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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Claims 1,4-6,8,11-14 and 17-19 are pending in the application.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Stanhope fails to disclose a computing system that determines the curvature of a boom arm of a sprayer relative to a frame of the sprayer in a plane defined by the lateral and vertical directions based on image data generated by an imaging device. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Stanhope [ 0008-0009] teaches using sensors to determine boom arm position and curvature. Stanhope [0051] provides for an image sensors for calculating curvature of the boom arm.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: imaging device in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (camera, [0030]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 4-6, 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 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:
an imaging device configured to generate image data depicting at least a portion of the boom arm; 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 image data generated by the imaging device; 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 limitations (Stanhope at least [0024-0031], abstract, [0008-0009], [0051]). *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 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
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
/TODD MELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights