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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the specification fails to provide support for the term “wherein each of the cameras captures a first image when the nozzles are off and a second image when the nozzles are on and subtracts the first image from the second image to eliminate background light from the image”. The specification in paragraph [0030] does state that the off image can be subtracted from the on image, but it does not say that the cameras do this subtracting. In the applicants invention, is it the cameras that do the subtracting, or some sort of control device?
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanhope (2021/0308708) in view of Amazonen-Werke DE 102016109406 A1) further in view of Farina (2004/0131243)
Regarding claim 1, Stanhope shows a spraying system comprising: a boom (46) having a first end, a middle, and a second end (fig 1); a plurality of nozzles (38) disposed on the boom; a plurality of cameras (104) disposed on the boom and positioned to each view a subset of the plurality of nozzles; wherein the plurality of cameras comprises only a first camera (104 on the right half of the boom) disposed at the middle of the boom (see marked up fig below) and positioned to view half of the boom extending from the first end of the boom to the middle of the boom (see marked up fig below) and a second camera (104 on the left half of the boom) disposed at the middle of the boom (see marked up fig below) and positioned to view half of the boom extending from the second of the boom to the middle of the boom(see marked up fig below).
But fails to disclose a plurality of lights disposed on the boom and positioned to each illuminate a subset of the plurality of nozzles.
Amazonen-Werke teaches lights attached toa spray boom with one light for each spray nozzle [0045]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to add a light for each spray nozzle to the boom of Stanhope, in order to allow for the spray to be illuminated at night.
The above combination still fails to disclose wherein each of the cameras captures a first image when the nozzles are off and a second image when the nozzles are on and subtracts the first image from the second image to eliminate background light from the image.
However, Farina teaches a method of analyzing image data representative of a sequential set of spray images of a spray plume where the system automatically subtracts the first frame of the sequence (i.e., prior to any spray droplets being ejected from the spray nozzle) from images in the time-average, thus removing that static (or common) portions of each image, resulting in a much more clear and accurate time-average. For example, the spray nozzle is constant and does not vary from image to image. By subtracting the first image from the rest of the images, the nozzle is essentially removed from the image [0056].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to program each of the cameras to capture a first image when the nozzles are off and a second image when the nozzles are on and subtract the first image from the second image in order to remove the nozzle from the image as taught by Farina [0056].
PNG
media_image1.png
514
1102
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, wherein each camera is disposed to view an equal number of nozzles (fig 3, each camera 104 views 2 nozzles 38).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the plurality of lights comprises a first light and a second light disposed at the middle of the boom (Amazonen-Werke teaches more than 1 light) with the first light positioned to illuminate from the middle of the boom towards the first end of the boom and with the second light positioned to illuminate from the middle of the boom towards the second end of the boom (each light illuminates to all sides of the light).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the plurality of lights comprises two lights with one light disposed at the first end of the boom and the second light disposed at the second end of the boom (Amazonen-Werke) with the first light positioned to illuminate from the first end of the boom towards the middle of the boom, and the second light positioned to illuminated from the second end of the boom towards the middle (each light illuminates to all sides of the light)
Regarding claim 7, wherein a number of lights is equal to a number of nozzles, and each light is disposed to illuminate one nozzle (Amazonen-Werke).
Claim(s) 1 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (2019/0150357) in view of Amazonen-Werke DE 102016109406 A1) further in view of Farina (2004/0131243).
Regarding claim 1, Wu et al shows a spraying system comprising: a boom (204) having a first end, a middle, and a second end (fig 2); a plurality of nozzles (inherent on a spray boom) disposed on the boom; a plurality of cameras (50 and 52) disposed on the positioned to each view a subset of the plurality of nozzles (fig 2); wherein the plurality of cameras comprises only a first camera (50, 52 on the right) disposed at the middle of the boom (fig 2) and positioned to view half of the boom extending from the first end of the boom to the middle of the boom (fig 2, the camera is rotatable and moves up and down to view half the boom)) and a second camera (50,52 on the left) disposed at the middle of the boom (fig 2) and positioned to view half of the boom extending from the second of the boom to the middle of the boom (fig 2, the camera is rotatable and moves up and down to view half the boom)
But fails to disclose that the cameras are mounted on the boom.
Wu et al teaches a different embodiments as shown in figure 3 and other figures where the cameras are mounted to the boom itself.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to mount the two cameras to the boom itself rather than the tractor cab in order to be able to swap out the tractors and still use the same boom more easily.
The above combination still fails to disclose a plurality of lights disposed on the boom and positioned to each illuminate a subset of the plurality of nozzles.
Amazonen-Werke teaches lights attached to a spray boom with one light for each spray nozzle [0045]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to add a light for each spray nozzle to the boom of Wu et al, in order to allow for the spray to be illuminated at night.
The above combination still fails to disclose wherein each of the cameras captures a first image when the nozzles are off and a second image when the nozzles are on and subtracts the first image from the second image to eliminate background light from the image.
However, Farina teaches a method of analyzing image data representative of a sequential set of spray images of a spray plume where the system automatically subtracts the first frame of the sequence (i.e., prior to any spray droplets being ejected from the spray nozzle) from images in the time-average, thus removing that static (or common) portions of each image, resulting in a much more clear and accurate time-average. For example, the spray nozzle is constant and does not vary from image to image. By subtracting the first image from the rest of the images, the nozzle is essentially removed from the image [0056].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to program each of the cameras to capture a first image when the nozzles are off and a second image when the nozzles are on and subtract the first image from the second image in order to remove the nozzle from the image as taught by Farina [0056].
Regarding claim 4, wherein each camera is disposed to view an equal number of nozzles (fig 3, each camera 50 views the nozzles on each half of the boom assuming there are equal numbers of nozzles on each half of the boom).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the plurality of lights comprises a first light and a second light disposed at the middle of the boom (Amazonen-Werke teaches more than 1 light) with the first light positioned to illuminate from the middle of the boom towards the first end of the boom and with the second light positioned to illuminate from the middle of the boom towards the second end of the boom (each light illuminates to all sides of the light).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the plurality of lights comprises two lights with one light disposed at the first end of the boom and the second light disposed at the second end of the boom (Amazonen-Werke) with the first light positioned to illuminate from the first end of the boom towards the middle of the boom, and the second light positioned to illuminated from the second end of the boom towards the middle (each light illuminates to all sides of the light)
Regarding claim 7, wherein a number of lights is equal to a number of nozzles, and each light is disposed to illuminate one nozzle (Amazonen-Werke).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the plurality of cameras comprises two cameras disposed at the middle of the boom and each positioned to view half of the boom (see marked up fig below) and wherein a number of lights is equal to a number of nozzles (Amazonen-Werke), and each light is disposed to illuminate one nozzle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 4-7 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
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 JASON J BOECKMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-2708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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 Hall can be reached on (571) 270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON J BOECKMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 1/26/2026