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
Amendment filed 3/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 3-5, 12-13 are cancelled and pending claims 1-2, 6-11 are addressed below.
Previous Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species group 5 (figure 26) filed 10/20/2025 is acknowledged.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahe (DE102016109406A1) in view of Serrat (US 20220256832).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Rahe discloses a system comprising:
a boom (16; see figure 2);
a first nozzle assembly (one of the nozzle 15 and light) attached to the boom;
a second nozzle assembly (another nozzle 15 and light spaced away from the first assembly and second assembly) attached to the boom and separated from the first nozzle assembly by a space;
a third nozzle assembly (another nozzle 15 and light spaced away from the second assembly) attached to the boom and separated from the first nozzle assembly by a space (see annotation) and separated from the second nozzle assembly by a space (see annotation),
wherein each of the first, second, and third nozzle assemblies comprise at least one light (par. 45: “a series of light sources for separate illumination of each individual spray fan 18 may be provided, as is known from the prior art for visual monitoring…These light sources…are then typically assigned to each individual spray nozzle 15 and are arranged for this purpose in the vicinity of the latter on the boom 16”);
PNG
media_image1.png
394
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Figure 1 (Rahe)
Rahe does not teach the first nozzle assembly includes at least a first light and a second light, the first light disposed to illuminate a spray from the second nozzle assembly and the second light disposed to illuminate a spray from the third nozzle assembly. Rahe does teach that each nozzle is assigned light source for illuminating each individual spray fan (par. 45).
Serrat discloses a system with lighting and imaging system having a first nozzle assembly, second nozzle assembly, and third nozzle assembly (as annotated below), each assembly having three lights 410i, 420i, and 430i (par. 45-46). The first nozzle assembly includes at least a first light (430i; see annotation below) and a second light (420i; see annotation below), the first light disposed to illuminate the adjacent area aligned with the second nozzle assembly and the second light disposed to illuminate the adjacent area aligned with the third nozzle assembly (as annotated below). Paragraph 47 further indicates the advantage is for each scene/targeted area to receive light from at least two light sources such that the images obtained from the targeted area have a uniform light density (par. 58).
Considering the advantage of uniform and homogenous lighting for better image captured described in Serrat’s paragraphs 45-48 and 58, a person of ordinary in the art would have had the technological capabilities to assess the similar advantages on illuminating the adjacent targeted areas, i.e. spray fans of Rahe, including better lighting for improved image capture for spray monitoring as mentioned in paragraph 45.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rahe to incorporate the teachings of Serrat to provide the first nozzle assembly includes at least a first light and a second light, the first light disposed to illuminate a spray from the second nozzle assembly and the second light disposed to illuminate a spray from the third nozzle assembly. Doing so would provide for better lighting and improved image capture and precision in spray monitoring.
PNG
media_image2.png
738
905
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Figure 2 (Serrat)
Serrat discloses a comparable system having a spray boom 100 with nozzles 110 (fig. 2), attached to a plurality of light sources 40i/400i, which includes light 410, 420, and 430 (see annotation below). The lights 420 and 430 are directed toward adjacent area associated with adjacent nozzles (par. 45). The light arrangement is provided to improve image quality being monitored by the cameras 210 (par. 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rahe to incorporate the teachings of Serrat to provide the first nozzle assembly includes at least a first light and a second light, the first light disposed to illuminate a spray from the second nozzle assembly and the second light disposed to illuminate a spray from the third nozzle assembly. Since Rahe’s system relies on lighting and camera 21 for monitoring the spray fan (par. 19), modifying the lighting configuration in view of Serrat would improving the lighting for better image quality (as suggested by Serrat in paragraph 6) to enhance precision in spray monitoring.
Regarding claim 2, Rahe, as modified above, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the nozzle assembly comprises two lights (as modified in view of Serrat above, each nozzle assembly of Rahe would have at least two lights, if not three).
Regarding claim 5, Rahe, as modified above, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first nozzle assembly (one of the nozzle 15 shown in fig. 2 and its associated light), the second nozzle assembly (another one of the nozzle 15 and its associated light), and a nozzle (another one of the nozzle 15 and its associated light) are attached to the boom.
Regarding claims 7-8, Rahe discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first nozzle assembly comprises a nozzle and two light combination with a first light being disposed to illuminate an adjacent nozzle for a first side of the first nozzle assembly (claim 7; illuminating the second nozzle, Rahe as modified in view of Serrat); and a second light of the first nozzle assembly being disposed to illuminate an adjacent nozzle for a second opposing side of the first nozzle assembly (claim 8; illuminating the third nozzle, Rahe as modified in view of Serrat).
Claims 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahe (DE102016109406A1) in view of Serrat (US 20220256832), further in view of Stanhope (US 20210308708).
Regarding claim 9, Rahe discloses the system of claim 1, but fails to teach the system further comprising: a first camera attached to the boom, the first camera is disposed to capture images of the first and second nozzle assemblies; and a second camera attached to the boom, the second camera is disposed to capture images of other nozzle assemblies that are attached to the boom (Rahe shows only one camera 21, fig. 2, for spray fan monitoring; par. 19).
PNG
media_image3.png
558
695
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Figure 3 (Stanhope)
However, Stanhope discloses a comparable system having one or more cameras 104 (fig. 3) attached to the boom disposed to capture images of the first and second nozzle assemblies 38 (see annotation below). Paragraph 30 discloses “one or more imaging devices 104 may be installed on the sprayer 10. In general, the imaging device(s) 104 may be configured to capture image data depicting the spray fans 54 dispensed by one or more of the nozzles 38 mounted on the boom assembly 24”. Such disclosure is understood to encompass another one of cameras 104, not shown in the figures, intended to monitor spray fans 54 of other nozzles 38 not yet captured by the annotated camera 104 in examiner’s annotated figure 4.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rahe to incorporate the teachings of Stanhope to provide the system further comprising: a first camera attached to the boom, the first camera is disposed to capture images of the first and second nozzle assemblies; and a second camera attached to the boom, the second camera is disposed to capture images of other nozzle assemblies that are attached to the boom. Providing multiple cameras, with a dedicated camera for every one or two nozzles so would enhance precision of the spray monitoring, compared to a single camera monitoring the entire boom, to ensure target application rate and spray quality is maintained (Stanhope, paragraph 20).
Regarding claims 10-11, Rahe discloses the system of claim 1, but fails to teach at least one camera attached to the boom (claim 10); wherein the camera is disposed to capture images of a spray pattern of the nozzle of the first assembly (claim 11; Rahe shows only one camera 21 not mounted on the boom, fig. 2, for spray fan monitoring; par. 19).
However, Stanhope discloses a comparable system having one or more cameras 104 (fig. 3) attached to the boom disposed to capture images of the first and second nozzle assemblies 38 (see annotation below). Paragraph 30 discloses “one or more imaging devices 104 may be installed on the sprayer 10. In general, the imaging device(s) 104 may be configured to capture image data depicting the spray fans 54 dispensed by one or more of the nozzles 38 mounted on the boom assembly 24”.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rahe to incorporate the teachings of Stanhope to provide at least one camera attached to the boom (claim 10); wherein the camera is disposed to capture images of a spray pattern of the nozzle of the first assembly (claim 11). Providing multiple cameras mounted on the boom, with a dedicated camera for every one or two nozzles so would enhance precision of the spray monitoring, compared to a single camera not mounted on the boom monitoring the entire boom, to ensure target application rate and spray quality is maintained (Stanhope, paragraph 20).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument against Posselius is moot since the rejection is removed.
Argument against Rahe in view of Serrat (Remarks page 5): Rahe does not disclose a light source that is part of a nozzle assembly or a nozzle assembly that includes a light positioned to illuminate spray fan from another nozzle assembly. Serrat does not disclose a nozzle assembly with a spray nozzle and a light source.
This is found not persuasive. The current claim language only requires that the “first nozzle assembly includes at least a first light and a second light disposed to illuminate…”. There is no specific claim limitation specifying how the nozzle and light are connected, just that the claimed assemblies are attached to the boom. Paragraph 45 of Rahe explicitly indicates that the “light sources are then typically assigned to each individual spray nozzle 15 and are arranged…on the boom”. Serrat also discloses the intention of the nozzles, lights and camera attached to the boom as shown in figure 2. Although the cited embodiment of Serrat is shown in figure 3, paragraph 45 of Serrat specifies that figure 3 shows the same elements of figure 1 (and 2).
In light of the response above, the prior art rejections(s) shall be maintained.
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 TUONGMINH NGUYEN PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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.
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights