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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/22/2026 is being entered. Claims 1, 3, 5, 11, and 17 are amended. Claim 2 and 21 are canceled. Claims 1, 3-18, and 20 are pending, and rejected as detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102
Independent claim 1
It is submitted that Bittner does not seem to necessarily anticipate or make obvious "a first target on an upper surface of the wing frame section," and "a sensor having a field of view directed along a portion of the length of the wing frame section, . . . the first target being within the field of view," let alone a computing system configured to "determine variation in the pitch of the wing frame section along the portion of the length of the wing frame section based at least in part on an orientation of the first target determined from the data, the pitch being twisting about the length of the wing frame section," as currently recited in claim 1.
Bittner, also by Applicant, discusses that "during an application operation, various forces may cause the boom arms may move in a vertical direction, a fore-aft direction (i.e., a direction of travel), and/or a combination thereof." (Bittner, [0024]). For instance, Bittner explains with reference to FIG. 3 that "once the boom arm 36 is deflected in a fore direction df (i.e., a direction of forward movement of the sprayer 10 as indicated by arrow 18 in FIG. 1) and/or in an aft direction da (i.e., an opposing direction of the forward movement of the sprayer 10 as indicated by arrow 18 in FIG. 1) of its default position dp, as generally illustrated in FIG. 3, the outer nozzle assembly 32o may be positioned a second lateral distance d2 from the frame 34, which may be less than the first lateral distance di due to a curvature of the boom assembly 30," and "a lateral variance v is formed between the first and second lateral distances di, d2." (Bittner, [0040]).
Bittner teaches that a "sensor 68 can be configured to output data indicative of a measured boom position, a measured boom height, a measured pitch angle, a measured yaw angle, a measured pressure, a measured velocity, a measured acceleration/deceleration, and/or a measured roll angle of the sprayer 10 and/or the boom assembly 30." (Bittner, [0043]). For example, Bittner teaches that the "sensors 68 may additionally or alternatively correspond to an image sensor," "with at least a portion of the boom arm 36, 38 within a field of view of the image sensor," such that "the image sensor may be capable of detecting the position of the boom arm 36, 38. In some examples, the image sensor may detect a position of the boom arm 36, 38 at two separate instances with a defined time period between the two instances. Accordingly, the image sensor may be capable of detecting a position and a movement of the boom assembly 30.
Based on this information, the computing system 74 may calculate an estimated boom arm curvature and a deflection magnitude and/or a deflection direction of the boom arm 36, 38." (Bittner, [0052] and [0054]). FIG. 3 of Bittner is provided below for reference.
In the Office Action, the boom assembly 30 having the frame 34 and boom arms 36, 38 of Bittner was alleged as corresponding to the claimed boom assembly having a central frame section and a wing frame section, with the distance di of Bittner between the frame 34 and an outermost nozzle or an outer end of the boom arms 36, 38 being alleged as corresponding to the length of the wing frame section. Further, the nozzle assemblies 32 of Bittner were alleged as corresponding to the claimed plurality of nozzle assemblies, the sensor 68 of Bittner was alleged as corresponding to the claimed sensor, and the computing system 74 of Bittner was alleged as corresponding to the claimed computing system. Additionally, with reference to claim 2, the Office Action alleges that the outermost nozzle assembly 320 of Bittner corresponds to the claimed first target.
It is again submitted that Bittner does not particularly suggest that any of the nozzles 32, let alone the outermost nozzle assembly 32o, is within the field of view of the sensor 68. For instance, while Bittner generally discusses how the position of outermost nozzle assembly 32o changes based on curvature of the boom assembly 30, Bittner only particularly teaches "at least a portion of the boom arm 36, 38 within a field of view of the image sensor," such that "the image sensor may be capable of detecting the position of the boom arm 36, 38." (Bittner, [0040] and [0054]). Further, Bittner discusses that "when the deflection magnitude of one of the boom arms 36, 38 deviates from the predefined threshold, the computing system 74 may activate the actuator 62 to reposition the boom arm 36, 38 to minimize the offset between the nozzle assemblies 32 (such as the outer nozzle assembly 32 o) between the default position and the calculated position of the outermost nozzle based on the calculated deflection magnitude." (Bittner, [0067]). In other words, Bittner explains how the movement of the nozzle can be derived from deflection of the boom arm, not monitoring the nozzle itself within the field of view of the sensor 68. As such, Bittner does not particularly recite or suggest that the outer nozzle assembly 320, or any other nozzle, is within the field of view of the sensor.
Regardless, Bittner at least does not make obvious a target on an upper surface of the wing frame section, as amended herein.
It is again submitted that the computing system 74 of Bittner does not necessarily correspond to the computing system as claimed. For instance, while Bittner describes that a "sensor 68 can be configured to output data indicative of ... a measured pitch angle ... of the sprayer 10 and/or the boom assembly 30," Bittner does not seem to teach that the computing system 74 determines a variation in the pitch along the along the portion of the length of the boom arm 36, 38 based on the data from the sensor(s) 68, let alone based on an orientation of a target within a field of view of the sensors. Instead, as provided above, Bittner teaches that "boom arm 36 is deflected in a fore direction df (i.e., a direction of forward movement of the sprayer 10 as indicated by arrow 18 in FIG. 1) and/or in an aft direction da (i.e., an opposing direction of the forward movement of the sprayer 10 as indicated by arrow 18 in FIG. 1)," and that "upon receiving data from the one or more sensors, the computing system can calculate a deflection magnitude (or displacement) and/or afore-aft deflection direction of the boom arm." (Bittner, [0026] and [0040]).
Therefore, Bittner does not seem to necessarily anticipate or make obvious "a first target on an upper surface of the wing frame section," and "a sensor having a field of view directed along a portion of the length of the wing frame section, ... the first target being within the field of view," let alone a computing system configured to "determine variation in the pitch of the wing frame section along the portion of the length of the wing frame section based at least in part on an orientation of the first target determined from the data, the pitch being twisting about the length of the wing frame section," as currently recited in claim 1. As such, it is believed that independent claim 1 and its dependent claims are not anticipated nor obvious based on Bittner. Accordingly, it is requested that the pending § 102 claim rejections of claim 1 and its dependents based on Bittner be withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered and not persuasive. Applicant’s argument, in relation to the outermost nozzle assembly 32o is not being within the field of view of the sensor 68, is not persuasive. More specifically, Bittner [0040] disclosed how distance d.sub.2 is calculated with relative to the outer nozzle assembly. Therefore, the outer nozzle assembly can be seen as the first target, and one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the outermost nozzle assembly 32o to be the first target. Furthermore, Bittner [0044] disclosed “the sensor 68 may be positioned on the frame 34 and/or the sprayer 10 and monitor the boom assembly 30 remotely such that the boom assembly 30 is free of sensors 68 and the estimated curvature of the boom assembly 30 is calculated by the remote sensor 68.”. Therefore, it is obvious, when the sensor 68 is a camera, the outer nozzle assembly has to be within the field of view of the camera in order to detect the exact position of the outer nozzle assembly thus leading to the calculation of d.sub.2. Furthermore, applicant argument relates to “at least a portion of the boom arm 36, 38 within a field of view of the image sensor," such that "the image sensor may be capable of detecting the position of the boom arm 36, 38.”, only valid when multiple sensors 68 are separately positioned on boom arm 36 and 38 to view portions of the corresponding boom arms (shown in FIG. 3). This is a completely different configuration for multiple image sensors 68 in comparison to the sensor 68 being mounted on the frame 34 and/or the sprayer 10.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered and not persuasive. More specifically, applicant argument in relation to “when the deflection magnitude of one of the boom arms 36, 38 deviates from the predefined threshold, the computing system 74 may activate the actuator 62 to reposition the boom arm 36, 38 to minimize the offset between the nozzle assemblies 32 (such as the outer nozzle assembly 32 o) between the default position and the calculated position of the outermost nozzle based on the calculated deflection magnitude.” states that Bittner explains how the movement of the nozzle can be derived from deflection of the boom arm, not monitoring the nozzle itself within the field of view of the sensor 68. As such, Bittner does not particularly recite or suggest that the outer nozzle assembly 320, or any other nozzle, is within the field of view of the sensor. However, applicant argument of the movement of the nozzle can be derived from deflection of the boom arm is not persuasive. More specifically, Bittner discloses exactly the opposite wherein the deflection of the boom arm is derived from the movement of the nozzle that is detected via the sensor 68 [Bittner; 0044]. After the deflection of the boom arm is calculated, the computing system 74 activates the actuator 62 to reposition the boom arm 36, 38 to minimize the offset between the nozzle assemblies 32 between the default position and the calculated position of the outermost nozzle based on the calculated deflection magnitude.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered and not persuasive. More specifically, applicant argument in relation to Bittner not teaching the computing system 74 determines a variation in the pitch along the along the portion of the length of the boom arm 36, 38 based on the data from the sensor(s) 68, let alone based on an orientation of a target within a field of view of the sensors, is not persuasive. More specifically, Bittner [0049] disclosed “the computing system 74 can calculate a curvature of the boom arm 36, 38. Based on the estimated curvature of the boom arm 36, 38, the computing system 74 may calculate a deflection magnitude and/or a deflection direction of the boom arm 36, 38.”.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered and persuasive. More specifically, applicant argument in relation to Bittner at least does not make obvious a target on an upper surface of the wing frame section, as amended herein is persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection for claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is made in view of previously applied reference Bittner, and further in view Davis (US 20180243771 A1). In particular, the amendments to claim 1 are addressed in the instant office action.
Independent claim 11
It is emphasized that claim 11 discusses both "a variation in fore-aft deflection" and "a variation in the pitch" of the portion of the length of the wing frame section. It is submitted that Bittner does not necessarily teach or make obvious both "determining, with the computing system, a variation in fore-aft deflection of the portion of the length of the wing frame section based at least in part on the data generated by the sensor" and "determining, with the computing system, a variation in the pitch of the wing frame section along the portion of the length of the wing frame section based at least in part on the data when the variation in the fore-aft deflection is greater than a threshold fore-aft magnitude, the pitch being twisting about the length of the wing frame section," as currently recited in claim 11.
As an initial note, with reference to independent claim 11, the Advisory Action makes arguments about a first target. However, a "first target" is not present in claim 11.
With reference to claim 21, the Office Action suggested that Bittner at [0077]-[0078] teaches "determining the variation in the pitch when the variation in the fore-aft deflection in greater than a threshold fore-aft magnitude," as previously recited. The Advisory Action also makes reference to [0077] of Bittner. Such paragraphs are provided below for reference:
[0077] As provided herein, a predefined threshold can be stored in the computing system
74. At step (210), the calculated deflection magnitude is compared to the predefined
threshold. If the calculated deflection magnitude is less than the predefined threshold, the
method 200 may return to step (202). If the calculated deflection magnitude is greater than the predefined threshold, the method 200 may proceed to step (212), wherein the
computing system 74 receives data indicative of a deflection direction.
[0078] At step (214), the method can include activating an actuator 62, 64, 66 to rotate
the boom arm 38 between first and second angles. The second angle may position at least
a portion of the boom arm 38 on an opposing side of a default axis from the deflection
direction to counteract the deflection of the boom arm 38. As provided herein, the
actuator 62, 64, 66 can be configured to rotate at least 15 degrees in both a fore and an aft
direction from the first angle while dispensing the agricultural product. In some
examples, the nozzle assembly 32 is positioned in a default position when the boom
assembly 30 is free of deflection and extends at the first angle. By rotating the boom arm 38 between the first and second angles, the computing system 74 can minimize an offset
between a nozzle assembly 32 with the boom in the deflected position from the nozzle
assembly 32 in the default position thereby leading to increased precision in the
application of the agricultural product to the underlying field 20. After rotating an
actuator 62, 64, 66 to the second angle, the method can return to step (202).
(Emphasis added). Such portions of Bittner do not suggest determining variation in the fore-aft deflection of the boom arm 36, 38 based on the data generated by the sensors 68, then determining a variation in the pitch of the boom arm 36, 38 based on the data when the variation in the fore-aft deflection is greater than a predefined threshold. Instead, such portions of Bittner only discuss receiving data indicative of a deflection direction of the deflection magnitude and then adjusting the position of the boom arm in the opposite direction of such deflection direction (e.g., in the fore or aft direction).
Such distinction is not trivial for at least the reason that, as described in the present specification, "during an application operation, various forces may cause the wing frame section to pivot relative to the central frame section, such as in a fore-aft direction. For instance, if the applicator experiences a sudden change in speed (e.g., sudden starting, hard braking, etc.), hits an obstacle, encounters a change in terrain (e.g., hill, bump, etc.), and/or the like, the wing frame section may swing relative to the central frame section in the fore-aft direction. Depending on the configuration of the wing frame sections and the speed with which the wing frame sections swing fore or aft, the wing frame sections may also twist or pitch." (Specification, [0021]). As such, "the wing movement module 214 may first evaluate the data generated by the sensor(s) 68, 122 to determine whether fore or aft movement of the boom arm(s) 36, 38 has occurred and, if so, whether a variation in the pitching has also occurred. For instance, if a magnitude of fore-aft movement of the boom arm(s) 36, 38 greater than a threshold fore-aft magnitude is detected based on the data generated by the sensor(s) 68, the wing movement module 214 may then evaluate variation of the pitch of the boom arm(s) 36, 38." (Specification, [0055]).
Thus, it is submitted that Bittner does not necessarily anticipate or make obvious both "determining, with the computing system, a variation in fore-aft deflection of the portion of the length of the wing frame section based at least in part on the data generated by the sensor" and "determining, with the computing system, a variation in the pitch of the wing frame section along the portion of the length of the wing frame section based at least in part on the data when the variation in the fore-aft deflection is greater than a threshold fore-aft magnitude, the pitch being twisting about the length of the wing frame section," as currently recited in claim 11. As such, it is believed that independent claim 11 and its dependent claims are not anticipated nor obvious based on Bittner. Accordingly, it is requested that the pending § 102 claim rejections of claim 11 and its dependents based on Bittner be withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, as amended herein, with respect to the rejections of claims 11 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered and not persuasive. More specifically, Bittner teaches “determining, with the computing system, a variation in fore-aft deflection of the portion of the length of the wing frame section based at least in part on the data generated by the sensor” in [para. 0077] as the computer system 74 determines the curvature of the boom arm 38 as the data is received via the sensor 68. Furthermore, Bittner also teaches “determining, with the computing system, a variation in the pitch of the wing frame section along the portion of the length of the wing frame section based at least in part on the data when the variation in the fore-aft deflection is greater than a threshold fore-aft magnitude, the pitch being twisting about the length of the wing frame section” in [para. 0077-78] as the calculated deflection magnitude is compared with the predefined threshold, and when the calculated deflection magnitude is greater than the predefined threshold, computer system 74 is able to adjust the pitch of the boom arm 38.
Dependent claims
Applicant argues that Humpal would fail to overcome the deficiencies of Bittner in suggesting a target within a field of view of the sensors, particularly where such "target is asymmetric in at least one of color or shape such that the orientation of the first target is detectable," as claimed. Such distinction is not trivial for at least the reason that, as described in the present specification, "each of the target(s) 70 may be asymmetrical in at least one plane of geometry and/or is asymmetrical in color (e.g., in shading, pattern, and/or the like) such that fore-aft pivoting of the boom section(s) and/or pitching of the boom section(s) of the boom arm(s) 36, 38 is easy to identify from the target(s) 70." (Specification, [0043]).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and not persuasive. More specifically, Humpal teaches nozzle having particular shape in relation to turret 32 (squat cylindrical body). As a result, it is obvious that the sensor 68 of Bittner is able to detect the orientation of the outer nozzle assembly with respect to the specific shape of the nozzle assembly of Humpal as the combination of Bittner, Davis, and Humpal anticipate claim 5.
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.
Claim(s) 11-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bittner (US 20210368771 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Bittner teaches (Currently Amended) An agricultural method for monitoring spray booms of an agricultural applicator (Bittner, at least one para. 0002; “The present disclosure relates generally to agricultural applicators, such as agricultural sprayers and, more particularly, to systems and methods for monitoring a boom assembly during an application operation and altering various components.”), the agricultural applicator having a boom assembly comprising a central frame section and a wing frame section pivotably coupled to the central frame section (Bittner, at least one para. 0031; “As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, the boom assembly 30 can include a frame 34 that supports first and second boom arms 36, 38, which may be orientated in a cantilevered nature. The first and second boom arms 36, 38 are generally movable between an operative or unfolded position (FIG. 1) and an inoperative or folded position (FIG. 2).”), the wing frame section extending along a length defined between a first end and a second end (Bittner, at least one para. 0031; “When extended, each boom arm 36, 38 defines a first lateral distance d.sub.1 defined between the frame 34 and an outermost nozzle assembly and/or an outer end portion of the boom arms 36, 38.”, wherein the distance d.sub.1 extends from an inner end to an outer end of each wing frame section), the agricultural applicator further having a plurality of nozzle assemblies spaced apart along the boom assembly (Bittner, at least one para. 0030; “The agricultural product is conveyed from the product tank 28 through a product circuit including numerous plumbing components, such as interconnected pieces of tubing, for release onto the underlying field 20 (e.g., plants and/or soil) through one or more nozzle assemblies 32 mounted on the boom assembly 30 (or the sprayer 10).”), the agricultural method comprising:
receiving, with a computing system (Bittner, at least one para. 0049; “the computing system 74 may be communicatively coupled to the position sensor 68 and/or systems of the sprayer 10 and/or the boom assembly 30.y 30 based on the curvature.”) and (Bittner, at least one para. 0049; “During an application operation, the one or more sensors 68 are configured to output a signal indicative of a measured boom position, a measured boom height, a measured pitch angle, a measured yaw angle, a measured pressure, and/or a measured roll angle of the sprayer 10 and/or the boom assembly 30.”), data generated by a sensor (Bittner, at least one para. 0043; “With further reference to FIG. 3, a sensor 68 can be configured to output data indicative of a measured boom position, a measured boom height, a measured pitch angle, a measured yaw angle, a measured pressure, a measured velocity, a measured acceleration/deceleration, and/or a measured roll angle of the sprayer 10 and/or the boom assembly 30.”) having a field of view directed along a portion of the length of the wing frame section (Bittner, at least one para. 0054; “the image sensor may be positioned on the frame 34 of the boom assembly 30 and/or on the sprayer 10. In such instances, the image sensor may be capable of detecting the position of the boom arm 36, 38.”), the data being indicative of a pitch of the wing frame section along the portion of the length of the wing frame section (Bittner, at least one para. 0043; “With further reference to FIG. 3, a sensor 68 can be configured to output data indicative of a measured boom position, a measured boom height, a measured pitch angle, a measured yaw angle, a measured pressure, a measured velocity, a measured acceleration/deceleration, and/or a measured roll angle of the sprayer 10 and/or the boom assembly 30. The boom position information detected by the sensor 68 may enable the sprayer 10 to calculate a curvature of the boom assembly and determine boom arm movement of the one or more boom arms 36, 38 of the boom assembly”);
determining, with the computing system, a variation in fore-aft deflection of the portion of the length of the wing frame section based at least in part on the data generated by the sensor (Bittner, at least one para. 0026; “Upon receiving data from the one or more sensors, the computing system can calculate a deflection magnitude (or displacement) and/or a fore-aft deflection direction of the boom arm. If the calculated deflection magnitude deviates from a predefined threshold, the computing system may activate the actuator to rotate the boom arm relative to the frame to reposition the boom arm to counteract the deflection at an adjusted angle.”),
determining, with the computing system, a variation in the pitch of the wing frame section along the portion of the length of the wing frame section based at least in part on the data (Bittner, at least one para. 0049; “the position sensor 68 may be configured as a pressure sensor that is operably coupled with an actuator 62, 64, 66 of the boom assembly 30 and/or positioned between two portions of the boom assembly 30 that are hingedly coupled to one another at one of the joints (e.g., 54, 56, 58) of the boom assembly 30. In instances in which the pressure sensor is operably coupled with an actuator 62, 64, 66 of the boom assembly 30, the pressure sensor may monitor pressure changes during the agricultural operation. Based on the variations in pressure within the actuator 62, 64, 66, the computing system 74 can calculate a curvature of the boom arm 36, 38. Based on the estimated curvature of the boom arm 36, 38, the computing system 74 may calculate a deflection magnitude and/or a deflection direction of the boom arm 36, 38.”) and (Bittner, at least one para. 0054; “the image sensor may be capable of detecting a position and a movement of the boom assembly 30. Based on this information, the computing system 74 may calculate an estimated boom arm curvature and a deflection magnitude and/or a deflection direction of the boom arm 36, 38”) when the variation in the fore-aft deflection is greater than a threshold fore-aft magnitude (Bittner, at least one para. 0077; “If the calculated deflection magnitude is greater than the predefined threshold, the method 200 may proceed to step (212), wherein the computing system 74 receives data indicative of a deflection direction.”) and (Bittner, at least one para. 0078; “At step (214), the method can include activating an actuator 62, 64, 66 to rotate the boom arm 38 between first and second angles. The second angle may position at least a portion of the boom arm 38 on an opposing side of a default axis from the deflection direction to counteract the deflection of the boom arm 38. As provided herein, the actuator 62, 64, 66 can be configured to rotate at least 15 degrees in both a fore and an aft direction from the first angle while dispensing the agricultural product.”), the pitch being twisting about the length of the wing frame section (Bittner, at least one para. 0049; “During an application operation, the one or more sensors 68 are configured to output a signal indicative of a measured boom position, a measured boom height, a measured pitch angle, a measured yaw angle, a measured pressure, and/or a measured roll angle of the sprayer 10 and/or the boom assembly 30.”, wherein the measured pitch angle teaches the twisting about the length of the wing frame section); and
controlling, with the computing system, an operation associated with the agricultural applicator based at least in part on the variation in the pitch of the wing frame section (Bittner, at least one para. 0059; “The computing system 74 may provide instructions for various other components communicatively coupled with the computing system 74 based on the results of the data analysis. For example, the computing system 74 may provide notification instructions to the HMI 24, a vehicle notification system 80, and/or a remote electronic device 82 if the deflection magnitude exceeds a predefined threshold, a nozzle speed increases above a defined threshold, the calculated application rate deviates from a predefined threshold due to the boom deflection, and/or if the calculated variance ν deviates from a predefined range as such an occurrence may cause an inadequate application to a portion of the field 20.”).
Regarding claim 12, Bittner teaches (Original) The agricultural method of claim 11, wherein a first target is positioned on the wing frame section (Bittner, at least one para. 0042; “In some embodiments, a boom speed or boom acceleration of each nozzle assembly 32 along the boom arm 36 may be calculated based on the detected and/or calculated position of various portions of the boom arm 36 at known time periods.”, wherein the 32o is the first target), the first target being within the field of view, wherein determining the variation in the pitch of the wing frame section comprises determining the variation in the pitch of the wing frame section based at least in part on an orientation of the first target (Bittner, at least one para. 0054; “Additionally, and/or alternatively, in some embodiments, one or more image sensors may be separated from the boom arm 36, 38 with at least a portion of the boom arm 36, 38 within a field of view of the image sensor. For example, the image sensor may be positioned on the frame 34 of the boom assembly 30 and/or on the sprayer 10. In such instances, the image sensor may be capable of detecting the position of the boom arm 36, 38. In some examples, the image sensor may detect a position of the boom arm 36, 38 at two separate instances with a defined time period between the two instances. Accordingly, the image sensor may be capable of detecting a position and a movement of the boom assembly 30. Based on this information, the computing system 74 may calculate an estimated boom arm curvature and a deflection magnitude and/or a deflection direction of the boom arm 36, 38.”).
Regarding claim 13, Bittner teaches (Original) The agricultural method of claim 12, wherein a second target is spaced apart from the first target on the wing frame section along the portion of the length of the wing frame section (Bittner, at least one para. 0042; “In some embodiments, a boom speed or boom acceleration of each nozzle assembly 32 along the boom arm 36 may be calculated based on the detected and/or calculated position of various portions of the boom arm 36 at known time periods.”, wherein 32o is the first target and the 32i is the second target), the second target being within the field of view, wherein determining the variation in the pitch of the wing frame section comprises determining the variation in the pitch of the wing frame section based at least in part on a comparison of an orientation of the second target to the orientation of the first target (Bittner, at least one para. 0054; “Additionally, and/or alternatively, in some embodiments, one or more image sensors may be separated from the boom arm 36, 38 with at least a portion of the boom arm 36, 38 within a field of view of the image sensor. For example, the image sensor may be positioned on the frame 34 of the boom assembly 30 and/or on the sprayer 10. In such instances, the image sensor may be capable of detecting the position of the boom arm 36, 38. In some examples, the image sensor may detect a position of the boom arm 36, 38 at two separate instances with a defined time period between the two instances. Accordingly, the image sensor may be capable of detecting a position and a movement of the boom assembly 30. Based on this information, the computing system 74 may calculate an estimated boom arm curvature and a deflection magnitude and/or a deflection direction of the boom arm 36, 38.”).
Regarding claim 14, Bittner teaches (Original) The agricultural method of claim 13, wherein the wing frame section comprises a first wing frame section and a second wing frame section, the first wing frame section being pivotably coupled to the central frame section, the second wing frame section being pivotably coupled to the first wing frame section (Bittner, at least one para. 0036; “For example, by retracting/extending the inner fold actuators 62, the inner boom sections 42, 44 may be pivoted or folded relative to the frame 34 about a pivot axis 54A defined by the pivot joints 54. Moreover, the boom assembly 30 may also include middle fold actuators 64 coupled between each inner boom section 42, 44 and its adjacent middle boom section 46, 48 and outer fold actuators 66 coupled between each middle boom section 46, 48 and its adjacent outer boom section 50, 52.”), wherein the first target is on the first wing frame section and the second target is on the second wing frame section (Bittner, FIG. 3; The nozzle assembly 32i is positioned on the boom section 42 and the nozzle assembly 32o is positioned on the boom section 50 as shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
362
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Bittner teaches (Original) The agricultural method of claim 11, wherein controlling the operation associated with the agricultural applicator comprises controlling the operation associated with the agricultural applicator when the variation in the pitch of the wing frame section is greater than a threshold variation (Bittner, at least one para. 0059; “the computing system 74 may provide notification instructions to the HMI 24, a vehicle notification system 80, and/or a remote electronic device 82 if the deflection magnitude exceeds a predefined threshold, a nozzle speed increases above a defined threshold, the calculated application rate deviates from a predefined threshold due to the boom deflection”).
Regarding claim 17, Bittner teaches (Currently Amended) The agricultural method of claim 11, wherein controlling the operation associated with the agricultural applicator comprises controlling the operation associated with the agricultural applicator based at least in part on the variation in the fore-aft deflection and the variation in the pitch of the wing frame section (Bittner, at least one para. 0068; “In some instances, the computing system 74 is further configured to determine a deflection direction, which may be quantified in a fore/aft direction. Based on the deflection direction, an actuator 62 can rotate the boom arm 36, 38 such that an inner portion 38.sub.i of the boom arm 36, 38 is rotated to an opposing side of the default axis a.sub.d from the detected deflection direction to counteract the positional offsets caused by the deflection.”).
Regarding claim 18, Bittner teaches (Original) The agricultural method of claim 11, wherein controlling the operation associated with the agricultural applicator comprises at least one of automatically adjusting at least one of a ground speed of the agricultural applicator (Bittner, at least one para. 0042; “In some embodiments, a boom speed or boom acceleration of each nozzle assembly 32 along the boom arm 36 may be calculated based on the detected and/or calculated position of various portions of the boom arm 36 at known time periods.”), controlling an operation of a user interface to indicate the variation in the pitch of the wing frame section, controlling an actuator of the wing frame section (Bittner, at least one para. 0078; “At step (214), the method can include activating an actuator 62, 64, 66 to rotate the boom arm 38 between first and second angles. The second angle may position at least a portion of the boom arm 38 on an opposing side of a default axis from the deflection direction to counteract the deflection of the boom arm 38. As provided herein, the actuator 62, 64, 66 can be configured to rotate at least 15 degrees in both a fore and an aft direction from the first angle while dispensing the agricultural product.”), or adjusting an operation of one or more of the plurality of nozzle assemblies (Bittner, at least one para. 0078; “In some examples, the nozzle assembly 32 is positioned in a default position when the boom assembly 30 is free of deflection and extends at the first angle. By rotating the boom arm 38 between the first and second angles, the computing system 74 can minimize an offset between a nozzle assembly 32 with the boom in the deflected position from the nozzle assembly 32 in the default position thereby leading to increased precision in the application of the agricultural product to the underlying field 20.”).
Regarding claim 20, Bittner teaches (Original) The agricultural method of claim 11, wherein the sensor comprises at least one of a camera or a LIDAR sensor (Bittner, at least one para. 0052; “the image sensors may correspond to any other suitable sensing devices configured to capture image or image-like data, such as a monocular camera, a LIDAR sensors, and/or a RADAR sensors.”).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bittner (US 20210368771 A1), and further in view of Davis (US 20180243771 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bittner teaches (Currently Amended) An agricultural system for monitoring spray booms of an agricultural applicator (Bittner, at least one para. 0002; “The present disclosure relates generally to agricultural applicators, such as agricultural sprayers and, more particularly, to systems and methods for monitoring a boom assembly during an application operation and altering various components.”), the agricultural system comprising:
a boom assembly of an agricultural applicator, the boom assembly comprising a central frame section and a wing frame section pivotably coupled to the central frame section (Bittner, at least one para. 0031; “As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, the boom assembly 30 can include a frame 34 that supports first and second boom arms 36, 38, which may be orientated in a cantilevered nature. The first and second boom arms 36, 38 are generally movable between an operative or unfolded position (FIG. 1) and an inoperative or folded position (FIG. 2).”), the wing frame section extending along a length defined between a first end and a second end (Bittner, at least one para. 0031; “When extended, each boom arm 36, 38 defines a first lateral distance d.sub.1 defined between the frame 34 and an outermost nozzle assembly and/or an outer end portion of the boom arms 36, 38.”, wherein the distance d.sub.1 extends from an inner end to an outer end of each wing frame section);
a plurality of nozzle assemblies spaced apart along the boom assembly (Bittner, at least one para. 0030; “The agricultural product is conveyed from the product tank 28 through a product circuit including numerous plumbing components, such as interconnected pieces of tubing, for release onto the underlying field 20 (e.g., plants and/or soil) through one or more nozzle assemblies 32 mounted on the boom assembly 30 (or the sprayer 10).”);
a first target on (Bittner, at least one para. 0042; “In some embodiments, a boom speed or boom acceleration of each nozzle assembly 32 along the boom arm 36 may be calculated based on the detected and/or calculated position of various portions of the boom arm 36 at known time periods.”, wherein the 32o is the first target);
a sensor (Bittner, at least one para. 0043; “With further reference to FIG. 3, a sensor 68 can be configured to output data indicative of a measured boom position, a measured boom height, a measured pitch angle, a measured yaw angle, a measured pressure, a measured velocity, a measured acceleration/deceleration, and/or a measured roll angle of the sprayer 10 and/or the boom assembly 30.”) having a field of view directed along a portion of the length of the wing frame section (Bittner, at least one para. 0054; “the image sensor may be positioned on the frame 34 of the boom assembly 30 and/or on the sprayer 10. In such instances, the image sensor may be capable of detecting the position of the boom arm 36, 38.”), the sensor being configured to generate data indicative of a pitch of the wing frame section along the portion of the length of the wing frame section (Bittner, at least one para. 0043; “With further reference to FIG. 3, a sensor 68 can be configured to output data indicative of a measured boom position, a measured boom height, a measured pitch angle, a measured yaw angle, a measured pressure, a measured velocity, a measured acceleration/deceleration, and/or a measured roll angle of the sprayer 10 and/or the boom assembly 30. The boom position information detected by the sensor 68 may enable the sprayer 10 to calculate a curvature of the boom assembly and determine boom arm movement of the one or more boom arms 36, 38 of the boom assembly”), the first target being within the field of view (Bittner, at least one para. 0054; “the image sensor may be capable of detecting a position and a movement of the boom assembly 30”, wherein the image sensor, camera, is able to detect the position and the movement of the boom assembly 30);
a computing system communicatively coupled to the sensor, the computing system being configured to (Bittner, at least one para. 0049; “the computing system 74 may be communicatively coupled to the position sensor 68 and/or systems of the sprayer 10 and/or the boom assembly 30.y 30 based on the curvature.”):
receive the data generated by the sensor (Bittner, at least one para. 0049; “During an application operation, the one or more sensors 68 are configured to output a signal indicative of a measured boom position, a measured boom height, a measured pitch angle, a measured yaw angle, a measured pressure, and/or a measured roll angle of the sprayer 10 and/or the boom assembly 30.”) and (Bittner, at least one para. 0054; “the image sensor may be capable of detecting a position and a movement of the boom assembly 30. Based on this information, the computing system 74 may calculate an estimated boom arm curvature and a deflection magnitude and/or a deflection direction of the boom arm 36, 38”);
determine variation in the pitch of the wing frame section along the portion of the length of the wing frame section based at least in part on the data (Bittner, at least one para. 0049; “the position sensor 68 may be configured as a pressure sensor that is operably coupled with an actuator 62, 64, 66 of the boom assembly 30 and/or positioned between two portions of the boom assembly 30 that are hingedly coupled to one another at one of the joints (e.g., 54, 56, 58) of the boom assembly 30. In instances in which the pressure sensor is operably coupled with an actuator 62, 64, 66 of the boom assembly 30, the pressure sensor may monitor pressure changes during the agricultural operation. Based on the variations in pressure within the actuator 62, 64, 66, the computing system 74 can calculate a curvature of the boom arm 36, 38. Based on the estimated curvature of the boom arm 36, 38.”) and (Bittner, at least one para. 0054; “the image sensor may be capable of detecting a position and a movement of the boom assembly 30. Based on this information, the computing system 74 may calculate an estimated boom arm curvature and a deflection magnitude and/or a deflection direction of the boom arm 36, 38”) an orientation of the first target determined from the data (Bittner, at least one para. 0052; “With further reference to FIG. 4, in accordance with aspects of the present subject matter, the one or more sensors 68 may additionally or alternatively correspond to an image sensor. In various embodiments, the image sensors may correspond to a stereographic camera having two or more lenses with a separate image sensor for each lens to allow the camera to capture stereographic or three-dimensional images. However, in alternative embodiments, the image sensors may correspond to any other suitable sensing devices configured to capture image or image-like data, such as a monocular camera, a LIDAR sensors, and/or a RADAR sensors.”, wherein it is obvious that the camera determines the deflection of the boom arm based on the orientation of the nozzle assembly 32o), the pitch being twisting about the length of the wing frame section (Bittner, at least one para. 0049; “During an application operation, the one or more sensors 68 are configured to output a signal indicative of a measured boom position, a measured boom height, a measured pitch angle, a measured yaw angle, a measured pressure, and/or a measured roll angle of the sprayer 10 and/or the boom assembly 30.”, wherein the measured pitch angle teaches the pitch being twisting about the length of the wing frame section); and
control an operation associated with the agricultural applicator based at least in part on the variation in the pitch of the wing frame section (Bittner, at least one para. 0059; “The computing system 74 may provide instructions for various other components communicatively coupled with the computing system 74 based on the results of the data analysis. For example, the computing system 74 may provide notification instructions to the HMI 24, a vehicle notification system 80, and/or a remote electronic device 82 if the deflection magnitude exceeds a predefined threshold, a nozzle speed increases above a defined threshold, the calculated application rate deviates from a predefined threshold due to the boom deflection, and/or if the calculated variance ν deviates from a predefined range as such an occurrence may cause an inadequate application to a portion of the field 20.”).
Even though Bittner teaches that the first target is on the wing frame section, Bittner does not explicitly teach that a first target on an upper surface of the wing frame section;
Davis, in the same field of endeavor (Davis, at least one para. 0002; “This disclosure relates to an adjustable row unit and an agricultural vehicle with an adjustable row unit.”) teaches a first target on an upper surface of the wing frame section (Davis, at least one para. 0032 and FIG. 2 shown below; “An electronic data processor (903 in FIG. 7) or a location-determining receiver (22, 24) is adapted to estimate the reference point associated with the beam 10 of the machine and an angular orientation or attitude of the beam 10 relative to the reference point. (wherein 22 and 24 are positioned on an upper surface of the beam)”, wherein the first target can be the location-determining receiver 22, and the location-determining receiver 22 is mounted on to the upper surface of the beam 10);
PNG
media_image2.png
419
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bittner and Davis are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as the agricultural system with a boom assembly as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first target of Bittner with teaching of Davis. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would be obvious move the location identification target of Bittner (the nozzle assembly 32o, preferably the nozzle valve portion) to the upper surface of the boom arms 36 and 38, similar to the location-determining receiver 22 of Davis, so that the first target can be easily detected by the camera. Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Bittner and Davis teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which the instant claim depends, as discussed supra. Further, Bittner teaches (Currently Amended) The agricultural system of claim 1, further comprising a second target on the wing frame section, the first target and the second target being spaced apart along the portion of the length of the wing frame section (Bittner, at least one para. 0042; “In some embodiments, a boom speed or boom acceleration of each nozzle assembly 32 along the boom arm 36 may be calculated based on the detected and/or calculated position of various portions of the boom arm 36 at known time periods.”, wherein 32o is the first target and the 32i is the second target), the second target being within the field of view, the computing system being configured to determine the variation in the pitch of the wing frame section based at least in part on a comparison of an orientation of the second target to the orientation of the first target (Bittner, at least one para. 0054; “Additionally, and/or alternatively, in some embodiments, one or more image sensors may be separated from the boom arm 36, 38 with at least a portion of the boom arm 36, 38 within a field of view of the image sensor. For example, the image sensor may be positioned on the frame 34 of the boom assembly 30 and/or on the sprayer 10. In such instances, the image sensor may be capable of detecting the position of the boom arm 36, 38. In some examples, the image sensor may detect a position of the boom arm 36, 38 at two separate instances with a defined time period between the two instances. Accordingly, the image sensor may be capable of detecting a position and a movement of the boom assembly 30. Based on this information, the computing system 74 may calculate an estimated boom arm curvature and a deflection magnitude and/or a deflection direction of the boom arm 36, 38.”).
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Bittner and Davis teaches the limitations of claim 3, upon which the instant claim depends, as discussed supra. Further, Bittner teaches (Original) The agricultural system of claim 3, wherein the wing frame section comprises a first wing frame section and a second wing frame section, the first wing frame section being pivotably coupled to the central frame section, the second wing frame section being pivotably coupled to the first wing frame section (Bittner, at least one para. 0036; “For example, by retracting/extending the inner fold actuators 62, the inner boom sections 42, 44 may be pivoted or folded relative to the frame 34 about a pivot axis 54A defined by the pivot joints 54. Moreover, the boom assembly 30 may also include middle fold actuators 64 coupled between each inner boom section 42, 44 and its adjacent middle boom section 46, 48 and outer fold actuators 66 coupled between each middle boom section 46, 48 and its adjacent outer boom section 50, 52.”), wherein the first target is on the first wing frame section and the second target is on the second wing frame section (Bittner, FIG. 3; The nozzle assembly 32i is positioned on the boom section 42 and the nozzle assembly 32o is positioned on the boom section 50 as shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
362
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Bittner and Davis teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which the instant claim depends, as discussed supra. Further, Bittner teaches (Original) The agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the computing system is configured to control the operation associated with the agricultural applicator when the variation in the pitch of the wing frame section is greater than a threshold variation (Bittner, at least one para. 0059; “the computing system 74 may provide notification instructions to the HMI 24, a vehicle notification system 80, and/or a remote electronic device 82 if the deflection magnitude exceeds a predefined threshold, a nozzle speed increases above a defined threshold, the calculated application rate deviates from a predefined threshold due to the boom deflection”).
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Bittner and Davis teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which the instant claim depends, as discussed supra. Further, Bittner teaches (Original) The agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the computing system is further configured to determine a variation in fore-aft deflection of the portion of the length of the wing frame section based at least in part on the data generated by the sensor, wherein the computing system is configured to control the operation associated with the agricultural applicator based at least in part on the variation in the fore-aft deflection and the variation in the pitch of the wing frame section (Bittner, at least one para. 0068; “In some instances, the computing system 74 is further configured to determine a deflection direction, which may be quantified in a fore/aft direction. Based on the deflection direction, an actuator 62 can rotate the boom arm 36, 38 such that an inner portion 38.sub.i of the boom arm 36, 38 is rotated to an opposing side of the default axis a.sub.d from the detected deflection direction to counteract the positional offsets caused by the deflection.”).
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Bittner and Davis teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which the instant claim depends, as discussed supra. Further, Bittner teaches (Original) The agricultural system of claim 1, wherein computing system is configured to control the operation associated with the agricultural applicator by at least one of automatically adjusting at least one of a ground speed of the agricultural applicator (Bittner, at least one para. 0042; “In some embodiments, a boom speed or boom acceleration of each nozzle assembly 32 along the boom arm 36 may be calculated based on the detected and/or calculated position of various portions of the boom arm 36 at known time periods.”), controlling an operation of a user interface to indicate the variation in the pitch of the wing frame section, controlling an actuator of the wing frame section (Bittner, at least one para. 0078; “At step (214), the method can include activating an actuator 62, 64, 66 to rotate the boom arm 38 between first and second angles. The second angle may position at least a portion of the boom arm 38 on an opposing side of a default axis from the deflection direction to counteract the deflection of the boom arm 38. As provided herein, the actuator 62, 64, 66 can be configured to rotate at least 15 degrees in both a fore and an aft direction from the first angle while dispensing the agricultural product.”), or adjusting an operation of one or more of the plurality of nozzle assemblies (Bittner, at least one para. 0078; “In some examples, the nozzle assembly 32 is positioned in a default position when the boom assembly 30 is free of deflection and extends at the first angle. By rotating the boom arm 38 between the first and second angles, the computing system 74 can minimize an offset between a nozzle assembly 32 with the boom in the deflected position from the nozzle assembly 32 in the default position thereby leading to increased precision in the application of the agricultural product to the underlying field 20.”).
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Bittner and Davis teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which the instant claim depends, as discussed supra. Further, Bittner teaches (Original) The agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the sensor is positioned on the central frame section (Bittner, at least one para. 0054; “the image sensor may be positioned on the frame 34 of the boom assembly 30 and/or on the sprayer 10.”).
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Bittner and Davis teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which the instant claim depends, as discussed supra. Further, Bittner teaches (Original) The agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the sensor comprises at least one of a camera or a LIDAR sensor (Bittner, at least one para. 0052; “the image sensors may correspond to any other suitable sensing devices configured to capture image or image-like data, such as a monocular camera, a LIDAR sensors, and/or a RADAR sensors.”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bittner (US 20210368771 A1) and Davis (US 20180243771 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Humpal (US 20160178422 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Bittner teaches (Currently Amended) The agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the first target is asymmetric in at least one of color or shape (Bittner, FIG. 5; The shape or the orientation of the nozzle assembly 32o changes from (d sub p) to (d sub a) as shown below. In other words, when the nozzle 32o is aligned with the (d sub p), the image sensor 68 is only able to view the inside surface of the nozzle 32o as the front surface and the rear surface of the nozzle 32o are positioned parallel to the (d sub p) and not visible to the image sensor 68. However, when the nozzle 32o is aligned with the (d sub a), the image sensor 68 is able to view the inside surface of the nozzle 32o and the front surface of the nozzle 32o that is oriented towards the axis (d sub p) as the rear surface of the nozzle 32o is not visible to the image sensor 68.) such that the orientation of the first target is detectable (Bittner, at least one para. 0052; “With further reference to FIG. 4, in accordance with aspects of the present subject matter, the one or more sensors 68 may additionally or alternatively correspond to an image sensor. In various embodiments, the image sensors may correspond to a stereographic camera having two or more lenses with a separate image sensor for each lens to allow the camera to capture stereographic or three-dimensional images. However, in alternative embodiments, the image sensors may correspond to any other suitable sensing devices configured to capture image or image-like data, such as a monocular camera, a LIDAR sensors, and/or a RADAR sensors.”).
PNG
media_image3.png
274
628
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Even though Bittner teaches about image analyses of the nozzle with respect to different surfaces, Bittner does not explicitly teach that the first target is asymmetric.
Humpal, in the same field of endeavor (Humpal, at least one para. 0005;” Various aspects of example embodiments are set out in the claims. Embodiments include a sprayer system having spray nozzles”) teaches the first target is asymmetric (Humpal, at least one para. 0041; “In the example of FIG. 2, there are additional elements such as actuators and valves 362A, 362B that enable or disable fluid flow; they also play a role in one method of dislodging a clogged nozzle 40 as described later in this disclosure. Example actuators include solenoid valves 362A, 362B, electromagnetic spring coil, pneumatic lever, bellows, and so on. Turret 32 is manually-rotatable or motor-rotatable and attached to a lower end of the nozzle tube 36; alternatively, turret 32 is attached to a rotatable plate 312 that is electronically controlled. Turret 32 includes a squat cylindrical body. Turret 32 also contains passageways that channel fluid from the nozzle tube 36 to nozzle outlets. Nozzle outlets 1-6 are located on the periphery of turret 32. Turret 32 is manually rotated if there is no plate 312 or automatically rotated if there is a plate 312 and a corresponding motor to turn plate 312 (e.g. stepper motor).”, wherein the asymmetric configuration of the nozzle is explained).
Bittner and Humpal are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as unmanned aerial system as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the nozzle of Bittner with teaching of Humpal. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bittner (US 20210368771 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Humpal (US 20160178422 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Bittner teaches (Original) The agricultural method of claim 12, wherein the first target is asymmetric in at least one of color or shape (Bittner, FIG. 5; The shape or the orientation of the nozzle assembly 32o changes from (d sub p) to (d sub a) as shown below. In other words, when the nozzle 32o is aligned with the (d sub p), the image sensor 68 is only able to view the inside surface of the nozzle 32o as the front surface and the rear surface of the nozzle 32o are positioned parallel to the (d sub p) and not visible to the image sensor 68. However, when the nozzle 32o is aligned with the (d sub a), the image sensor 68 is able to view the inside surface of the nozzle 32o and the front surface of the nozzle 32o that is oriented towards the axis (d sub p) as the rear surface of the nozzle 32o is not visible to the image sensor 68.) and (Bittner, at least one para. 0052; “With further reference to FIG. 4, in accordance with aspects of the present subject matter, the one or more sensors 68 may additionally or alternatively correspond to an image sensor. In various embodiments, the image sensors may correspond to a stereographic camera having two or more lenses with a separate image sensor for each lens to allow the camera to capture stereographic or three-dimensional images. However, in alternative embodiments, the image sensors may correspond to any other suitable sensing devices configured to capture image or image-like data, such as a monocular camera, a LIDAR sensors, and/or a RADAR sensors.”).
PNG
media_image3.png
274
628
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Even though Bittner teaches about image analyses of the nozzle with respect to different surfaces, Bittner does not explicitly teach that the first target is asymmetric.
Humpal, in the same field of endeavor (Humpal, at least one para. 0005;” Various aspects of example embodiments are set out in the claims. Embodiments include a sprayer system having spray nozzles”) teaches the first target is asymmetric (Humpal, at least one para. 0041; “In the example of FIG. 2, there are additional elements such as actuators and valves 362A, 362B that enable or disable fluid flow; they also play a role in one method of dislodging a clogged nozzle 40 as described later in this disclosure. Example actuators include solenoid valves 362A, 362B, electromagnetic spring coil, pneumatic lever, bellows, and so on. Turret 32 is manually-rotatable or motor-rotatable and attached to a lower end of the nozzle tube 36; alternatively, turret 32 is attached to a rotatable plate 312 that is electronically controlled. Turret 32 includes a squat cylindrical body. Turret 32 also contains passageways that channel fluid from the nozzle tube 36 to nozzle outlets. Nozzle outlets 1-6 are located on the periphery of turret 32. Turret 32 is manually rotated if there is no plate 312 or automatically rotated if there is a plate 312 and a corresponding motor to turn plate 312 (e.g. stepper motor).”, wherein the asymmetric configuration of the nozzle is explained).
Bittner and Humpal are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as unmanned aerial system as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the nozzle of Bittner with teaching of Humpal. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UPUL P CHANDRASIRI whose telephone number is (703)756-5823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30 am 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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/U.P.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
