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 .
The amendment filed on January 29, 2026 has been considered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The Abstract is not submitted on a separate sheet.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, determining, with one or more processing systems of the agricultural implement or of a machine towing the agricultural implement in operation, a refill amount of agricultural material mixture to be added to the storage tank is not described in the original disclosure. For example, original paragraph 0021 discloses determining a refill amount of agricultural material mixture to be added to the storage tank. However, paragraph 0021 does not disclose that the determination is with one or more processing systems of the agricultural implement or of a machine towing the agricultural implement in operation.
Claim 1, determining, with the one or more processing systems, a refill amount of each material in the agricultural material mixture from a formula for the agricultural material mixture and the refill amount of agricultural material mixture. For example, original paragraph 0021 discloses determining a refill amount of each material in the agricultural material mixture from a formula for the agricultural material mixture and the refill amount of agricultural material mixture. However, paragraph 0021 does not disclose that the determination is with the one or more processing systems.
Fig. 2 shows a method of determining an amount of refill materials including steps for determining a refill amount (92, 93). However, the method is not disclosed to be performed by one or more processing systems of the agricultural implement or of a machine towing the agricultural implement in operation (see paragraph 4). Paragraph 0022 discloses “FIG. 3 shows an example of a system 100 for performing agricultural operations (e.g., applying fluid applications to plants) of agricultural fields including operations of an implement having application units. For example, the system 100 may be implemented as a cloud based system with servers, data processing devices, computers, etc.”. However, paragraph 0022 does not disclose determining a refill amount with system 100.
Claim 7, “carrier material” is not described in the original disclosure. For example, paragraph 0002 discloses “[i]n many agricultural applications, materials that are applied to agricultural fields are mixtures of materials. The materials can be either fluids or solids.”
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavender-Bares et al. (US 2015/142250) in view of Long et al. (US 2021/0078853).
Regarding claim 1, Cavender-Bares et al. discloses a method (Abstract) comprising:
applying an agricultural material mixture (paragraph 0090, lines 4-6; paragraph 0106, lines 1-3; paragraph 0107, lines 1-4) from an agricultural implement (100, paragraph 0090, lines 1-6) as the agricultural implement is driven across a field (102, paragraph 0058), wherein the agricultural implement includes a storage tank (116) for storing an initial amount of the agricultural material mixture (paragraph 0062, lines 4-8), wherein there is an initial amount of agricultural material mixture in the storage tank (paragraph 0062, lines 4-8), and wherein the field has an applied area and an unapplied area (when the vehicle 100 is working, there is part of the field 102 where the mixture is already applied, and part of the field 102 where the mixture is not yet already applied);
determining, with the one or more processing systems (paragraph 0081, lines 2-7), a refill amount of each material in the agricultural material mixture from a formula for the agricultural material mixture and the refill amount of agricultural material mixture (paragraph 0081, lines 5-11) (the anticipated quantities can be computed using conditions based on a combination of amounts/quantities, paragraph 0081, lines 6-11, the conditions are based on increasing/decreasing the amount of fuel, fertilizer, agricultural chemicals, seed, water, or combination thereof to be used, paragraph 0081, lines 10-11);
refilling the storage tank (paragraph 0081, lines 14-15) with the refill amount of each material in the agricultural material mixture (anticipated quantities of supplies to be used, paragraph 0081, lines 5-6).
Cavender-Bares et al. does not disclose determining, with one or more processing systems of the agricultural implement or of a machine towing the agricultural implement in operation, a refill amount of agricultural material mixture to be added to the storage tank; wherein the refill amount of the agricultural material mixture is determined by one of:
an amount of material to be applied to the unapplied area; or
an amount of material that can be added to the tank.
Long et al. discloses determining, with one or more processing systems (determining refill amount by control system, paragraph 0001, lines 4-8) of a machine towing the agricultural implement in operation (control system of agricultural spray vehicle 10, paragraph 0019, lines 2-4; paragraph 0043, lines 10-11; Fig. 1), a refill amount of agricultural material mixture to be added to the storage tank (paragraph 0001, lines 7-8); wherein the refill amount of the agricultural material mixture (refill amount) is determined by one of an amount of material that can be added to the tank (the refill amount is determined from the current amount and the projected amount, paragraph 0001, lines 7-8, where the amount of material that can be added to the tank is the difference between the projected amount and the current amount).
It is noted that determining, with one or more processing systems of the agricultural implement is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form.
It is noted that the refill amount of the agricultural material mixture is determined by one of an amount of material to be applied to the unapplied area is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Cavender-Bares et al. with an amount of material that can be added to the tank as disclosed by Long et al. for the purpose of
determining a refill amount of the agricultural material mixture.
.
Regarding claim 2, Cavender-Bares et al. discloses determining an amount of material application to the field (amount of fertilizer, agriculture chemicals, seed, water, paragraph 0081, lines 10-11).
Regarding claim 5, Cavender-Bares et al. does not disclose the refill amount of agricultural material mixture is determined by the amount of material to be applied to the unapplied area and is obtained by subtracting a remaining amount of agricultural material mixture in the storage tank from the amount of material to be applied to the unapplied area.
Long et al discloses a refill amount of agricultural material mixture (refill amount, paragraph 0001, line 7) is determined by the amount of material to be applied to the unapplied area (projected amount, paragraph 0001, line 8). It would have been obvious to subtract a remaining amount of agricultural material mixture in the storage tank (current amount, paragraph 0001, line 8) from the amount of material to be applied to the unapplied area (projected amount, paragraph 0001, line 8, where the projected amount is the total amount in the storage tank) to obtain the refill amount of agricultural material mixture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Cavender-Bares et al. with subtracting a remaining amount of agricultural material mixture in the storage tank (current amount, paragraph 0001, line 8) from the amount of material to be applied to the unapplied area (projected amount, paragraph 0001, line 8, where the projected amount is the total amount in the storage tank) as suggested by Long et al. for the purpose of
determining the refill amount of the agricultural material mixture.
Regarding claim 6, Cavender-Bares et al. does not disclose the amount of material that can be added to the tank is obtained by subtracting the amount of material application to the field from the initial amount of agricultural material mixture.
Long et al discloses an amount of material that can be added to the tank (refill amount) is obtained from the amount of material application to the field (current amount, paragraph 0001, line 8) and the initial amount of agricultural material mixture (projected amount, paragraph 0001, line 8). It would have been obvious to subtract the amount of material application to the field (current amount) from the initial amount of agricultural material mixture (projected amount) to obtain the amount of material that can be added to the tank (refill amount, paragraph 0001, line 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Cavender-Bares et al. with subtracting an amount of material application to the field (current amount) from the initial amount of agricultural material mixture (projected amount) as suggested by Long et al. for the purpose of determining the refill amount of the agricultural material mixture.
Regarding claim 7, Cavender-Bares et al. discloses the agricultural material mixture comprises a first input chemical material (agricultural chemicals, paragraph 0081, lines 10-11) and a second input chemical material (agricultural chemicals, paragraph 0081, lines 10-11).
Cavender-Bares et al. does not disclose the agricultural material mixture comprises a carrier material.
Long et al discloses mixing exact amounts of chemical concentration and carrier fluid for preparing refill amount (paragraph 0041, lines 12-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Cavender-Bares et al. with a carrier material as suggested by Long et al. for the purpose of determining the refill amount of the agricultural material mixture.
,
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavender-Bares et al. in view of Long et al. as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Klubertanz et al. (US 2019/0294150).
Regarding claim 3, Cavender-Bares et al. as modified by Long et al. discloses the claim limitations as discussed above except the determining the amount of material application is measured by flow meters.
Klubertanz et al. discloses determining the amount of material application is measured by flow meters (paragraph 0032, lines 8-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Cavender-Bares et al. as modified with flow meters as disclosed by Klubertanz et al. for the purpose of determining determining the amount of material application.
.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavender-Bares et al. in view of Long et al. as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Wilger (US 2019/0029170).
Regarding claim 4, Cavender-Bares et al. as modified by Long et al. discloses the claim limitations as discussed above except the determining the amount of material application is calculated by multiplying a time of applying by a flow rate of application.
Wilger discloses a flow rate sensor for determining flow rates of liquid fertilizer (paragraph 0018). Flow rate is defined as amount of material application (volume/mass of fluid) per unit of time (see definition of flow rate). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to determine the amount of material application by multiplying a time of applying by a flow rate of application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Cavender-Bares et al. as modified with flow rates measured by flow rate sensors as disclosed by Wilger for the purpose of determining the amount of material application \given the time of application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 29, 2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to the objection to the abstract, Applicants argue that the abstract has been amended to comply with MPEP 608.01(b)).
Examiner’s position is that the amended abstract does not comply with MPEP 608.01 because the abstract is not submitted on a separate page.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered. Please note that there is no rejection under 35 USC 101 in the prior office action. Claims 1-6 are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 (see prior office action, page 4).
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicants argue “[c]laim 1, as amended, includes the limitations "determining, with one or more processing systems of the agricultural material mixture to be added to the [[storge]]storage tank implement or of a machine coupled to the agricultural implement in operation, a refill amount of agricultural; determining, with the one or more processing systems, a refill amount of each material in the agricultural material mixture from a formula for the agricultural material mixture and the refill amount of agricultural material mixture;" Amended claims 1 is supported by at least paragraphs [0022]-[0024] and FIG. 1.”
Examiner’s position is that amended claim 1 is not supported by the original disclosure, as discussed above.
Applicants further argue “[i]n Cavender-Bares, there is no calculating of each material that goes into the agricultural material mixture from a formula for the agricultural material mixture and the refill amount of agricultural material mixture. Rather, Cavender-Bares just fills from refill station 130 to tank 116 based on pre-calculating the amounts of fuel, fertilizer, agricultural chemicals, seed, water, or combination and not from individual materials based on formula and refill amount that is determined in the field during the agricultural operation.”
Examiner’s position is that while Cavender-Bares may disclose pre-calculating the amounts of fuel, fertilizer, agricultural chemicals, seed, water, or combination, Cavender-Bares also discloses that the amounts of fuel, fertilizer, agricultural chemicals, seed, water, or combination are also calculated by a logistic software program loaded on microprocessor 122 which is part of vehicle platform (100) (Fig. 3) (paragraph 0081, lines 2-11). Cavender-Bares discloses the logistic software can be loaded on microprocessor 122 (paragraph 0081, lines 2-3). The Cavender-Bares discloses the microprocessor 122 is part of a vehicle platform (100, Fig. 3). The logistics software program can account for the anticipated quantities of supplies to be used, paragraph 0081, lines 5-6, the anticipated quantities can be computed using conditions based on a combination of amounts/quantities, paragraph 0081, lines 6-11, the conditions are based on increasing/decreasing the amount of fuel, fertilizer, agricultural chemicals, seed, water, or combination thereof to be used, paragraph 0081, lines 10-11). Thus, Cavender-Bares discloses determining, with the one or more processing systems (logistic software can be loaded on microprocessor 122, paragraph 0081, lines 2-3, of a vehicle platform 100, Fig. 3) a refill amount of each material in the agricultural material mixture (anticipated quantities of supplies to be used, paragraph 0081, lines 5-7) from a formula (computed anticipated quantities, paragraph 0081, lines 6-7) for the agricultural material mixture and the refill amount of agricultural material mixture (increasing/decreasing the anticipated quantities, paragraph 0081, lines 10-11).
Applicants further argue “[i]n addition to not calculating a mixture from different materials, the amount of material to add to the tank is not determined. In Cavender-Bares, it only fills tank 116 based on pre-calculated amount without first calculating an amount to add to the tank or adding material to tank 116 to have a sufficient amount of material to apply to an unapplied area.”
Examiner’s position is that Long is relied upon to teach determining the amount of material to add to the tank, as discussed above.
Applicants further argue “[t]he control system of Long is not an agricultural implement and is not a machine towing the agricultural implement in operation.”
Examiner’s position is that the control system of Long is part of a machine towing the agricultural implement (agricultural spray vehicle 10) (paragraph 0019, lines 2-4; paragraph 0043, lines 10-11; Fig. 1).
Applicants further argue “[t]he control system does not determine, with the one or more processing systems, a refill amount of each material in the agricultural material mixture from a formula for the agricultural mixture and the refill amount of agricultural material mixture;" of amended claim 1.””
Examiner’s position is that Long discloses “determining, with one or more processing systems (determining refill amount by control system, paragraph 0001, lines 4-8) of a machine towing the agricultural implement in operation (control system of agricultural spray vehicle 10, paragraph 0019, lines 2-4; paragraph 0043, lines 10-11; Fig. 1), a refill amount of agricultural material mixture to be added to the storage tank (paragraph 0001, lines 7-8); wherein the refill amount of the agricultural material mixture (refill amount) is determined by one of an amount of material that can be added to the tank (the refill amount is determined from the current amount and the projected amount, paragraph 0001, lines 7-8, where the amount of material that can be added to the tank is the difference between the projected amount and the current amount).”
Applicants further argue “even if Cavender-Bares and Long were combined, such a combination would lack the limitations "determining, with one or more processing systems of the agricultural implement or of a machine towing the agricultural implement in operation, a refill amount of agricultural material mixture to be added to the [[storge]]storage tank; determining, with the one or more processing systems, a refill amount of each material in the agricultural material mixture from a formula for the agricultural material mixture and the refill amount of agricultural material mixture;" of amended claim 1.”
Examiner’s position is that the above limitations are obvious in view of Cavender-Bares and Long as discussed above.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are traversed in view of the discussions above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 May 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights