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 .
Claims 1-15 and 18 have been presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by McNichols et al PGPUB 2020/0281110.
Referring to claim 1, McNichols teaches the method for operating a treatment device on an agricultural area to be treated, the method comprising the steps of:
providing crop data relating to a crop present on the agricultural area to be treated and treatment data signifying a type of treatment to be conducted by the treatment device to a preparation system [0044, 0045, 0095].
determining, by the preparation system, from the crop data and from the treatment data, at least one operation parameter, wherein the determined operation parameter is related to a real-time and/or location-specific condition to be monitored during treatment [0045, 0154, 0156].
generating, by the preparation system, a control file comprising the determined at least one operation parameter, the generated control file usable to operate the treatment device based on the real-time and/or location-specific condition to be monitored during treatment [0044-0045, 0050, 0081].
In summary, McNichols teaches a method of treating an agricultural field by sending field data to an agricultural intelligence computer system. The field data includes information such as crop type, crop variety, fertilizer data, treatment data relating to application, environmental data such as irrigation data, weather, wind speed and direction, humidity, etc… Using this information, the agricultural intelligence computer system can provide recommendations to a user or alternatively, send scripts (i.e. control file) to the application controller that controls a respective farm equipment such as a tractor towing a fertilizer-spreading equipment. The application of the fertilizer can be adjusted based to apply in the most efficient manner taking into consideration humidity and wind speed/direction for example.
Referring to claim 2, McNichols teaches taking wind speed into “alter the course of the spraying vehicle to apposition farther ‘up-wind’” [0154].
Referring to claim 3, McNichols teaches the agricultural intelligence computer system is connected remotely via wireless network (109) [Fig. 1, 0044, 0049]. In addition, McNichols further teaches that the scripts control the operating parameters of the agricultural vehicle [0047]. The scripts would have to be received first so that the script would be available before being able to control the vehicle.
Referring to claim 4, McNichols teaches fertilizing based on what seeds are being planted and the suspected nitrogen use [0073, 0075]. In addition, McNichols also teaches modifying operation of a pesticide spraying machine to modify field traversal, spray angle, etc.… based on weather data for example [0152].
Referring to claim 5, McNichols teaches accounting for things such as “adjacent crops” which indicates drop data specific to the agricultural area [abstract].
Referring to claim 6, McNichols teaches the crop data includes crop type and further includes fertilizer recommendations [0045, 0095-0096].
Referring to claims 8-9, McNichols teaches optimizing nitrogen application during the season, in part by identifying what crops are planted in the field [0074].
Referring to claim 10, McNichols teaches allowing for variable application rates for different zones [0073, 0075].
Referring to claim 11, McNichols provides an example which allows for a dynamically adjustable fertilizer application rate (i.e., a variable rate fertility script) [0075].
Referring to claim 12, McNichols teaches the agricultural intelligence computer system also receives field data such as fertilizer and chemical application amounts and methods [0045, 0050]. The methods are taught as including a spray angle which is interpreted as a configuration of the treatment device [0152].
Referring to claims 13-15 and 18, McNichols teaches the method and therefore teaches the system, device and program performed by the method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNichols as applied to claims 1-6, 8-15 and 18 above and further in view of Lawhon PGPUB 2006/0272206.
Referring to claim 7, while McNichols teaches the invention as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to consider weed species, coverage or type when providing weed treatment. Lawhon teaches that different herbicides are required for different types of weeds [0005]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select the type of herbicide based on the weed type because such is required to effectively treat weeds as taught by Lawhon.
Alternatively, or in addition to, one would obviously also consider the weed density because an area with no weeds may not require treatment at all compared to other areas where weeds are more prevalent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A CONNOLLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Thomas Lee can be reached at 571-272-3667. 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.
/MARK A CONNOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 11/7/25
Prosecution Insights