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 .
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 .
Status of Claims
Currently claims 1-20 are pending, claims 2, 8, 16, and 19-20 are amended, and 10-15 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09/29/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 09/29/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden to the examiner. This is not found persuasive because the invention has acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter and the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). The noted search areas being in B05B, A01C, and A01M already for the apparatus would further include more search strategies for the method claims across three different classifications.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “proximate” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “a speed of airflow proximate to the first nozzle assembly” has been rendered indefinite by use of the term “proximate” as it is unclear how far/close the speed of airflow must be to the nozzle to be determined that it is “proximate.”
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) 1-6, 8-9 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feldhaus (U.S. 2020/0023398).
With respect to claims 1 and 16, Feldhaus discloses an agricultural system comprising:
a first nozzle assembly/two or more nozzle assemblies (figures 1a, 8a, and 13, disclose the use of multiple nozzles along a boom, taking figure 8a show a first one nozzle) and positioned along a boom assembly (figure 1a) and fluidly connected to a header (fluid distribution pipe 504) and configured to selectively dispense an agricultural product therefrom (selectively using the valves, paragraph 0048);
an airflow detection system configured to capture data indicative of one or more airflow sources (abstract, sensors detecting wind speed as well as vehicle travel speed); and
a computing system (controller, paragraph 0008) communicatively coupled to the first nozzle assembly and the airflow detection system (abstract, paragraph 0008), the computing system being configured to:
receive, from the airflow detection system, the data associated with the one or more airflow sources (abstract);
generate a first nozzle assembly vector for the first nozzle assembly based at least in part on the data from the airflow detection system, the first nozzle assembly vector including a magnitude and a direction (paragraphs 0077-0079); and
determining an average vector based on each of the one or more nozzle assembly vectors (paragraphs 0077-0079, where the average “vector” of the nozzle is taken as the vector of the spray droplets coming from the nozzle)
determine a droplet size (paragraphs 0033, 0047, and 0077) for exhausting an agricultural product from the first nozzle assembly based at least in part on the magnitude of the nozzle assembly vector/average vector relative to a defined range and the direction relative to a default axis (paragraphs 0033, 0047, and 0076-0079, noting that the calculations/computation is being done for pattern results for adjacent nozzles mounted on a boom, understood then that its being done for an average of the group of adjacent nozzles together when calculating the spraying being done by the nozzle (its vector) and the vector of the vehicle movement and wind direction (airflow)). With respect to claim 16, Feldhaus discloses such steps being done to all two or more nozzles, see abstract.
With respect to claim 2, Feldhaus discloses the magnitude represents a speed of air flowing past the first nozzle assembly (being the airflow of the vehicle and wind as it is proximate to the first nozzle assembly) and the direction represents an airflow direction being forward or rearward relative to the default axis (as a vector includes both magnitude and direction).
With respect to claim 3, Feldhaus discloses the droplet size is a first droplet size when the direction of the nozzle assembly vector is directed vehicle forward of the default axis (as the droplet size directed forward of a default axis has a first size) and a second droplet size when the direction of the nozzle assembly vector is directed vehicle rearward of the default axis (as a droplet size when the direction is rearward of a default axis), the first droplet size having a greater volume than the second droplet size (paragraphs 0077-0079, discloses that when spray droplets size is above a certain size there is calculation done to adjust for wind and vehicle travel (airflow) such adjustment would be a changing of the spray droplets to the ideal size, where a change in fluid trajectory can cause the spray itself to change, paragraphs 0042-0043, where its understood to achieve the current distribution spray droplet size would be greater when going into the speed of travel and wind, then going along with it, as the droplet size would require larger size and force to overcome the forces of airflow acting against it, whereas the droplets being further carried with the wind/vehicle travel, would thus be smaller and require less energy to stay within the desired spray pattern).
With respect to claim 4, Feldhaus discloses the first droplet is exhausted from a first nozzle within the first nozzle assembly and the second droplet is exhausted from a second nozzle within the first nozzle assembly (as multiple nozzles are being used, where when the vehicle is turning one side of the boom will be going faster then another side (paragraph 0050), and require such different droplet size along the length of the boom due to changing speeds of the boom).
With respect to claims 5 and 19, Feldhaus discloses the airflow detection system comprises one or more nozzle sensors/two or more nozzle sensors (paragraph 0082 and abstract, as the airflow has sensors to detect it, as well as nozzles associated with the system that has the sensors) configured to capture data indicative of the one or more airflow sources associated with the first nozzle assembly/two or more nozzle (as the sensors capture data relative to airflow of all the nozzle assemblies).
With respect to claim 6, Feldhaus discloses a weather station configured to provide data indicative of an environmental airflow source (paragraph 0079).
With respect to claim 8, Feldhaus discloses a second nozzle assembly positioned along the boom assembly (using a second nozzle assembly of the multiple nozzle assemblies) and configured to selectively dispense the agricultural product therefrom (abstract, figure 1a), wherein the computing system is communicatively coupled to the second nozzle assembly and is further configured to generate a second nozzle assembly vector for the second nozzle assembly based at least in part on the data from the airflow detection system (paragraph 0077-0079).
With respect to claim 9, Feldhaus discloses the first nozzle assembly vector is varied from the second nozzle airflow vector in direction or magnitude (as droplet size changes to obtain uniformity of spray location or direct and so on, paragraph 0009, as the nozzles are along the boom each would change based on calculation corresponding to the nozzle and spray abased on travel and wind, as well as things like vehicle turning (paragraph 0050), and wherein the computing system is configured to determine a droplet size based on an average of the first nozzle airflow vector and the second nozzle airflow vector (paragraph 0009, as the sprayers are being determined together, and thus the average of multiple nozzles together). See further averaging discussed in response to arguments.
With respect to claim 17, Feldhaus discloses the computing system is further configured to increase a droplet size when a magnitude of the average vector exceeds the defined range and the direction of the average vector is vehicle forward of a default axis (paragraphs 0077-0079).
With respect to claim 18, Feldhaus discloses the computing system is further configured to decrease a droplet size when a magnitude of the average vector exceeds the defined range and the direction of the average vector is vehicle rearward of a default axis (paragraphs 0077-0079).
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldhaus in view of Stanhope (U.S. 2021/0368772).
With respect to claims 7 and 20, Feldhaus discloses the airflow detection system and the nozzle assembly having a vector, but fails to disclose including one or more position sensors positioned on a boom assembly, and wherein the computing system is further configured to: generate a boom deflection model based on the data from the position sensors; determining one or more nozzle assembly vectors based at least in part on the boom deflection model.
Stanhope discloses, paragraph 0007-0008, a sensor places on the boom to determine the booms position, due to the deflection of the boom arm, the nozzle speed may differ from the vehicle speed. Accordingly, the computing system may further determine a calculated application rate of the nozzle assembly based on the nozzle speed and a flow rate of the agricultural product where the computing system can be configured to calculate a boom assembly curvature based on the data from the sensor and determine a nozzle speed of the nozzle assembly (paragraph 0026). Where such boom movement/deflection is utilized to determine the nozzle position as it’s been deflected and adjust the spraying from the nozzle (paragraphs 0039-0041, 0043-0044, and 0048).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the position sensor and calculated deflection of Stanhope in determining a change in a nozzle assemblies’ application of a product into the system of Feldhaus, allowing for the accurate and correct nozzle spray and spray pattern to occur on the field. By taking into account the deflection of the boom arm, the changing vector in Feldhaus can be corrected to account for the change of the nozzle’s orientation itself due to the deflection.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The Amendment filed (01/26/2026) has been entered. Currently claims 1-20 are pending, claims 2, 8, 16, and 19-20 are amended, and 10-15 are withdrawn. Applicants’ amendments to the claims have failed to overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Office Action dated (10/27/2025). Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Feldhaus fails to disclose “determine a droplet size for exhausting an agricultural product from the first nozzle assembly based at least in part on the magnitude of the nozzle assembly vector relative to a defined range and the direction relative to a default axis.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Feldhaus discloses, paragraph 0047, discloses changing the spray droplet size by adjusting the flow rate and valves, paragraphs 0077-0079, discloses that such spray droplet size are used to ensure ideal spray/spread conditions, conditions that the droplets are determine by the vector of the spray cone (the vector being the magnate and the direction). “When the spray droplet size or the size of the granular particles are above a certain size to more or less ensure ideal spray/spread conditions, the trigonometric model provides a calculation of the dynamic spray area on the ground, along with adjustments for wind and vehicle travel vectors and a small lookup table that stores the one or more stationary (no wind/travel) fan angles of a nozzle spray tip.” Feldhaus is noted making adjustments for a variety of reasons, but the spray droplet size itself is still also controlled due to the flow rate through the system to obtain the spray droplet size that will ensure ideal spray/spread conditions, such conditions that rely on the vector (direction and magnitude) of the spray. Paragraph 0033 appears that the spray droplets can be utilized for a predictive trigonometric model, but paragraph 0047 has the spray droplet size changing when adjustments to the sprat pattern need changing, the spray pattern changes when the vector changes, and requires a different direction and magnitude of the spray (direction and magnitude again being the two components of a vector). Feldhaus is further noted doing this for the nozzles, plural, as shown in the abstract doing this for multiple nozzles and through the specification. Where each nozzle can change the droplet size, and has sensors for determined where ethe nozzle should be directed/angled at and the spread it has to utilized to get the desired coverage (see above already cited paragraphs). Applicant further argues that Feldhaus fails to disclose the droplet size based on an average of the first nozzle airflow vector and the second nozzle airflow vector. The examiner does concede the term “average” does not appear in Feldhaus, but rather that the droplet size can be controlled by changing the fluid pressure. Such fluid pressure would be determined by a pump or other means and not at the individual nozzle, so such lookup table and calculating being done for the fluid pressure (and thus the droplet size resulting therefrom) would be configured to use the average of multiple nozzles to get the set droplet size, paragraphs 0032 and 0047. Which is understood that say, the vector increases along the entire spray boom, and the spray system as a whole require more pressure to generate a spray at the desired system, the average for the whole system would then be used to apply the fluid pressure to the system to achieve that spray. There does not appear to be for instance, pumps at each nozzle, but rather what would be known in the art as a main adjustable pump either going to both spray sides of the spray boom, or a pump for each side. There is noted that the nozzles have valves that can open/close to change the flow rate through the nozzles and thus the droplet size in paragraph 0047, but overall change in fluid pressure across the system would be understood requiring the system determine what a new fluid pressure in the spray line of the boom to be. Which would be understood that the computing system would be configured to do to achieve the desired fluid pressure (and resulting droplet size) based on changing airflow vectors. Furthermore, paragraph 0009 discusses that the sprayers are being determined together, which is understood as an average together being done to a set of nozzles determining the overlap conditions (such as the droplet size). Lastly, paragraph 0034 discloses that corrective action is taken on the entire spray system when such overlap excess certain amounts, such overlap would thus be that of all the nozzles together (and thus the average of them) being above a certain amount. At this time, when such overlap exceeding a certain amount indicating that the spray pattern is not unfirm happens, it is understood that being all the nozzles together, and thus an average, the various corrections can be to increase the PWM frequency (which also would change the droplet size) the direction of the nozzles (which would result in changing droplet size to then re-uniform the spray pattern).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752