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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/24/2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
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 1-4, 14 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crinklaw et al. (US Pub No 2018/0160672 A1) in view of Erdmann et al. (CN 107110601 A). All citations to Crinklaw unless specified otherwise.
Re claim 1, Crinklaw et al. show a robotic vehicle (Fig. 2) comprising:
a chassis (200) supporting a storage tank (218) in which an aqueous solution is contained;
a mobility assembly (202a-202d) operably coupled to the chassis to provide mobility for the robotic vehicle about a service area;
a positioning module (236) configured to provide guidance for the robotic vehicle during transit of the robotic vehicle over the service area;
a spray assembly (217) operably coupled to the storage tank to spray the aqueous solution during the transit of the robotic vehicle over the service area; and
control circuitry (300) operably coupled (Fig. 3) to the spray assembly (via 312, 314) and positioning module (via 352), the control circuitry being configured to adjust characteristics of the spray assembly or speed of the mobility assembly to control an amount of the aqueous solution applied to the service area (paragraph 0052),
wherein the spray assembly comprises a nozzle interface (228), disposed in a slot (see annotated figure), is configured to measure a pressure (312/314) of a nozzle of the spray assembly to determine a flow rate of the aqueous solution (paragraph 0055),
wherein the nozzle (228/232) defines a terminal outlet (232; paragraph 0049) of the spray assembly through which the aqueous solution is discharged directly to the service area (paragraphs 0049 & 0090), and
wherein the nozzle (228/232) is disposed in a continuous flow path extending between the storage tank (212) and the terminal outlet (232; paragraph 0049).
PNG
media_image1.png
870
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Crinklaw et al. does not teach the nozzle interface comprising contacts for enabling electrical interface with a nozzle and that is configured to measure a differential pressure across an orifice of a known diameter of a nozzle.
However, Erdmann et al. show a nozzle interface comprising contacts for enabling electrical interface with a nozzle and that is configured to measure a differential pressure (Fig. 8, 112) across an orifice of a known diameter of a nozzle (paragraphs 0089 & 0090).
The substitution of one known element (pressure sensor in Crinklaw) for another (differential pressure gauge as shown in Erdmann) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the differential pressure gauge shown in Erdmann et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, a pressure detection in Crinklaw et al. to detect a pressure (Crinklaw – paragraph 0055; Erdmann – paragraph 0089).
Re claim 2, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. show a pump (220) to provide pressure for spraying the aqueous solution, and wherein the control circuitry is configured to maintain a constant pressure of the pump while adjusting the speed of the mobility assembly to control the amount of aqueous solution applied at a given portion of the service area (paragraph 0055).
Re claim 3, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. show a pump (220) to provide pressure for spraying the aqueous solution, and wherein the control circuitry is configured to maintain a constant speed of the mobility assembly while adjusting pressure of the pump to control the amount of aqueous solution applied at a given portion of the service area (paragraph 0055).
Re claim 4, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. show a pump (220) to provide pressure for spraying the aqueous solution, and wherein the control circuitry is configured to adjust both a pressure of the pump and the speed of the mobility assembly to control the amount of aqueous solution applied at a given portion of the service area (paragraph 0055).
Re claim 14, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. disclose a spray pattern of the spray assembly is adjustable (paragraph 0049).
Re claim 18, Crinklaw et al. show a spray assembly for a robotic vehicle (Figs. 2 & 3), the spray assembly comprising:
a pump (220) operably coupled to a storage tank (212) in which an aqueous solution is contained;
a nozzle (228/232) operably coupled to the storage tank via the pump to generate a spray pattern for spraying the aqueous solution responsive to operation of the pump as the robotic vehicle transits a service area; and
a flow controller (300) comprising processing circuitry,
wherein the flow controller is configured to adjust characteristics of the pump or speed of the robotic vehicle to control an amount of the aqueous solution applied to the service area (paragraph 0055)
wherein the spray assembly comprises a nozzle interface (228), disposed in a slot (see annotated figure), is configured to measure a pressure (312/314) of a nozzle of the spray assembly to determine a flow rate of the aqueous solution (paragraph 0055),
wherein the nozzle (228/232) defines a terminal outlet (232; paragraph 0049) of the spray assembly through which the aqueous solution is discharged directly to the service area (paragraphs 0049 & 0090), and
wherein the nozzle (228/232) is disposed in a continuous flow path extending between the storage tank (212) and the terminal outlet (232; paragraph 0049).
Crinklaw et al. does not teach the nozzle interface comprising contacts for enabling electrical interface with a nozzle and that is configured to measure a differential pressure across an orifice of a known diameter of a nozzle.
However, Erdmann et al. show a nozzle interface comprising contacts for enabling electrical interface with a nozzle and that is configured to measure a differential pressure (Fig. 8, 112) across an orifice of a known diameter of a nozzle (paragraphs 0089 & 0090).
The substitution of one known element (pressure sensor in Crinklaw) for another (differential pressure gauge as shown in Erdmann) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the differential pressure gauge shown in Erdmann et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, a pressure detection in Crinklaw et al. to detect a pressure (Crinklaw – paragraph 0055; Erdmann – paragraph 0089).
Re claim 19, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. disclose the flow controller is configured to maintain a constant pressure of the pump while adjusting the speed of the robotic vehicle to control the amount of aqueous solution applied at a given portion of the service area (paragraph 0055).
Re claim 20, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. disclose the flow controller is configured to maintain a constant speed of the robotic vehicle while adjusting pressure of the pump to control the amount of aqueous solution applied at a given portion of the service area (paragraph 0055).
Re claim 21, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al.disclose the flow controller is configured to 10 adjust both a pressure of the pump and the speed of the robotic vehicle to control the amount of aqueous solution applied at a given portion of the service area (paragraph 0055).
Re claim 22, Crinklaw et al. show a robotic vehicle (Fig. 2) comprising:
a chassis (200) supporting a storage tank (218) in which an aqueous solution is contained;
a mobility assembly (202a-202d) operably coupled to the chassis to provide mobility for the robotic vehicle about a service area;
a positioning module (236) configured to provide guidance for the robotic vehicle during transit of the robotic vehicle over the service area;
a spray assembly (217) operably coupled to the storage tank to spray the aqueous solution during the transit of the robotic vehicle over the service area; and
control circuitry (300) operably coupled (Fig. 3) to the spray assembly (via 312, 314) and positioning module (via 352), the control circuitry being configured to adjust characteristics of the spray assembly or speed of the mobility assembly to control an amount of the aqueous solution applied to the service area (paragraph 0052),
wherein the spray assembly comprises a nozzle interface (228) configured to measure a pressure (312/314) of a nozzle of the spray assembly to determine a flow rate of the aqueous solution (paragraph 0055),
wherein the spray assembly comprises a pump (220) to provide pressure for spraying the aqueous solution,
wherein the control circuitry is configured to adjust both a pressure of the pump and the speed of the mobility assembly to control the amount of aqueous solution applied at a given portion of the service area (paragraph 0055), and
wherein a shape or width of a spray pattern of the spray assembly is adjustable by adjusting pump speed (paragraph 0055).
Crinklaw et al. does not teach the nozzle interface is configured to measure a differential pressure across an orifice of a known diameter of a nozzle, and wherein the control circuitry comprises a calibration module, the calibration module receiving and recording the differential pressure measured to automatically calibrate to respond to changes in flow rate of the nozzle at all times.
However, Erdmann et al. show a nozzle interface is configured to measure a differential pressure (Fig. 8, 112) across an orifice of a known diameter of a nozzle (paragraphs 0089 & 0090) and a calibration module, the calibration module receiving and recording the differential pressure measured to automatically calibrate to respond to changes in flow rate of the nozzle at all times (paragraphs 0030, 0034, 0035 and 0037).
The substitution of one known element (pressure sensor in Crinklaw) for another (differential pressure gauge as shown in Erdmann) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the differential pressure gauge shown in Erdmann et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, a pressure detection in Crinklaw et al. to detect a pressure (Crinklaw – paragraph 0055; Erdmann – paragraph 0089) and calibrate the device for a predetermined product (paragraph 0037).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crinklaw et al. (US Pub No 2018/0160672 A1) in view of Erdmann et al. (CN 107110601 A) and further in view of Culbertson et al. (US Pat No 4,385,217).
Re claim 6, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach the nozzle interface further comprises a reed switch or micro-switch operably coupled to a component in a flow path of the aqueous solution exiting the nozzle to positively confirm flow of the aqueous solution from the nozzle via a feedback signal provided to the control circuitry.
However, Culbertson et al. show a nozzle interface (Fig. 1) further comprising a micro-switch (50) operably coupled to a component (40) in a flow path (26) of a liquid solution to positively confirm flow of the liquid solution via a feedback signal provided to control circuitry (col. 3, lines 37-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the system of Crinklaw et al. with the microswitch taught by Culbertson et al. to provide an output that indicates whether the pressure in the system is greater or less than a selected pressure (Culbertson – col. 3, lines 51-53).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crinklaw et al. (US Pub No 2018/0160672 A1) in view of Erdmann et al. (CN 107110601 A) and further in view of Stupp (WO 2015/036096 A1).
Re claim 7, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach the control circuitry comprises a calibration module, the calibration module receiving and recording the differential pressure measured to monitor for changes in flow rate of the nozzle over time.
However, Stupp teaches control circuitry comprising a calibration module, the calibration module receiving and recording data measured to monitor for changes in flow rate of the nozzle over time (abstract; p. 6, lines 25-35 through p. 7, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the control circuitry of Crinklaw et al. to include a calibration module as taught by Stupp to automatically calibrate the measuring specification of the unit (Stupp – abstract).
Re claim 8, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdman et al. and Stupp disclose the calibration module is configured to compare a measured flow rate to a calculated flow rate to calibrate the spray assembly (Stupp – abstract).
Re claim 9, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. and Stupp disclose the calculated flow rate is determined based on a time taken to empty the storage tank from a first reference fill level to a second reference fill level (Stupp - p. 8, lines 21-27).
Re claim 10, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach the control circuitry comprises a calibration module configured to compare a measured flow rate of a flow meter to a calculated flow rate to calibrate the spray assembly.
However, Stupp teaches the control circuitry comprises a calibration module configured to compare a measured flow rate of a flow meter to a calculated flow rate to calibrate the spray assembly (abstract; p. 6, lines 25-35 through p. 7, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the control circuitry of Crinklaw et al. to include a calibration module as taught by Stupp to automatically calibrate the measuring specification of the unit (Stupp – abstract).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crinklaw et al. (US Pub No 2018/0160672 A1) in view of Erdmann et al. (CN 107110601 A) and further in view of Choi (JP 2007520638 A).
Re claim 11, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention including a pump (Crinklaw – 220) to provide pressure for spraying the aqueous solution, but does not teach wherein the spray assembly comprises a nozzle interface configured to enable the nozzle to be rotated about an axis substantially parallel to a ground surface to adjust a direction of a spray pattern generated by the spray assembly.
However, Choi teaches the spray assembly comprises a nozzle interface configured to enable the nozzle (Figs. 10 & 11, 7e) to be rotated about an axis substantially parallel to a ground surface to adjust a direction of a spray pattern generated by the spray assembly (paragraph 0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the system of Crinklaw et al. with the nozzle interface of Choi to perform uniform spraying over the entire area to be sprayed (Choi – paragraph 0034).
Re claim 12, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach a pressure of the pump changes as an amount of rotation of the nozzle increases.
However, Choi teaches a pressure of the pump changes as an amount of rotation of the nozzle increases (paragraph 0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the system of Crinklaw et al. with the nozzle rotation taught by Choi to increase efficiency (Choi – paragraph 0005).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crinklaw et al. (US Pub No 2018/0160672 A1) in view of Erdmann et al. (CN 107110601 A) and further in view of Zhao et al. (CN 109420575 A).
Re claim 13, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach the aqueous solution is a deicing solution.
However, Zhao et al. show a robotic vehicle including an aqueous solution which is a deicing solution (paragraph 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the system of Crinklaw et al. to include deicing solution as taught by Zhao et al. to spray snow-removing agent cleaning for roads (Zhao – paragraph 0009).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crinklaw et al. (US Pub No 2018/0160672 A1) in view of Erdmann et al. (CN 107110601 A) and further in view of Dahlstrom (US Pat No 10,011,352 B1).
Re claim 16, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach the control circuitry is configured to receive weather forecast information and determine solution application estimates including a start time and density of application of the aqueous solution on the service area based on the weather forecast information.
However, Dahlstrom discloses a robotic vehicle with control circuitry that is configured to receive weather forecast information and determine solution application estimates including a start time and density of application of the aqueous solution on the service area based on the weather forecast information (col. 17, lines 47-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the control circuitry of Crinklaw et al. to receive weather forecast information as taught by Dahlstrom in order to determine when to apply a subsequent spray or initiate specific actions (Dahlstrom – col. 17, lines 53-54).
Re claim 17, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. and Dahlstrom disclose the control circuitry is further configured to receive local weather data from a sensor network of the robotic vehicle during the transit of the robotic vehicle over the service area, and determine an adjustment to the solution application estimates based on the local weather data (Dahlstrom – col. 17, lines 56-61).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument of newly amended claims 1 & 18, applicant points to paragraph 0047 of Crinklaw with specific regard to “delivery duct 232” and states that it’s an intermediary of the nozzle, however, this is better described in paragraph 0049 where Crinklaw explicitly states “..by way of forcing a predetermined volume of air into the spray nozzles outlet delivery duct 232” which in essence describes duct 232 as part of the spray nozzles 228. Thus the spray nozzle is in fact made up of both elements 228 and 232 as component 232 is clearly merely an extension of 228. Further, paragraph 0090 explicitly states “the rear dispersal fan 230 housing and delivery duct 232 of modified ADV 110 can be configured to completely spray two adjacent rows of vines…” thus establishing that the nozzle, 228, defines a terminal outlet, 232, of the spray assembly through which the aqueous solution is discharged directly to the service area (“two adjacent rows of vines”) and furthermore that the nozzle, 228, is disposed in a continuous flow path extending between the storage tank, 212, and the terminal outlet, 232, as now required by the claim.
Regarding applicant’s argument directed at the Erdmann reference, applicant points to the second part of the amendment, specifically “wherein the nozzle is disposed in a continuous flow path extending between the storage tank and the terminal outlet” and states that because Erdmann uses an upstream bypass line to measure the pressure differential and therefore does not equate to a “continuous flow path” as required, however this ignores the aspect of Erdmann which still includes a main fluid communication between the ”distribution point 30” and the “spray drying chamber 46,” thus conceptually a continuous flow path still exists. However, going even further than that, the idea that a bypass line does not or cannot equate to a continuous flow path would appear to be erroneous as the setup in Erdmann demonstrates that the bypass line is still in communication with the rest of the system. In other words, the bypass line does not dump the fluid elsewhere, it circulates the fluid back to the main flow line to ultimately be discharged which is still a “continuous flow path” as required.
Lastly, in response to applicant's argument that the differential pressure in Erdmann is done in a bypass line, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding applicant’s arguments of newly amended claim 22, as can be seen above Erdmann actually teaches control circuitry which comprises a calibration module, the calibration module receiving and recording the differential pressure measured to automatically calibrate to respond to changes in flow rate of the nozzle at all times. This is directly discussed in paragraphs 0030, 0034, 0035 and 0037. Paragraph 0030 explicitly describes the automatic control of the spray nozzle so that the atomization can be performed within design constraints which helps to produce a better and more consistent process performance. Paragraph 0034 states that control of the spray nozzle occurs due to the on-line determination of the shear viscosity, while paragraph 0035 explicitly states that the on-line differential pressure drop measurement device allows on-line recording of the product shear viscosities and that on-line shear viscosity information is necessary to operate the spray nozzle in order to determine the optimal point configuration of the sprayer. Also stated is that the on-line differential pressure measurement device allows calibration of the shear viscosity of Newtonian and especially non-Newtonian shear-thinning fluids based on laboratory rheometers. Paragraph 0037 echoes this. Thus, Erdmann demonstrates control circuitry which comprises a calibration module that receives and records the differential pressure in order to automatically calibrate in response to changes in flow rate of the nozzle at all times.
Regarding applicant’s argument of claim 7, as stated above, Stupp is not relied upon to teach differential pressure measurement. Stupp is utilized to demonstrate a calibration module which receives and records data in order to monitor changes in the flow rate of the nozzle over time.
In light of these remarks, all prior art rejections shall be maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-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 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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights