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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed April 7th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9 and 11-14 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 23rd, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“all direction” in ln. 2 should be revised to “all directions”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the opening and closing moment” in ln. 5 should be revised to “an opening and closing moment”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4-5 and 13-14 are 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "said reduced zone" in ln. 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a reduced zone” to refer to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 is rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 4.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the travel direction" in ln. 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a travel direction” to refer to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 is rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 13.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meil et al. (DE 102017220034 A1) in view of Davis et al. (US Patent 10,575,460) and Brown et al. (US Patent 10,390,481).
In regards to claim 13, Meil discloses a method of selectively spraying an area of a cultivated field (Paragraphs 0005-0006) with an agriculture spraying vehicle (10, Fig. 1) comprising a spraying equipment (14, Fig. 1) having at least one imaging system (26, Fig. 1), at least one spray bar (18, Fig. 1), the spray bar (18, Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of electromechanical nozzles (24, spray nozzles 24 are controlled through electronic control signals from the control device 20, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0063) including a corresponding plurality of nozzles (24, shown in Fig. 1) and a corresponding plurality of electromechanical valves (not explicitly shown, but spray nozzles 24 are controlled by electronic signals sent to their corresponding valves, Paragraph 0063), the plurality of nozzles (24, Fig. 1) of the spray bar (18, Fig. 1) are spaced apart from each other by a constant pitch distance (shown in Fig. 1), and configured to selectively spray said area (38, shown in Fig. 1), and including a corresponding plurality of nozzles (24, shown in Fig. 1), the agriculture spraying equipment (14, Fig. 1) further comprising a tank and pressure system per spray bar (16, not explicitly shown but there are metering components such as metering pumps and valves to control dispensing and pressure of the liquid, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0019), and a control unit (20, Fig. 1) including a processing unit (“computer program and a machine-readable storage medium”, Paragraph 0007) to control the electromechanical valve (Paragraph 0064) of each electromechanical nozzles (24, control unit 20 sends electronic signals to control valves of respective spray nozzle units 24, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0063) of the spray bar (18, Fig. 1).
However, Meil does not disclose the method comprising a spraying equipment having at least two spray bars arranged parallel to each other, wherein the plurality of nozzles of each spray bar are spaced apart from each other by a constant pitch distance, and the one spray bar is laterally shifted from the other spray bar by a distance equals to half of said pitch distance, and the method comprising operating one of the two spray bars in a first mode where both spray bars are independent from each other and each spray bar sprays a different product at a different location, or operating the two spray bars in a second mode where the two spray bars are combined together and considered as a single bar with a doubled lateral spatial nozzle density, spraying the same product.
Davis teaches a method of selectively spraying an area of a cultivated field with an agriculture spraying vehicle (Col. 1, Ln. 45-58) comprising at least two spray bars (63, 65, Fig. 2) arranged parallel to each other (shown in Fig. 2), wherein the plurality of nozzles (76, 176, Fig. 2) of each spray bar (63, 65, Fig. 2) are spaced apart from each other by a constant pitch distance (distance between nozzle 176 on the left side and nozzle 76, and distance between nozzle 76 and nozzle 176 on the right side, shown in Fig. 2), and wherein the one spray bar is laterally shifted from the other spray bar by a distance equals to half of said pitch distance (each row unit 63, 65 can be controlled independently within a positional or lateral range that avoids collision or interference with adjacent row units, which can include a distance equals to half of said pitch distance, Col. 12, Ln. 26-47), the method comprising:
operating one of the two spray bars in a first mode where both spray bars are independent from each other and each spray bar sprays a different product at a different location, or
operating the two spray bars in a second mode where the two spray bars are combined together and considered as a single bar with a doubled lateral spatial nozzle density, spraying the same product (sprayer vehicle 11 has a first tank 36 storing a fluid that is distributed to a first set of nozzles 76, and a second tank 38 storing another fluid to a second set of nozzles 76, and fluid spraying from each set has a targeted distribution to a zone of a field, and spraying plan may be a row-by-row basis, Col. 8, Ln. 1-41, Col. 18, Ln. 1-20).
Meil and Davis are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural spraying systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Davis’ method to Meil’s method, to have the method comprising at least two spray bars arranged parallel to each other, one positioned ahead of the other in the travel direction of the agricultural spraying vehicle, wherein the plurality of nozzles of each spray bar are spaced apart from each other by a constant pitch distance, wherein the one spray bar is laterally shifted from the other spray bar by a distance equals to half of said pitch distance, and a control unit including a processing unit to control the electromechanical valve of each electromechanical nozzles of each spray bar, the method comprising operating one of the two spray bars in a first mode where both spray bars are independent from each other and each spray bar sprays a different product at a different location, or operating the two spray bars in a second mode where the two spray bars are combined together and considered as a single bar with a doubled lateral spatial nozzle density, spraying the same product. Doing so accounts precise application and variable application within zones of a field (Davis, Col. 1, Ln. 37-58).
However, Meil and Davis do not teach the method comprising a spraying equipment having at least two spray bars arranged parallel to each other, one positioned ahead of the other in the travel direction of the agricultural spraying vehicle.
Brown teaches the spraying equipment (300, Fig. 3A) having at least two spray bars (320a, 320b, Fig. 3A) arranged parallel to each other (shown in Fig. 3A), one positioned ahead of the other in the travel direction of the agricultural spraying vehicle (shown in Fig. 3A).
Meil, Davis, and Brown are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural spraying systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the at least two spray bars taught in Brown’s spraying equipment to Meil’s spraying equipment, as modified by Davis, to have at least two spray bars arranged parallel to each other, one positioned ahead of the other in the travel direction of the agricultural spraying vehicle. Doing so provides minimal overspray and variable spray patterns in varying crop row widths (Brown, Col. 1, Ln. 25-42).
Regarding claim 14, Meil, as modified by Davis, discloses the method according to claim 13. However, Meil and Davis do not teach the spraying equipment comprises at least three spray bars arranged parallel to each other, each spray bar comprising a plurality of electromechanical nozzles, wherein the plurality of nozzles of each spray bar are spaced apart from each other by a constant pitch distance, and wherein one spray bar is laterally shifted from one of the two other spray bars by a distance equals to a third of said pitch distance while said one spray bar is laterally shifted from the other of said two other spray bars by a distance equals to two thirds of the pitch distance.
Brown teaches the spraying equipment (300, Fig. 3A) comprises at least three spray bars (320a, 320b, 320c, Fig. 3A) arranged parallel to each other (shown in Fig. 3A), each spray bar (320a, 320b, 320c, Fig. 3A) comprising a plurality of electromechanical nozzles (330, nozzles 330 are connected to system controller, Fig. 3A, Col. 15, Ln. 13-19), wherein the plurality of nozzles (330, Fig. 3A) of each spray bar (320a, 320b, 320c, Fig. 3A) are spaced apart from each other by a constant pitch distance (distance between nozzles 330, shown in Fig. 3A), and wherein one spray bar is laterally shifted from one of the two other spray bars by a distance equals to a third of said pitch distance while said one spray bar is laterally shifted from the other of said two other spray bars by a distance equals to two thirds of said pitch distance (offset manifolds 320 can be configured for treatment of different plants and active areas, and manifolds 320 move along a manifold path 240 which adjusts manifold spacing 352a, 352b, which can include a distance equals to a third of said pitch distance and a distance equals to two thirds of said pitch distance, Col. 12, Ln. 64 to Col. 13, Ln. 30).
Meil, Davis, and Brown are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural spraying systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the at least three spray bars taught in Brown’s spraying equipment to Meil’s spraying equipment, as modified by Davis, to have the spraying equipment comprises at least three spray bars arranged parallel to each other, each spray bar comprising a plurality of electromechanical nozzles, wherein the plurality of nozzles of each spray bar are spaced apart from each other by a constant pitch distance, and wherein one spray bar is laterally shifted from one of the two other spray bars by a distance equals to a third of said pitch distance while said one spray bar is laterally shifted from the other of said two other spray bars by a distance equals to two thirds of said pitch distance. Doing so provides minimal overspray and variable spray patterns in varying crop row widths (Brown, Col. 1, Ln. 25-42).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 6-9, and 11-12 are allowed.
Claims 4-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, Meil et al. (DE 102017220034 A1), fails to teach a method of selectively spraying an area of a cultivated field, the method comprising:
computing a spraying pattern on the area based on a divergence angle of said at least one nozzle and a vertical distance between said nozzle and said area to be selectively sprayed, said spraying pattern covering the plant to be sprayed and possibly touching a plant which shall not be sprayed;
computing a distance called a jet shift distance to laterally shift the spraying pattern such that the shifted pattern covers the plant to be sprayed without covering the plant which shall not be sprayed, and express said jet shift distance as a multiple of said nozzle-to-nozzle pitch, and
laterally shifting said spraying pattern by activating at least one newly selected nozzle which is distant from the at least one nozzle vertically positioned above a plant to be sprayed by said jet shift distance so that the spraying pattern from said at least one newly selected nozzle does not spray the plant that shall not be sprayed, in combination with other limitations recited in the claims.
Other related art, such as Feldhaus et al. (US 20160368011 A1), do teach a method comprising computing a spraying pattern on the area based on a divergence angle of said at least one nozzle and a vertical distance between said nozzle and said area to be selectively sprayed, said spraying pattern covering the plant to be sprayed and possibly touching a plant which shall not be sprayed. In paragraph 0055, Feldhaus states that spray area occurring on the ground is determined by distance from the nozzle tip to the ground, which is a vertical distance, and a fan angle of the nozzle tip. Feldhaus also discusses that overlap or drift of spray patterns can occur due to wind or vehicle velocity, and spray past a desired area is readily computed based on determining spray has extended past a boundary in paragraphs 0075 and 0081. Feldhaus describes methods of comparing a predicted or monitored pattern on the ground to a desired pattern in a desired grid, and based on information that the desired ground pattern is not occurring, corrective or counter-balance action is taken to optimize uniformity of spray and location of spray or drift (Paragraph 0009). Feldhaus explains that adjacent or near neighboring nozzle bodies and their spray overlap patterns are determined together, such as implementing a duty cycle and phase shift as shown in Figs. 1E and 1F.
However, Feldhaus does not go into detail about computing a jet shift distance, expressed as a nozzle-to nozzle pitch, that laterally shifts a spraying pattern to cover a plant to be sprayed without covering a plant that shall not be sprayed. Feldhaus also does not explain lateral shifting of the spraying pattern to at least one newly selected nozzle by the jet shift distance. It is noted that Meil and Feldhaus are considered to be the best prior art of record to the present invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 12-17 with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-12 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed April 7th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Meil, in view of Davis, does not disclose the amended limitations of claim 13, the claimed invention does not need to be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the applied references, taken as a whole, would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) and in re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). The cited references do teach these features. Specifically, Davis teaches at least two spray bars arranged parallel to each other, one positioned ahead of the other in the travel direction of the agricultural spraying vehicle as noted above in the 103 rejection for claim 13. In Davis, the travel direction of vehicle 11 may be a leftward position, as shown in Figs. 8A-8B and described in Col. 18, Ln. 39-48.
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 Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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 O 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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights