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 .
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: at least one sensor (corresponding in the instant application to 130), a performance deviation comparator (as shown in figure 1 of the instant application), a performance issue diagnostic processor (as shown in figure 1 of the instant application), and a diagnostic indication processor (as shown in figure 1 of the instant application) in claims 1-23.
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.
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 § 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 1-12 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 1 recites the limitation "the processor" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is considered that this is intended to be the same as the amended sprayer processor introduced in line 5. A possible claim correction would read - - the sprayer processor - -. This is the interpretation that will be used below.
Claims 2-12 depend from claim 1 and inherit this issue therefrom.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-23 are directed to an automated sprayer diagnostic system, which is considered to be a machine. Therefore, claims 1-23 each fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to an automated sprayer diagnostic system comprising “a performance deviation comparator configured to compare the actual performance profile of the at least one nozzle assembly with a specified performance profile and determine one or more performance deviations from the comparison;
a performance issue diagnostic processor configured to identify at least one performance issued based on the one or more performance deviations; and
a diagnostic indication processor configured to provide a diagnostic indication of the identified at least one performance issue” which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention, in at least page 22, line 27-page 46, line 25, teach the comparing, identifying, and indication to be mathematical processes and give no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. In addition, the comparing, identifying, and indication could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mathematical concept” group and the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, claim 1 further recites the additional elements “at least one sensor directed toward at least one nozzle assembly of a sprayer implement, the at least one sensor configured to monitor an actual performance profile of the at least one nozzle assembly;
a sprayer processor in communication with the at least one sensor; and
a sprayer diagnostic controller in communication with the at least one sensor and the processor” and the structure of the performance deviation comparator, the performance issue diagnostic processor, and the diagnostic indication processor. The additional elements of the at least one sensor, the sprayer processor, the sprayer diagnostic controller, the performance deviation comparator, the performance issue diagnostic processor, and the diagnostic indication processor are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the sensor is considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. The sensor limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The sprayer processor, the sprayer diagnostic controller, the performance deviation processor, the performance issue diagnostic processor, and the diagnostic indication processor are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements of “at least one sensor directed toward at least one nozzle assembly of a sprayer implement, the at least one sensor configured to monitor an actual performance profile of the at least one nozzle assembly;
a sprayer processor in communication with the at least one sensor; and
a sprayer diagnostic controller in communication with the at least one sensor and the processor” and the structure of the performance deviation comparator, the performance issue diagnostic processor, and the diagnostic indication processor do not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of the sensor, the sprayer processor, the sprayer diagnostic controller, the performance deviation comparator, the performance issue diagnostic processor, and the diagnostic indication processor are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the sensor is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The sensor limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The sprayer processor, the sprayer diagnostic controller, the performance deviation comparator, the performance issue diagnostic processor, and the diagnostic indication processor are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Claim 2 recites the further additional element of “wherein the at least one sensor is coupled with a sensor boom, and the sensor boom is configured to direct the at least one sensor toward the at least one nozzle assembly”. The additional elements of a plurality of at least one sensor is coupled to a sensor boom are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the sensor boom is configured to direct the at least one sensor toward the at least one nozzle assembly is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The sensor and boom limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 2 is not eligible.
Claim 3 recites the further additional element of “wherein the at least one nozzle assembly includes a plurality of nozzle assemblies, and the at least one sensor is coupled with a sensor actuator configured to traverse a scan line of the at least one sensor across the plurality of nozzle assemblies”. The additional elements of the plurality of nozzle assemblies and the at least one sensor is coupled with a sensor actuator configured to traverse a scan line of the at least one sensor across the plurality of nozzle assemblies are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the sensor actuator and sensor traversal is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The sensor limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 3 is not eligible.
Claim 4 recites the further additional element of “wherein the at least one nozzle assembly includes a plurality of nozzle assemblies, the at least one sensor includes a plurality of sensors, and each sensor of the plurality of sensors is associated with respective subsets of nozzle assemblies of the plurality of nozzle assemblies”. The additional elements of the plurality of nozzle assemblies and each sensor of the plurality of sensors is associated with respective subsets of nozzle assemblies are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the plurality of sensors is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The sensor limitations in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 4 is not eligible.
Claim 5 recites the further additional element of “wherein the at least one sensor includes one or more of a camera, video camera, ultrasound sensor, laser sensor, LIDAR sensor or radar sensor”. The various options for type of sensor are each recited at a high level of generality and the multiplicity of options leads to the conclusion that the specific structure of each does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. The sensor limitations in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 5 is not eligible.
Claims 6-12 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 1 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 1 above.
Claims 13 is directed to an automated sprayer diagnostic system comprising “a performance issue catalog including at least first and second performance issues:
the first performance issue having a first threshold array of one or more threshold deviations; and
the second performance issue having a second threshold array of one or more threshold deviations, the second array different than the first array”; and
“a performance deviation comparator configured to conduct a profile comparison of the actual performance profile of the at least one nozzle assembly with a specified performance profile and determine one or more performance deviations from the profile comparison;
a performance issue diagnostic processor configured to conduct an array comparison of the one or more performance deviations with the one or more threshold deviations of the first and second threshold arrays, and select at least one of the first or second performance issues based on the array comparison; and
a diagnostic indication processor configured to provide a diagnostic indication of the at least one selected first or second performance issues”. which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention, in at least page 22, line 27-page 46, line 25, teach the comparing, identifying, and indication to be mathematical processes and give no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. In addition, the comparing, identifying, and indication could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mathematical concept” group and the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, claim 13 further recites the additional elements “at least one sensor directed toward at least one nozzle assembly of a sprayer implement, the at least one sensor configured to monitor an actual performance profile of the at least one nozzle assembly; a sprayer processor in communication with the at least one sensor”, “a sprayer diagnostic controller in communication with the at least one sensor”, and the structure of the performance deviation comparator, the performance issue diagnostic processor, and the diagnostic indication processor. The additional elements of the sensor, the sprayer processor, the sprayer diagnostic controller, the performance deviation comparator, the performance issue diagnostic processor, and the diagnostic indication processor are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the sensor is considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. The sensor limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The sprayer processor, the sprayer diagnostic controller, the performance deviation comparator, the performance issue diagnostic processor, and the diagnostic indication processor are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements of “at least one sensor directed toward at least one nozzle assembly of a sprayer implement, the at least one sensor configured to monitor an actual performance profile of the at least one nozzle assembly; a sprayer processor in communication with the at least one sensor”, “a sprayer diagnostic controller in communication with the at least one sensor”, and the structure of the performance deviation comparator, the performance issue diagnostic processor, and the diagnostic indication processor do not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of the sensor, the sprayer processor, the sprayer diagnostic controller, the performance deviation comparator, the performance issue diagnostic processor, and the diagnostic indication processor are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the sensor is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The sensor limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The sprayer processor, the sprayer diagnostic controller, the performance deviation comparator, the performance issue diagnostic processor, and the diagnostic indication processor are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 13 is not eligible.
Claim 14 recites the further additional element of “wherein the at least one sensor is coupled with a sensor boom, and the sensor boom is configured to direct the at least one sensor toward the at least one nozzle assembly”. The additional elements of a plurality of at least one sensor is coupled to a sensor boom are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the sensor boom is configured to direct the at least one sensor toward the at least one nozzle assembly is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The sensor and boom limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 14 is not eligible.
Claim 15 recites the further additional element of “wherein the at least one nozzle assembly includes a plurality of nozzle assemblies, and the at least one sensor is coupled with a sensor actuator configured to traverse a scan line of the at least one sensor across the plurality of nozzle assemblies”. The additional elements of the plurality of nozzle assemblies and the at least one sensor is coupled with a sensor actuator configured to traverse a scan line of the at least one sensor across the plurality of nozzle assemblies are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the sensor actuator and sensor traversal is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The sensor limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 15 is not eligible.
Claim 16 recites the further additional element of “wherein the at least one sensor includes one or more of a camera, video camera, ultrasound sensor, laser sensor, LIDAR sensor or radar sensor”. The various options for type of sensor are each recited at a high level of generality and the multiplicity of options leads to the conclusion that the specific structure of each does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. The sensor limitations in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 16 is not eligible.
Claims 17-23 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 13 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 13 above.
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)(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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Van De Woestyne (US PGPub 2021/0299692 A1).
As to claim 1, Van De Woestyne teaches an automated sprayer diagnostic system (figure 3) comprising:
at least one sensor (128-3, 128-4) directed toward at least one nozzle assembly (114, paragraph [0021]) of a sprayer implement, the at least one sensor configured to monitor an actual performance profile of the at least one nozzle assembly (paragraph [0039]);
a sprayer processor (284) in communication with the at least one sensor (paragraph [0087] and figure 3); and
a sprayer diagnostic controller (208) in communication with the at least one sensor and the processor (paragraph [0065] and figure 3), the sprayer diagnostic controller includes:
a performance deviation comparator configured to compare the actual performance profile of the at least one nozzle assembly with a specified performance profile and determine one or more performance deviations from the comparison (paragraphs [0088] and [0120]-[0122]);
a performance issue diagnostic processor configured to identify at least one performance issued based on the one or more performance deviations (paragraph [0095]); and
a diagnostic indication processor configured to provide a diagnostic indication of the identified at least one performance issue (paragraph [0093]).
As to claim 2, Van De Woestyne teaches wherein the at least one sensor is coupled with a sensor boom (118), and the sensor boom is configured to direct the at least one sensor toward the at least one nozzle assembly (paragraph [0023]).
As to claim 4, Van De Woestyne teaches wherein the at least one nozzle assembly (114) includes a plurality of nozzle assemblies (112; figure 1), the at least one sensor (128-3, 128-4) includes a plurality of sensors (128-3, 128-4), and each sensor of the plurality of sensors is associated with respective subsets of nozzle assemblies of the plurality of nozzle assemblies (paragraph [0038]-[0040]).
As to claim 5, Van De Woestyne teaches wherein the at least one sensor includes one or more of a camera, video camera, ultrasound sensor, laser sensor, LIDAR sensor or radar sensor (paragraphs [0057] and [0038]-[0040] teach LIDAR, radar, optical sensors, imaging sensors among others).
As to claim 6, Van De Woestyne teaches wherein the actual performance profile includes one or more performance characteristics associated with the at least one nozzle assembly including droplet characteristics, droplet modulation characteristics, spray pattern characteristics, spray pattern modulation characteristics, spray origin, pattern locality or boom height (paragraphs [0039]-[0040]).
As to claim 7, Van De Woestyne teaches wherein the specified performance profile includes one or more specified performance thresholds including spray origin, droplet size, droplet size range, droplet modulation, spray pattern arc, spray pattern orientation, spray pattern direction, spray pattern overlap, spray pattern modulation, pattern locality, or boom height (paragraphs [0039]-[0040] and [0091]-[0092] teach at least where spray quality thresholds are checked and the spray characteristics include spray origin, spray pattern direction and spray pattern orientation).
As to claim 8, Van De Woestyne teaches wherein the at least one performance issue includes one or more of nozzle plugging, nozzle fouling, nozzle misalignment, nozzle position error, nozzle index error, nozzle sequence error, droplet size error, droplet size modulation error, spray pattern arc error, spray pattern modulation error, plumbing leak, plumbing blockage, boom height error, nozzle stuck open, nozzle stuck closed, incorrect nozzle installation (paragraphs [0039]-[0040] teach at least nozzle misalignment and plugged spray nozzle).
As to claim 9, Van De Woestyne teaches wherein the one or more performance deviations includes multiple performance deviations, and the performance deviation comparator is configured to determine multiple performance deviations from the comparison of the actual performance profile and the specified performance profile (paragraphs [0088] and [0092]).
As to claim 10, Van De Woestyne teaches a performance issue catalog (the portion of spray quality threshold logic 358 that holds the thresholds for the various acceptable deviations in the last sentence of paragraph [0092]) including at least first and second performance issues: the first performance issue having a first threshold array of one or more threshold deviations (paragraph [0092], where the desired quantity of pesticide is the first performance issue); and the second performance issue having a second threshold array of one or more threshold deviations (paragraph [0092], where the desired location of the pesticide is the second performance issue), the second array different than the first array (paragraph [0092]).
As to claim 12, Van De Woestyne teaches wherein the performance issue diagnostic processor is configured to identify the at least one performance issue based on one or more of magnitudes of deviation or type of deviation (paragraphs [0088] and [0092]).
As to claim 13, Van De Woestyne teaches an automated sprayer diagnostic system (figures 1 and 3) comprising:
at least one sensor (128-3, 128-4) directed toward at least one nozzle assembly (114, paragraph [0021]) of a sprayer implement (figure 1), the at least one sensor configured to monitor an actual performance profile of the at least one nozzle assembly (paragraph [0039]);
a sprayer processor (284) in communication with the at least one sensor (paragraph [0087] and figure 3) including:
a performance issue catalog (the portion of spray quality threshold logic 358 that holds the thresholds for the various acceptable deviations in the last sentence of paragraph [0092]) including at least first and second performance issues:
the first performance issue having a first threshold array of one or more threshold deviations (paragraph [0092], where the desired quantity of pesticide is the first performance issue); and
the second performance issue having a second threshold array of one or more threshold deviations (paragraph [0092], where the desired location of the pesticide is the second performance issue), the second array different than the first array (paragraph [0092]);and
a sprayer diagnostic controller (208) in communication with the at least one sensor (paragraph [0065] and figure 3), the sprayer diagnostic controller includes:
a performance deviation comparator configured to conduct a profile comparison of the actual performance profile of the at least one nozzle assembly with a specified performance profile and determine one or more performance deviations from the profile comparison (paragraphs [0088] and [0120]-[0122]);
a performance issue diagnostic processor configured to conduct an array comparison of the one or more performance deviations with the one or more threshold deviations of the first and second threshold arrays, and select at least one of the first or second performance issues based on the array comparison (paragraph [0095]); and
a diagnostic indication processor configured to provide a diagnostic indication of the at least one selected first or second performance issues (paragraph [0093]).
As to claim 14, Van De Woestyne teaches wherein the at least one sensor (128-3, 128-4) is coupled with a sensor boom (118), and the sensor boom is configured to direct the at least one sensor toward the at least one nozzle assembly (paragraph [0023]).
As to claim 16, Van De Woestyne teaches wherein the at least one sensor includes one or more of a camera, video camera, ultrasound sensor, laser sensor, LIDAR sensor or radar sensor (paragraphs [0057] and [0038]-[0040] teach LIDAR, radar, optical sensors, imaging sensors among others).
As to claim 17, Van De Woestyne teaches wherein the actual performance profile includes one or more performance characteristics associated with the at least one nozzle assembly including droplet characteristics, droplet modulation characteristics, spray pattern characteristics, spray pattern modulation characteristics, spray origin, pattern locality, or boom height (paragraphs [0039]-[0040]).
As to claim 18, Van De Woestyne teaches wherein the specified performance profile includes one or more specified performance thresholds including spray origin, droplet size, droplet size range, droplet modulation, spray pattern arc, spray pattern orientation, spray pattern direction, spray pattern overlap, spray pattern modulation, pattern locality, or boom height (paragraphs [0039]-[0040] and [0091]-[0092] teach at least where spray quality thresholds are checked and the spray characteristics include spray origin, spray pattern direction and spray pattern orientation).
As to claim 19, Van De Woestyne teaches wherein the first or second performance issues include one or more of nozzle plugging, nozzle fouling, nozzle misalignment, nozzle position error, nozzle index error, nozzle sequence error, droplet size error, droplet size modulation error, spray pattern arc error, spray pattern modulation error, plumbing leak, plumbing blockage, boom height error, nozzle stuck open, nozzle stuck closed, incorrect nozzle installation (paragraphs [0039]-[0040] teach at least nozzle misalignment and plugged spray nozzle).
As to claim 20, Van De Woestyne teaches wherein the performance issue diagnostic processor is configured to compare one or more of magnitudes of deviation or types of deviation of the one or more performance deviations with the one or more threshold deviations of the first and second threshold arrays (paragraphs [0088] and [0092]).
As to claim 21, Van De Woestyne teaches wherein one or more threshold deviations of at least one of the first or second threshold arrays include one or more of magnitude of deviation thresholds or types of deviation thresholds (paragraphs [0088] and [0092]).
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.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van De Woestyne (US PGPub 2021/0299692 A1) in view of Smith (US PGPub 2021/0283642 A1).
As to claims 3 and 15, Van De Woestyne teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention, as noted above for claims 1 and 13 respectively, further including wherein the at least one nozzle assembly includes a plurality of nozzle assemblies (figure 1).
Van De Woestyne does not explicitly teach the at least one sensor is coupled with a sensor actuator configured to traverse a scan line of the at least one sensor across the plurality of nozzle assemblies.
Smith teaches at least one sensor (102) is coupled with a sensor actuator (104) configured to traverse a scan line of the at least one sensor across the plurality of nozzle assemblies (paragraphs [0031] and [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Van De Woestyne to have at least one sensor is coupled with a sensor actuator configured to traverse a scan line of the at least one sensor across the plurality of nozzle assemblies as taught by Smith because it allows varied positioning of the sensors allowing data gathering and from a position that would otherwise cause problems during other times of use (paragraph [0046]) with predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the argument that the claims do not recite mathematical concepts or mental processes on pages 8-11, it is considered that the claims do recite mathematical concepts and mental processes, as indicated in detail above. These limitations, in at least page 22, line 27-page 46, line 25, teach the comparing, identifying, and indication to be mathematical processes and give no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. In addition, the comparing, identifying, and indication could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Applicant argues the sequence of the steps feeding into one another means it cannot be a mental process, however it is considered that the human brain is capable of performing ordered operations.
With respect to the argument on pages 9-10 that the claimed system depends on sensor derived actual performance data, it is considered that the depth of description of pointed to in the arguments is not reflected in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is considered that the weight of the claim is still in the above identified abstract ideas and that the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or render it significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
With respect to the argument that the claims were not considered as an ordered combination on pages 11-14, it is considered that the claimed data gathering is required for the performance of the above recited abstract idea. Further, it is considered that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “at least one sensor directed toward at least one nozzle assembly of a sprayer implement, the at least one sensor configured to monitor an actual performance profile of the at least one nozzle assembly” is recited at a high level of generality.
With respect to the arguments on pages 14-17, it appears that the statement of claim interpretation invoked by the claim construction of 112(f) is being interpreted as a rejection. This section is merely indicating the claim interpretation being used under the 112(f) invocation and is not a rejection. Claims 2-12 and 14-23 inherit the interpretation from the claims they depend on as they are not considered to independently provide further structure so as to remove the limitation from consideration under 112(f).
With respect to the argument that Van De Woestyne fails to teach the sprayer diagnostic controller on pages 17-20, it is considered that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed performance deviation comparator, performance issue diagnostic processor, and diagnostic indication processor is read on by the processes of Van De Woestyne and the actual performance profile in the broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses the coverage of spray. Therefore, it is considered that Van De Woestyne teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as indicated in detail above.
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 JENNIFER E S BAHLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JENNIFER BAHLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights