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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michael et al (US 9,504,212, submitted as IDS on 11/05/2025).
As to claim 7, Michael et al disclose an Agricultural field sprayer for spreading comprising:
A storage container (125)
A spraying boom (105)
First and second spreading device (110), which are connected to the storage container in fluid conducting manner and arranged along the boom
The system is capable to be programmed to operate in open/closed loop control to adjust the first and second operating parameter with control module (155).
As to claim 8, Michael et al disclose an Agricultural field sprayer for spreading comprising:
A storage container (125)
A spraying boom (105)
First and second spreading device (110), which are connected to the storage container in fluid conducting manner and arranged along the boom
The system is capable to be programmed to operate in open/closed loop control to adjust the first and second operating parameter with control module (155)
The system can also be controlled to perform the method of:
Determining first and second operating parameters
Ascertaining the differences between the parameters
Adjusting the parameters
Selecting the best control strategies (col. 3, lines 5 – col. 5, line 52).
As to claim 1, Michael et al disclose a method for spreading a spraying liquid onto an arable agricultural land by spreading devices comprising the steps of:
Determining first and second operating parameter associated with first and second spreading devices (110) (col. 3, lines 10-20)
Ascertain a difference between said operating parameters (col. 3, lines 50-55)
Adjusting the operating parameters if the difference is outside a defined acceptance range (col. 4, lines 21-33)
Selecting a control strategy to execute spraying (col. 42-55).
As to claim 3, one control strategy is on the basis of ambient condition detected (col. 5, lines 44-52).
As to claim 4, the control system is getting information based on the operating parameters.
As to claim 9, sensors are used to detect ambient conditions.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael et al (US 9,504,212).
As to claim 2, Michael et al disclose the claimed invention, but fails to explicitly disclose one of the control strategies. However, since Michael et al is concerned with making adjustments to the system based on the data received, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set the control system based on the differences of the operating parameters.
As to claim 5, Michael et al disclose the claimed invention, but fails to explicitly disclose controlling in a pulse width manner. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have any monitoring procedure that is most optimal, since it is within the design expediency.
As to claim 6, Michael et al disclose the claimed invention, but fails to explicitly disclose detecting at least one spreading device in which a determined operating parameter is at least nearly not reached by the adjusted operating parameter. However, since Michael et al disclose monitoring and detecting the operating manner, it is within the user and design expediency to monitor prior to reaching or reaching the operating parameter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to claim 7, applicant argues that Michael et al. does not teach or suggest an open-loop and/or closed-loop control system that is configured to adjust and/or correct a first and/or second operating parameter when a predetermined maximum difference between a first and second operating parameters is reached or exceeded. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Since this is an apparatus claim, and wherein Michael et al. disclose the controller system to control based on the operating parameters, then it is capable of operating at closed or open loop based on the predetermined value. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
As to claim 1, applicant argues that Michael et al. do not teach or suggest ascertaining and/or detecting a difference between said operating parameters. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Michael et al. disclose controllers that generates with valves and sensors. The system 100 of Michael et al. is to regulate and control. It is inherent that when a system is regulate/control, it is based on the differences of the intended target value. Similarly to applicant’s invention, “adjusting first and/or second parameter,” Michael et al. is adjusting based on the desired target. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Len Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-1184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am - 4pm.
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.
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.
/LEN TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights