitly teach operating the agricultural system in the calibration mode in response to a determination that there is no external object within the threshold distance of the agricultural system.
However Wu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches operating the agricultural system in the calibration mode in response to a determination that there is no external object within the threshold distance of the agricultural system (Wu: Para. 186; Distances from the image sensor (e.g. camera) to the target area are calibrated before operating the agricultural vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calibration of a hydraulic valve (Hughes: Para. 7) for a series of four hydraulic valves (Salah: Para. 63), adding the remotely user controlled four fluid tanks, four pumps and four separate solenoid valves (Sibley: Para. 141, 206), and calibrating the system in relationship to a known distance to a number of targets (Wu: Para. 186) with a reasonable expectation of success because calibrating the agricultural vehicle before operating the spray vehicle would prevent unwanted fluid to be sprayed on the crops of interest (Wu: Para. 145, 162).
Regarding claim 15, Hughes and Salah don’t explicitly teach determining whether an external object is within a threshold distance of the agricultural system.
However Sibley, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining whether an external object is within a threshold distance of the agricultural system (Sibley: Para. 210-211; determine the target object to be a weed; emit the projectile fluid in a stream-like manner where the fluid is kept together in a stream to impact a target object in a focused area).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calibration of a hydraulic valve (Hughes: Para. 7) for a series of four hydraulic valves (Salah: Para. 63), and adding the remotely user controlled four fluid tanks, four pumps and four separate solenoid valves (Sibley: Para. 141, 206) with a reasonable expectation of success because an autonomous agricultural treatment vehicle system moving along a path that detects and sprays a weed with weed killer from one tank and distributes nutrients to the remaining crops in a controlled manner from a second tank is described in Sibley (Sibley: Para. 135).
Hughes, Salah, and Sibley don’t explicitly teach blocking operation of the agricultural system in the calibration mode in response to a determination that there is an external object within the threshold distance of the agricultural system.
However Wu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches blocking operation of the agricultural system in the calibration mode in response to a determination that there is an external object within the threshold distance of the agricultural system (Wu: Para. 186).
The agricultural vehicle’s spray system calibrates before it moves into operation due to a switching of vehicle implements (Wu: Para. 162, 186). This prevents unwanted fluid to be sprayed on the crops of interest (Wu: Para. 145, 162). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to block calibration while the vehicle was in the operation zone.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calibration of a hydraulic valve (Hughes: Para. 7) for a series of four hydraulic valves (Salah: Para. 63), adding the remotely user controlled four fluid tanks, four pumps and four separate solenoid valves (Sibley: Para. 141, 206), and calibrating the system in relationship to a known distance to a number of targets (Wu: Para. 186) with a reasonable expectation of success because calibrating the agricultural vehicle before operating the spray vehicle would prevent unwanted fluid to be sprayed on the crops of interest (Wu: Para. 145, 162).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Publication 2013/0219877 A1) in view of Salah et al. (US Publication 2023/0167918 A1), and in further view of Wu et al. (US Publication 2019/0150357 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Hughes doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to perform operations comprising: outputting a third control signal of the respective control signals to a third valve of the plurality of valves.
However Salah, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller is configured to perform operations comprising: outputting a third control signal of the respective control signals to a third valve of the plurality of valves (Salah: Para. 63; four hydraulic valves, each of which is assigned an actuator which is set up to move the valve slide; data supply line provides signals for controlling the valves).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calibration of a hydraulic valve (Hughes: Para. 7) for a series of four hydraulic valves (Salah: Para. 63) with a reasonable expectation of success because when the calibration has been lost, the valve slide can then be brought selectively into the calibration position so that the position of the valve slide is subsequently known again in the controller (Salah: Para. 24).
Hughes and Salah don’t explicitly teach determining that corresponding actuation of a third component of the plurality of components caused by the output of the third control signal to the third valve is below a threshold degree of actuation; and outputting a notification to inspect a fluid connection between the third component and the fluid reservoir in response to the determination that the corresponding actuation of the third component is below the threshold degree of actuation.
However Wu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining that corresponding actuation of a third component of the plurality of components caused by the output of the third control signal to the third valve is below a threshold degree of actuation (Wu: Para. 150; f the green wire analog signal does not satisfy even the minimal threshold, no further processing is performed; The determination of no actuation is an actuation determination); and outputting a notification to inspect a fluid connection between the third component and the fluid reservoir in response to the determination that the corresponding actuation of the third component is below the threshold degree of actuation (Wu: Para. 131, 185; alert the operator e.g. different alert levels indicate severity of the problem; identified patterns e.g. change height of cultivator shanks and disks, release spray).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calibration of a hydraulic valve (Hughes: Para. 7) for a series of four hydraulic valves (Salah: Para. 63), and calibrating the system in relationship to a known distance to a number of targets (Wu: Para. 186) with a reasonable expectation of success because calibrating the agricultural vehicle before operating the spray vehicle would prevent unwanted fluid to be sprayed on the crops of interest (Wu: Para. 145, 162).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Publication 2013/0219877 A1), in view of Sibley et al. (US Publication 2022/0118555 A1), and in further view of Salah et al. (US Publication 2023/0167918 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Hughes and Sibley don’t explicitly teach wherein the plurality of valves is disposed along the first plurality of flow paths.
However Salah, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the plurality of valves is disposed along the first plurality of flow paths (Salah: Para. 63; a hydraulic valve module according to the invention with, in this example, four hydraulic valves, each of which is assigned an actuator which is set up to move the valve slide, not shown here, of the corresponding hydraulic valve).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calibration of a hydraulic valve (Hughes: Para. 7) adding the remotely user controlled four fluid tanks, four pumps and four separate solenoid valves (Sibley: Para. 141, 206) for a series of four hydraulic valves (Salah: Para. 63) with a reasonable expectation of success because when the calibration has been lost, the valve slide can then be brought selectively into the calibration position so that the position of the valve slide is subsequently known again in the controller (Salah: Para. 24).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 16 January 2026, with respect to claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, and 11-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E LINHARDT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8325. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TR, M-F: 8am-4pm.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663