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 and Arguments
The amendment filed 3/9/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-7, 9-11, 13, 14, 17-19 remain pending in the application.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Stanhope does not teach determining the curvature of a boom arm relative to a frame in a plane defined by the lateral direction and the vertical direction based on data generated by a sensor. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Stanhope does teach an embodiment for detecting fore/aft curvature of the boom arms resulting from longitudinal driving forces, Stanhope additionally teaches determining the vertical curvature of the boom arms resulting from the weight of the boom arms (gravity/vertical forces). The abstract of Stanhope is not explicit in stating that the system determines the fore/aft curvature or the vertical curvature of the boom arms. The abstract simply states “A sensor can be operably coupled with the boom assembly and configured to capture data associated with a position of the boom assembly. A computing system can be communicatively coupled to the sensor. The computing system can be configured to calculate a boom assembly curvature based on the data from the sensor”. Applicant correctly states that the system taught by Stanhope can move in a vertical direction. Vertical deflection of the boom arm is described in detail in Stanhope [0043] and [0049] measuring boom height, for example, using a three-axis IMU. A three-axis IMU would be capable of detecting deflection and curvature of the boom arm in any operable direction and therefore Stanhope would cover the limitation of determining curvature of the boom arms in the vertical/lateral plane.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9-11, 13, 14, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20140263766A1 Venton-Walters ("Walters") in view of US20210368772A1 Stanhope ("Stanhope").
As per claims 1 and 14, Walters teaches the limitations of the system and method:
controlling an operation of an agricultural sprayer, the system comprising: a boom assembly including a frame and a boom arm coupled to the frame, the boom arm extending in a lateral direction from a first end of the boom arm to a second end of the boom arm, the lateral direction extending perpendicular to a travel direction of the agricultural sprayer; a nozzle assembly supported on the boom arm, the nozzle assembly configured to dispense an agricultural substance onto an underlying field; (Walters at least the abstract, FIGs 26-28)
a sensor configured to generate data indicative of a position of the boom arm relative to the frame in a plane defined by the lateral direction and a vertical direction that is perpendicular to the lateral direction and the travel direction; and a computing system communicatively coupled to the sensor, the computing system configured to: determine a shape of the boom arm relative to the frame in the plane defined by the lateral direction and the vertical direction based on the data generated by the sensor; determine a position of the nozzle assembly relative to the frame in the plane defined by the lateral direction and the vertical direction based on the data generated by the sensor; (Walters at least [0044]: “articulation…sensors and a controller”, [0096]: “height sensors”, [0105]: “positioning sensors”, [0101]: “positional transducers…center rack height position to be computed”) *Examiner’s note: determining a position of the nozzle is related to the position of the boom arm. One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of determining the position of the nozzle if the position of the boom arm is known based at least in part on a known relative positional relationship between the boom arm and the nozzle.
Walters does not disclose:
determine a curvature of the boom arm relative to the frame in the plane defined by the lateral direction and the vertical direction based on the data generated by the sensor; determine a position of the nozzle assembly relative to the frame in the plane defined by the lateral direction and the vertical direction based on the determined curvature; and control an operation of the nozzle assembly based on the determined position of the nozzle assembly relative to the frame.
However, Stanhope teaches the aforementioned limitation (Stanhope at least [0024-0031]: "During an application operation, the boom arms may move in a vertical direction, a fore-aft direction, and/or a combination thereof. When the boom arms move in the fore-aft direction, the outer end portion of the boom arm and/or the outer nozzle assembly does not extend as far from the sprayer in a lateral direction when compared to a default boom position thereby creating a variance between the default field swath and an actual spray area. In addition, the movement of the boom arms relative to the frame and/or the vehicle may cause one or more nozzle assemblies to move at a varied speed relative to the ground from the vehicle causing the application rate to deviate from an intended application rate.", abstract). *Examiner’s note: although certain exemplary embodiments taught by Stanhope are directed towards the fore/aft curvature of the boom arms resulting from travel direction deflections, Stanhope [0024] and the abstract teach one of ordinary skill in the art the control of the sprayer/boom arm in relation to a combination of horizontal and vertical curvature deflections.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Walters with the aforementioned limitations taught by Stanhope with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve the quality of application of agricultural product to a field by monitoring boom assembly movement (Stanhope [0005]).
*Examiner’s note: neither Stanhope nor Walters teach the boom arms conforming or adjusting for the contour of a canopy cover and ground surface.
As per claims 4 and 17, Walters in combination with the other reference teaches the limitations of the system and method as described above. Walters additionally teaches:
when controlling the operation of the nozzle assembly, the computing system is configured to: determine a distance between the nozzle assembly and an underlying field surface or an underlying canopy surface based on the determined position of the nozzle assembly relative to the frame; (Walters at least [0094]: “angle actuator for controlling an angle of the boom”, [0109], FIGS. 26-28)
Walters does not disclose:
control an operating parameter of the nozzle assembly based on the determined distance.
However, Stanhope teaches the aforementioned limitation (Stanhope at least [0023-0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Walters with the aforementioned limitations taught by Stanhope with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 1.
As per claims 5 and 18, Walters in combination with the other reference teaches the inventions described above. Walters does not disclose the limitations of the system and method:
the operating parameter comprises a pressure of the agricultural substance being supplied to the nozzle assembly.
However, Stanhope teaches the aforementioned limitation (Stanhope at least [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Walters with the aforementioned limitations taught by Stanhope with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 1.
As per claims 6 and 19, Walters in combination with the other reference teaches the inventions described above. Walters does not disclose the limitations of the system and method:
the operating parameter comprises at least one of a frequency or a duty cycle at which the nozzle assembly is being operated.
However, Stanhope teaches the aforementioned limitation (Stanhope at least [0046]: "nozzle valve...pulsed…frequency and duty cycle").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Walters with the aforementioned limitations taught by Stanhope with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 1.
As per claim 7, Walters in combination with the other reference teaches the invention described above. Walters does not disclose:
the sensor comprises an imaging device configured to generate image data depicting at least a portion of the boom arm in the plane defined by the lateral direction and the vertical direction.
However, Stanhope teaches the aforementioned limitation (Stanhope at least [0050]: "camera").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Walters with the aforementioned limitations taught by Stanhope with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 1.
As per claim 9, Walters in combination with the other reference teaches invention as described above. Walters additionally teaches:
the sensor comprises a movement sensor configured to generate movement data indicative of movement of the boom arm relative to the frame in the plane defined by the lateral direction and the vertical direction. (Walters at least [0093])
As per claim 10, Walters in combination with the other reference teaches the invention described above. Walters does not disclose:
an imaging device configured to generate image data depicting at least a portion of the boom arm in the plane defined by the lateral direction and the vertical direction
determine the position of the nozzle assembly relative to the frame in the plane defined by the lateral direction and the vertical direction based on the movement data generated by the movement sensor and the image data generated by the imaging device.
However, Stanhope teaches the aforementioned limitation (Bittner at least [0050]: "camera", [0024-0031], abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Walters with the aforementioned limitations taught by Stanhope with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 1.
As per claim 11, Walters in combination with the other reference teaches invention as described above. Walters additionally teaches:
the nozzle assembly corresponds to a first nozzle assembly, the system further comprising: a second nozzle assembly supported on the boom assembly and spaced apart from the first nozzle assembly in the lateral direction, the second nozzle assembly configured to dispense the agricultural substance onto the underlying field, wherein the computing system is further configured to: determine a position of the second nozzle assembly relative to the frame in the plane defined by the lateral direction and the vertical direction based on the data generated by the sensor determined shape of the boom arm; and control an operation of the second nozzle assembly independently of the first nozzle assembly based on the determined position of the second nozzle assembly relative to the frame. (Walters at least FIGs 26-28, [0084]: “primary or inner boom…secondary or outer boom“) *Examiner’s note: here Walters teaches sprayer nozzles on each boom arm, thus at least multiple sets of nozzle assemblies.
Walters does not disclose the aforementioned limitations being applied to a determined curvature of a boom arm assembly in the horizontal and vertical planes. Stanhope teaches the aforementioned limitations (Stanhope at least the abstract, [0024-0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Walters with the aforementioned limitations taught by Stanhope with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 1.
As per claim 13, Walters in combination with the other reference teaches invention as described above. Walters additionally teaches:
the sensor is mounted on the frame. (Walters at least [0101]: “height level sensors are fitted to each side of the center-rack”)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters in view of Stanhope and US4826391A Lawrence et al ("Lawrence").
As per claim 8, Walters in combination with the other reference teaches the invention described above:
Walters does not disclose:
the boom arm includes a target positioned thereon; and when determining the position of the nozzle assembly, the computing system is configured to: determine position of the target relative to the frame in the plane defined by the lateral direction and the vertical direction based on the determined curvature; and determine the position of the nozzle assembly relative to the frame in the plane defined by the lateral direction and the vertical direction based on the determined position of the target.
However, Lawrence teaches the aforementioned limitation (Lawrence at least the abstract: "image analysis…image of the two arms to determine the joint angles", col 1 line 40: “marker means”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Walters with the aforementioned limitations taught by Lawrence with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references to provide for “a backup system to ensure the accurate operation” of a boom (Lawrence).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters, Stanhope and US10913643B1 Mourlam ("Mourlam").
As per claim 12, Walters in combination with the other reference teaches the invention described above. Walters does not disclose:
determine when the boom assembly is worn or damaged based on the determined position of the nozzle assembly relative to the frame in the plane defined by the lateral direction and the vertical direction.
However, Mourlam teaches the aforementioned limitation (Mourlam at least col 2: "producing an alert when the load percentage exceeds a predetermined maximum load percentage", col 15: “upper boom joint angle at which the peak load pressure occurs”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Walters with the aforementioned limitations taught by Mourlam with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references to improve accuracy and reliability of load monitoring (Mourlam abstract).
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 OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669