DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed October 15th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 12-22 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 15th, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12-13, 16-17, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funseth et al. (US 20150375247 A1) in view of Schrader et al. (US 20190321844 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Funseth discloses a sprayer control system (500, Fig. 1) for applying an agricultural product (“fluid”, Paragraph 0075) using a plurality of nozzles (502, 100, Figs. 1-2) separated into subgroups (100, each nozzle 100 has a local nozzle controller that controls the valves of each nozzle, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0073), the sprayer control system (500, Fig. 1) comprising:
a processing system (600, Fig. 2) including a master node (620, Fig. 2) and a plurality of electronic control units (ECUs) (“microcontroller”, “local nozzle controller”, “local circuit”, each individual nozzle 100 has a local nozzle controller or local circuit to generate signals to operate their actuators and valves, Paragraphs 0073, 0102) in communication with the master node (620, master spray controller sends a command to each individual nozzle 100 to operate its actuators and corresponding valve, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0102), the processing system (600, Fig. 2) configured to regulate a supply of the agricultural product to the plurality of nozzles (502, 100, machine control 600 is an operator’s central computer that controls activity of many types of signal inputs, such as the master spray controller 620, and the machine control 600 and master spray controller 620 sends a command to each individual nozzle 100 to operate its actuators and corresponding valve, which includes controlling the spray to be at a desired flow rate or a desired pressure, Figs. 1-2, Paragraphs 0072, 0102);
the processing system (600, Fig. 2) configured to provide a phase delay (746, 748, Fig. 11B) for actuation of a first subgroup (100, Fig. 2) of the plurality of nozzles (502, 100, Figs. 1-2) and a second subgroup (100, Fig. 2) of the plurality of nozzles (502, 100, each nozzle 100 operation is determined by parameters such as a phase shift between pulses to open and close the valves within a single nozzle 100, and a collective operation is also determined including the phase shift between the valve operation mode for adjacent nozzles 100, Figs. 1-2, Paragraph 0112);
the processing system (600, Fig. 2) configured to determine at least one subgroup time delay (valves 30, 32, 34 within each nozzle 100 operate on a duration or frequency of a pulse signal that is varied or modulated with respect to time (period T), or a duty cycle, shown in Figs. 3A-4A, Paragraphs 0077, 0080) for separating actuation of nozzles (502, 100, Figs. 1-2) within the first subgroup (100, Fig. 2) and the second subgroup (100, Fig. 2), the at least one subgroup time delay (shown in Figs. 3A-4A) being determined based on one or more vehicle speed values and a total number of the plurality of nozzles (control can be automated making dynamic decisions and modulating pulse widths that take into account factors such as speed of nozzle or vehicle travel, and the number of nozzles 100 and the total number of control valves of each nozzle 100 operating is also considered, Paragraphs 0068, 0073, 0109, 0112, 0155); and
the processing system (600, Fig. 2) being configured to actuate the nozzles (502, 100, Figs. 1-2) to dispense the agricultural product (machine control 600 is an operator’s central computer that controls activity of many types of signal inputs, such as the master spray controller 620, and the machine control 600 and master spray controller 620 sends a command to each individual nozzle 100 to operate its actuators and corresponding valve to selectively spray a fluid, Paragraphs 0072, 0075, 0102), the processing system (600, Fig. 2) is configured to:
actuate successive nozzles (502, 100, Figs. 1-2) in the first subgroup (100, Fig. 2) and successive nozzles (502, 100, Figs. 1-2) in the second subgroup (100, Fig. 2) using the at least one subgroup time delay (valves 30, 32, 34 of each nozzle 100 operate on a duration or frequency of a pulse signal that is varied or modulated with respect to time (period T), or a duty cycle, shown in Figs. 3A-4A, Paragraphs 0077, 0080) for each nozzle of the successive nozzles (502, 100, Figs. 1-2) within each subgroup (100, time delay is determined from a duration or frequency of a pulse signal that is varied or modulated with respect to time (period T), or a duty cycle, shown in Figs. 1-4A, Paragraphs 0077, 0080, 0112).
However, Funseth does not explicitly disclose the processing system is configured to actuate the first subgroup of the plurality of nozzles and the second subgroup of the plurality of nozzles in succession using the phase delay between the first subgroup of the plurality of nozzles and the second subgroup of the plurality of nozzles, and actuate successive nozzles in the first subgroup and successive nozzles in the second subgroup using the at least one subgroup time delay for each nozzle of the successive nozzles within each subgroup, wherein the at least one subgroup time delay is determined separately from the phase delay. Schrader teaches a sprayer control system (10, Fig. 1) comprising the processing system (110, 318, Figs. 3-4) is configured to:
actuate the first subgroup of the plurality of nozzles and the second subgroup of the plurality of nozzles in succession using the phase delay between the first subgroup of the plurality of nozzles and the second subgroup of the plurality of nozzles (controller 318 is communicatively connected to electrically actuated nozzle assemblies 34, which may be grouped into a first sub-set of nozzle assemblies and a second sub-set of nozzle assemblies each coupled to a valve assembly 36, and the controller 318 is configured to determine a phase offset to separate subsets of nozzle assemblies 134, 136, 138, 140 into phases to permit the first sub-set of nozzle assemblies 134, 138 actuated in a first phase and the second sub-set of nozzle assemblies 136, 140 actuated in a second phase separated from actuation of the first phase by the phase offset, Paragraphs 0036-0038, 0046-0048); and
actuate successive nozzles in the first subgroup and successive nozzles in the second subgroup using the at least one subgroup time delay for each nozzle of the successive nozzles within each subgroup (valve assembly 36 of nozzle assemblies 134, 136, 138, 140 may be pulsed according to a duty cycle and a cycle time, Paragraph 0049), wherein the at least one subgroup time delay is determined separately from the phase delay (sub-phase offset may be determined based on dividing the cycle time by the number of plurality of valves, determined based on the number of active nozzle assemblies, or determined based on characteristics of fluid flow, Paragraph 0049).
Funseth and Schrader are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sprayer control systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the processing system taught in Schrader’s system to Funseth’s system, to have the processing system is configured to actuate the first subgroup of the plurality of nozzles and the second subgroup of the plurality of nozzles in succession using the phase delay between the first subgroup of the plurality of nozzles and the second subgroup of the plurality of nozzles, and actuate successive nozzles in the first subgroup and successive nozzles in the second subgroup using the at least one subgroup time delay for each nozzle of the successive nozzles within each subgroup, wherein the at least one subgroup time delay is determined separately from the phase delay. Doing so improves the operating efficiency and control of agricultural dispensing systems including phased valves (Schrader, Paragraphs 0007-0008).
In regards to claim 13, Funseth, as modified by Schrader, discloses the sprayer control system of claim 12. Funseth further discloses the processing system (600, Fig. 2) is configured to determine the at least one subgroup time delay (shown in Figs. 3A-4A) based on the one or more vehicle speed values, the total number of the plurality of nozzles, and a set distance (control can be automated making dynamic decisions and modulating pulse widths that take into account factors such as speed of nozzle or vehicle travel and the nozzle distance relative to a spray target (distance D), the number of nozzles 100 and the total number of control valves of each nozzle 100 operating is also considered, Paragraphs 0068, 0071, 0073, 0109, 0112).
Regarding claim 16, Funseth, as modified by Schrader, discloses the sprayer control system of claim 13. Funseth further discloses the one or more vehicle speed values includes a current speed of a vehicle (microcontroller processes data from sensors such as the speedometer of the vehicle, which would indicate a current speed of a vehicle, shown in Fig. 11B, Paragraph 0102).
With respect to claim 17, Funseth, as modified by Schrader, discloses the sprayer control system of claim 16. Schrader further teaches the processing system (110, 318, Figs. 3-4) is configured to determine the at least one subgroup time delay by dividing the set distance by the product of the current speed of the vehicle and the total number of the plurality of nozzles (134, 136, 138, 140, each valve assembly 36 of nozzle assemblies 134, 136, 138, 140 may be pulsed using a duty cycle and a cycle time, and controller 318 may determine a sub-phase offset by dividing the cycle time by the number of plurality of valve sub-sets of each nozzle assemblies 134, 136, 138, 140, or the number of active nozzle assemblies, or the phase and sub-phase offsets may be determined in any manner that enables the fluid dispensing apparatus to function, which can include a set distance and a current speed of the vehicle, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0049).
Regarding claim 21, Funseth, as modified by Schrader, discloses the sprayer control system of claim 12. Funseth further discloses the at least one subgroup time delay (valves 30, 32, 34 operate on a duration or frequency of a pulse signal that is varied or modulated with respect to time (period T), or a duty cycle, shown in Figs. 3A-4A, Paragraphs 0077, 0080) includes a common subgroup time delay (each nozzle 100 has specific operating parameters including a duty cycle of each valve within a single nozzle 100, shown in Fig. 11B, Paragraph 0112), and the processing system (600, Fig. 2) is configured to actuate successive valves (30, 32, 34, Figs. 3-4) in the first subgroup (100, Fig. 2) and successive valves (30, 32, 34, Figs. 3-4) in the second subgroup (100, Fig. 2) includes using the common subgroup time delay for the successive valves in each of the first and second subgroups (each nozzle 100 operation is selected by parameters including the phase shift between pulses to open and close the valves within a single nozzle 100, and a collection operation is further determined including the phase shift between valve operation mode for the adjacent nozzles 100, and special sequences for spraying are set by programming inputs, Paragraph 0112).
In regards to claim 22, Funseth, as modified by Schrader, discloses the sprayer control system of claim 21. Schrader further teaches the processing system (110, 318, Figs. 3-4) is configured to determine the common subgroup time delay (controller 318 can determine a sub-phase offset within each of the first sub-set and the second sub-set, all of the valves within a respective group of valves are actuated in unison or simultaneously, Paragraph 0048) by:
determining an initial subgroup time delay by dividing a set distance by the product of a current or maximum vehicle speed value and the total number of the plurality of nozzles (134, 136, 138, 140, each valve assembly 36 of nozzle assemblies 134, 136, 138, 140 may be pulsed using a duty cycle and a cycle time, and controller 318 may determine a sub-phase offset by dividing the cycle time by the number of plurality of valve sub-sets of each nozzle assemblies 134, 136, 138, 140, or the number of active nozzle assemblies, or the phase and sub-phase offsets may be determined in any manner that enables the fluid dispensing apparatus to function, which can include a set distance and a maximum vehicle speed, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0049); and
determining the common subgroup time delay by subtracting a processing delay from the initial subgroup time delay (the phase and sub-phase offsets may be determined in any manner that enables the fluid dispensing apparatus to function, which can include determining the common subgroup time delay by subtracting a processing delay from the initial subgroup time delay, Paragraph 0049).
Claims 14-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funseth et al. (US 20150375247 A1) in view of Schrader et al. (US 20190321844 A1) as applied to claims 12-13 above, and further in view of Cook et al. (US 20220142043 A1).
In regards to claim 14, Funseth, as modified by Schrader, discloses the sprayer control system of claim 13. However, Funseth and Schrader do not teach the one or more vehicle speed values includes a set maximum speed. Cook teaches a sprayer control system (1, Fig. 1) comprising the one or more vehicle speed values includes a set maximum speed (maximum speed is considered to apply each product correctly, Paragraph 0066).
Funseth, Schrader, and Cook are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sprayer control systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the set maximum speed taught in Cook’s system to Funseth’s system, as modified by Schrader, to have the one or more vehicle speed values includes a set maximum speed. Doing so improves the spray application of the product (Cook, Paragraph 0066).
With respect to claim 18, Funseth, as modified by Schrader, discloses the sprayer control system of claim 13. Funseth further discloses the one or more vehicle speed values includes a current speed of a vehicle (microcontroller processes data from sensors such as the speedometer of the vehicle, which would indicate a current speed of the vehicle, shown in Fig. 11B, Paragraph 0102). However, Funseth and Schrader do not teach the one or more vehicle speed values includes a minimum speed value. Cook teaches a sprayer control system (1, Fig. 1) comprising the one or more vehicle speed values includes a minimum speed value (user can set a minimum spray speed and a minimum effective speed, Paragraphs 0062, 0066).
Funseth, Schrader, and Cook are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sprayer control systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the minimum speed value taught in Cook’s system to Funseth’s system, as modified by Schrader, to have the one or more vehicle speed values includes a current speed of a vehicle and a minimum speed value. Doing so improves the ability to spray accurately at slower speeds and notify the user when to not apply a product (Cook, Paragraphs 0062, 0066).
With respect to claim 19, Funseth, as modified by Schrader and Cook, discloses the sprayer control system of claim 18. Schrader further teaches the processing system (110, 318, Figs. 3-4) is configured to determine the at least one subgroup time delay (controller 318 can determine the sub-phase offset, Paragraph 0049) by:
determining a current delay time by dividing the set distance by the product of the current speed of the vehicle and the total number of the plurality of nozzles (134, 136, 138, 140, a sub-phase offset can be determined by dividing the cycle time by the number of plurality of valve sub-sets of each nozzle assemblies 134, 136, 138, 140, or the number of active nozzle assemblies, and the phase and sub-phase offsets may be determined in any manner that enables the fluid dispensing apparatus to function, which can include a set distance and a current speed, controller 318 may receive travel speed information from a speed input device to be used to determine the sub-phase offset, Fig. 4, Paragraphs 0049, 0052); and
determining a maximum delay time by dividing the set distance by the product of the minimum speed value and the total number of the plurality of nozzles (36, a sub-phase offset can be determined by dividing the cycle time by the number of plurality of valve sub-sets of each nozzle assemblies 134, 136, 138, 140, or the number of active nozzle assemblies, and the phase and sub-phase offsets may be determined in any manner that enables the fluid dispensing apparatus to function, which can include a set distance and a minimum speed value, and using a minimum speed value would determine a maximum delay time that the system can operate, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0049).
Cook further teaches using the maximum delay time (user can set a minimum spray speed and a minimum effective speed, which determines a maximum delay time, Paragraphs 0062, 0066) for the at least one subgroup time delay (“system calibration”, Paragraph 0066) when the current delay time is greater than the maximum delay time (at a speed below the minimum effective speed, which determines a time greater than the maximum delay time, the system does not permit the operator to apply a product, and the user must at least have the system speed be at the minimum effective speed, and the maximum delay time, to operate the system to apply a product, Paragraphs 0062, 0066), and
using the current delay time (user can obtain current speed data using various sources, which determines a current delay time, Paragraphs 0015, 0064) for the at least one subgroup time delay (“system calibration”, Paragraph 0066) when the current delay time is not greater than the maximum delay time (user can set a minimum spray speed and a minimum effective speed, which determines a maximum delay time and serves as a threshold to operate the system to apply a product, and as long as the current speed and the current delay time are above this threshold, the user can operate the system to apply a product, Paragraphs 0062, 0066).
In regards to claim 20, Funseth, as modified by Schrader and Cook, discloses the sprayer control system of claim 19. Cook further teaches the minimum speed value is determined based on tip volume per minute and tip pressure (a target application flow rate can be set, which determines a minimum speed the system can operate at to produce the desired flow rate of the spray tips, and an adequate pressure may be set, which determines a minimum speed the system can operate to produce the desired pressure of the spray tips, Paragraphs 0053-0054, 0061).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12-22 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to a sprayer control system: Smith, Ebertseder, Klubertanz, Kocer, Kinch, Thompson, Cain, Rees, Hunter, Henderson, Tofte, Boyd, Beaujot, Query, and Schulte.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752