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 .
Priority
Applicant claims the benefit of US Provisional Application No. 63/366,044, filed June 8, 2022. Claims 1-33 have been afforded the benefit of this filing date.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/13/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the drawings and specification have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09/04/2025. Outstanding and new claim objections are listed below. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-33 remain pending in the application, with claims 3 and 5 having been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments directed to the amendments in claims 1 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claim 27, Applicant’s arguments on pg. 19 of the Remarks of 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
169
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zhang in view of Bechard and Donaldson teaches, in combination, wherein the second heat exchanger is near the integrated sprayer. Zhang teaches wherein a first heat exchanger is near the integrated sprayer (Figure 2 of Zhang). Donaldson teaches a second heat exchanger in combination with Zhang, providing the benefit of allowing the system to spray more than one type of fluid. The claim requires that the heat exchangers are “near” the sprayer. The purpose of the heat exchangers in the claimed invention is to heat the substance that will be dispensed by the sprayer. Thus, heat exchangers are located near enough to the sprayer so that dispensed substances remain at the desired temperature when dispensed. Donaldson’s heat exchangers serve the same purpose, and thus must also be near the sprayer. Therefore, Zhang and Donaldson both individually teach wherein the heat exchanger(s) are near a sprayer in order to perform the intended function. In the combination of Zhang in view of Bechard and Donaldson, the first and second heat exchangers are located near the integrated sprayer. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, 12, 14-16, 20, 23-24, and 26-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1: “the pathway” should read “a pathway”; and
“identify the target vegetation in and” should read “identify the target vegetation
“multiple controllable nozzles” should read “multiple individually controllable nozzles”.
Regarding claim 9, “heated by the manifold heat exchanger” should read “heated by the integrated manifold heat exchanger”.
Regarding claim 12, “the remote processor” should read “a remote processor”.
Regarding claims 14-16, 23, 24, and 26, “the captured image” should read “in one of the captured images”.
Regarding claim 16, “the identification image characteristic of the captured image” should read “the identification
Regarding claim 20, “in which the one or more” should read “in which
Regarding claim 27, “spray manifold heat exchanger” should read “integrated manifold heat exchanger”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 8-9, 13, 15-17, 21, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (Zhang, Y., Staab, E. S., Slaughter, D. C., Giles, D. K., & Downey, D. (2012). Automated weed control in organic row crops using hyperspectral species identification and thermal micro-dosing. Crop Protection, 41, 96-105), hereinafter Zhang, in view of Bechard (U.S. Patent No. 7,850,445 B2), in further view of Tanner (U.S. Patent No. 2024/0306627 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a robot (Zhang, pg. 3, last sentence before section 2: “automated weed control system”; see Figure 2 from pg. 98 attached below), comprising:
an imaging module (Zhang, pg. 99, section 2.2: “hyperspectral imaging system) having an image sensor (Zhang, pg. 99, section 2.2: “monochrome area camera (Photometrics CoolSNAPcf, Roper Scientific Photometrics, Tucson, AZ) equipped with a hyperspectral spectrograph”) configured to capture images of a crop row with target vegetation (Zhang, pg. 99, section 2.2: “A line imaging configuration was used where the camera lineby-line sequentially scanned the surface of the seedline perpendicular to the travel direction as the system moved along the row”; target vegetation, “developed to identify processing tomatoes versus weed species”);
a manifold (Zhang, pg. 99, 2nd paragraph in right column: “micro-dosing manifold”) having: an integrated manifold heat exchanger (Zhang, last paragraph on pg. 98: “interior food-grade oil chamber that was submersed within an outer heated reservoir”; 1st paragraph on pg. 99: “Fins were added to the interior oil chamber to increase heat transfer rates to the food-grade oil volume (Fig. 3a). There was no fluid contact, or mixing, between the food-grade oil in the interior chamber and the heating oil located in the outer reservoir”; see also Figure 3; see Figure 2 wherein the reservoirs are integrated with the manifold) configured to continuously recirculate a heated thermal fluid (Zhang, heating oil in the outer reservoir, interior reservoir is used for oil application, see last citation), and
an integrated sprayer having multiple individually controllable nozzles (Zhang, 2nd paragraph in right column on pg. 99: “The flow through each nozzle was independently controlled by a bank of eight solenoid valves”) each configured to dispense a targeted micro-dose of a substance on the target vegetation (Zhang, spray manifold nozzles dispensing oil, 2nd paragraph in right column on pg. 99: “micro-dosing manifold…The internal chamber of the dosing manifold provided heated oil, under pressure, to a bank of eight nozzles where each nozzle contained 4 dosing tubes”; micro-dose, abstract on pg. 96: “precision, pulsed-jet, micro-dosing system to selectively deliver high-temperature, organic, food-grade oil”);
a control system including one or more processors (Zhang, 2nd paragraph on pg. 100: “computer system”) configured to:
determine a position on the pathway of the robot (Zhang, wheel location synchronizes imaging and micro-dosing during operation, 1st paragraph on pg. 100: “The two systems were integrated and synchronized with a ground-driven encoder wheel location stamp (i.e. by odometry)”);
initiate the imaging module to begin capturing the images of the crop row with the target vegetation (Zhang, section 2 on pg. 99: “camera line-by-line sequentially scanned the surface of the seedline”; camera/computer control, paragraph before section 2.2 on pg. 99: “hyperspectral image transfer rate from camera to computer”);
identify the target vegetation in (Zhang, weed identification, section 2.2 on pg. 99: “A prototype of hyperspectral imaging system was developed to identify processing tomatoes versus weed species”; last paragraph before section 2 on pg. 98: “species identification”) and determine a location of the target vegetation in the crop row in at least some of the captured images (Zhang, last paragraph before section 2 on pg. 98: “hyperspectral vision identification system and a multispectral image processing technique for accurately identifying and mapping weeds within the seedline”; see also 2nd paragraph in section 2.4 on pg. 100);
create a weed map based on the identification of the target vegetation, the location of the target vegetation in the crop row (Zhang, last paragraph before section 2 on pg. 98: “identifying and mapping weeds within the seedline”; see also 2nd paragraph in section 2.4 on pg. 100);
identify one or more individually controllable nozzles to activate based on the 3D weed map (Zhang, pg. 100, top right paragraph: “To translate the weed map into a spray control map (plant-based), the predominant object classification (weed, tomato, soil) in each 1.27 cm linear region of the hyperspectral image, which corresponded to the 1.27 cm size of a nozzle target zone, determined the spray decision for that zone”);
activate the identified one or more individually controllable nozzles of the integrated sprayer to dispense the targeted micro-dose of the substance on the target vegetation (Zhang, (1) on pg. 104: “accurately delivered 85 mg/cm2 per 10 ms pulse duration of food-grade oil preheated to 160C to targeted weed foliage”; see also 1st paragraph in the right column on pg. 100).
PNG
media_image2.png
290
441
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Zhang fails to explicitly teach (1) wherein the integrated manifold heat exchanger is configured to continuously recirculate a heated thermal fluid to heat the manifold; (2) determine a location of the target vegetation in the crop row in at least some of the captured images based on a common feature in the at least some of the images captured from the image sensor, the common feature correlating to the target vegetation; and (3) determine, based on distance information associated with or derived from at least some of the images captured by the image sensor, a distance between the target vegetation and the image sensor; using a known spatial relationship between the image sensor and the multiple controllable nozzles of the integrated sprayer, create a three-dimensional (3D) weed map based on the identification of the target vegetation, the location of the target vegetation in the crop row, and the at least one of: (i) the distance from the target vegetation to the image sensor and (ii) and the distance between the target vegetation and at least one nozzle; identify one or more individually controllable nozzles to activate based on the 3D weed map (emphasis added).
Zhang teaches (1) wherein the thermal fluid is contained in the heated oil reservoir, which transfers heated oil to the manifold, but is not used to heat the manifold (Zhang, manifold is heated by electric heaters, 2nd paragraph in right column on pg. 99: “At the dosing manifold, two electric resistance heaters (Model DI-5575-KEP, Therm-Coil MFG, 120 V, 100 W, West Newton, PA) was embedded in the manifold to boost the temperature of food-grade oil as it passed through the dosing manifold and nozzles prior to application”). Bechard teaches a method/system for heating oil (Bechard, abstract: “Heat energy from the heated liquid conductively transfers to the oil within the device”). Bechard teaches wherein an integrated manifold heat exchanger is configured to circulate a heated thermal fluid to heat the manifold (Bechard, col 5, ln 50-55: “Inside preheat device 1 there is a heated liquid passageway which allows a heated liquid to circulate within while conductively transferring heat energy through preheat device 1 to oil and compressed air as it passes through preheat device 1 to nozzle 2”; see Figure 3 wherein the liquid is continuously circulated; Claim 1: “a source of heated liquid coupled to the inlet and outlet ports of said second passageway to flow through said second passageway such that the heated liquid flow heats the manifold and transfers heat to oil in the first passageway to elevate the temperature of oil flowing in said first passage way as the oil is discharged from the nozzle”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined utilizing the heated thermal fluid to heat the manifold, taught by Bechard, with the system of Zhang in order to more efficiently heat the oil before discharge (Bechard, col 5, ln 50-55: “transferring heat energy through preheat device 1 to oil and compressed air as it passes through preheat device 1 to nozzle 2”). Zhang’s invention requires two sources of heat, one for the outer reservoir (Zhang, last paragraph on pg. 98: “Oil (Bio Flo FG32, f BioBlend Renewable Resources, Joilet, IL) placed in the outer reservoir was heated with an immersion heater”), and one to heat the manifold to maintain the temperature (Zhang, 2nd paragraph in right column on pg. 99: “At the dosing manifold, two electric resistance heaters (Model DI-5575-KEP, Therm-Coil MFG, 120 V, 100 W, West Newton, PA) was embedded in the manifold to boost the temperature of food-grade oil as it passed through the dosing manifold and nozzles prior to application”). Bechard’s teachings offer a solution to discharge the heated oil by only heating the thermal fluid.
Additionally, Tanner teaches a similar system, including (2) determine a location of the target vegetation in the crop row in at least some of the captured images based on a common feature in the at least some of the images captured from the image sensor, the common feature correlating to the target vegetation (Tanner, para 21: “tracking the movement of the extracted features between two consecutive 3D images as the agricultural system moves along its travel direction to compute the movement of said extracted features in said 3D coordinate system”; extracted features of the vegetation common to at least two consecutive images); and (3) determine, based on distance information associated with or derived from at least some of the images captured by the image sensor, a distance between the target vegetation and the image sensor (Tanner, para 57: “Next, optical approaches may be employed to generate a depth map of the field. In some cases, computer vision (CV) techniques or computer vision systems may be used to process the sensing data to extract high-level understanding of the field, object detection, object classification, extraction of the scene depth and estimation of relative positions of objects, extraction of objects' orientation in space”; para 67: “the 3D depth sensor 314 measures a distance between any point of the objects on the acquired camera image (e.g., 2D camera image) to generate a 3D map”); using a known spatial relationship between the image sensor and the multiple controllable nozzles of the integrated sprayer, create a three-dimensional (3D) weed map (Tanner, distance between the camera at the end of the mast and the spray bar, see para 55 and para 78-79: “an important distance between the rear side of the field of view and the nozzles”; additionally, if the camera module is determining a depth distance to objects at the ground, this spatial relationship is needed to map the objects in the coordinate space of the spray bars, para 56: “identify one or more objects on the acquired images and to generate a depth map of these objects on the 3D coordinate system of the spray bars”) based on the identification of the target vegetation (Tanner, image recognition software to identify objects in para 56), the location of the target vegetation in the crop row (Tanner, para 58: “A 3D depth map may comprise identity of one or more objects and the location (x, y, z coordinates) of the object”), and the at least one of: (i) the distance from the target vegetation to the image sensor (Tanner, para 67: “the 3D depth sensor 314 measures a distance between any point of the objects on the acquired camera image (e.g., 2D camera image) to generate a 3D map…The 3D depth sensor may be disposed at the near the camera sensors. In some cases, the 3D depth map may be generated using a single modality sensor data (e.g., image data, Lidar, proximity data, etc.)”; see also para 66) and (ii) and the distance between the target vegetation and at least one nozzle (Tanner, para 4: “In order to position the activation of the spot spray with greater accuracy, the object to be sprayed must first be mapped accurately in the coordinate system of the sprayer, and then its displacement must be tracked with accuracy so that the nozzle are activated at the right moment and right place”; see also para 56); identify one or more individually controllable nozzles to activate based on the 3D weed map (Tanner, para 58: “Upon generation of the 3D depth map, the first and second nozzles array control units 280, 282 are configured to control each nozzle of respective first and second arrays of nozzles 220, 240 as to selectively control the nozzles of the first and second arrays of nozzles 220, 240 to perform low and/or high-resolution spot spraying 222, 242 on different objects as a function of the position of these objects on the 3D depth map with respect to the position of the first and second spray bars 210, 215”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the 3D weed map and target vegetation tracking, taught by Tanner, with the system of Zhang in view of Bechard in order to increase the accuracy of target vegetation tracking (Tanner, para 66: “The exact distance measurement between the objects and the camera beneficially allows to position in 3D space each point of the image and therefore to compute the correct longitudinal, lateral and vertical mapping of each point of the camera image”) and spraying (Tanner, para 14: “the camera module or each camera module further comprises a 3D depth sensor arranged to measure the distance between any point of the objects acquired by the camera and said 3D depth sensor to generate a depth map on which is mapped said objects in the tri-dimensional coordinate system of the first and second spray bars, for correction of any horizontal mapping errors caused by the height difference between said estimated object plane and the real object positions to improve the spraying accuracy”).
Regarding claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner teaches wherein the target vegetation is a weed (Zhang, section 2.2 on pg. 99: “identify processing tomatoes versus weed species”; 2nd paragraph in right column on pg. 99: “delivering heated oil to weeds”).
Regarding claim 8 (dependent on claim 1), Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner teaches wherein the integrated sprayer includes a pulsing system configured to dispense the substance in a series of pulsed micro-doses (Zhang, abstract on pg. 96: “Food-grade oil, heated to approximately 160C, was applied to weeds using a pressurized micro-dosing pulsed-jet”; last paragraph before section 2 on pg. 98: “automated pulsed-jet micro-dose application system”).
Regarding claim 9 (dependent on claim 1), Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner teaches wherein the substance is an oil heated by the manifold heat exchanger prior to dispensing to a temperature of 160°C (Zhang, (1) on pg. 104: “accurately delivered 85 mg/cm2 per 10 ms pulse duration of food-grade oil preheated to 160C to targeted weed foliage”).
Regarding claim 13 (dependent on claim 1), Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner teaches wherein the robot includes a position sensor configured to determine the position of the robot on the pathway (Zhang, ground-driven encoder, 1st paragraph on pg. 100: “The two systems were integrated and synchronized with a ground-driven encoder wheel location stamp (i.e. by odometry)”).
Regarding claim 15 (dependent on claim 1), Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner teaches wherein the control system is further configured to identify the target vegetation in the captured image by analyzing an identification characteristic of the captured image (Zhang, color, 2nd paragraph in section 2.4 on pg. 100: “Plants were mapped in real-time using a green foliage segmentation algorithm, modified red ratio vegetation index (MRVI; Biller, 1998), which calculated the ratio of the reflectance intensities at 555 nm (green) and 665 nm (red)”).
Regarding claim 16 (dependent on claim 15), Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner teaches wherein the control system is further configured to identify the target vegetation in the captured image by inputting the captured image to an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm to detect the target vegetation in the captured image based on the identification characteristic of the captured image (Zhang, Bayesian classifier, 2nd to last paragraph on pg. 100: “Approximately one-third of the plants were randomly selected for each species as the calibration set to train the hyperspectral imaging classifier while the remaining plants were identified as the validation set (Table 4). A 13-waveband Bayesian classifier was developed using stepwise discriminant analysis”).
Regarding claim 17 (dependent on claim 1), Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner teaches wherein the control system is further configured to identify the target vegetation in a series of captured images by analyzing a common target vegetation identification characteristic of the series of captured images (Tanner, para 21: “extracting on said 3D image a set of features, such as contour, an edge or any landmark of an object, for features tracking; v. repeating steps i to iv and tracking the movement of the extracted features between two consecutive 3D images as the agricultural system moves along its travel direction to compute the movement of said extracted features in said 3D coordinate system”; features are target vegetation identification characteristics because they allow the system to track the target vegetation across a series of image frames).
Regarding claim 21 (dependent on claim 1), Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner teaches wherein the robot is a semi-autonomous robot (Zhang, conclusion on pg. 103-104: “automated machine vision identification and thermal treatment application system”; Figure 4 on pg. 100 demonstrates aspects of user intervention, making the system semi-autonomous).
Regarding claim 26 (dependent on claim 1), Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine the location of the target vegetation in the crop row based on the captured image (Zhang, last paragraph before section 2 on pg. 98: “hyperspectral vision identification system and a multispectral image processing technique for accurately identifying and mapping weeds within the seedline”).
Regarding claim 28 (dependent on claim 1), Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner teaches wherein the recirculated thermal fluid is a food-safe fluid (Zhang, 2nd paragraph on pg. 99: “The outer reservoir heating oil (flashpoint higher than 204C) was 75% biodegradable, non-toxic and had no expected adverse effects on humans and the environment including fish and wildlife”) flowing through a closed-loop system (Zhang, the outer reservoir is a closed loop, see Figure 3) and heated by an electric or gas-fired process heater (Zhang, bottom right on pg. 98: “outer reservoir was heated with an immersion heater (Model SETFAA, 120 V, 1650 W, Charmglow, Columbus, GA)”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Bechard, Tanner, and Pleines et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2023/0276783 A1), hereinafter Pleines.
Regarding claim 4 (dependent on claim 1), Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner fails to teach wherein the target vegetation is a specialty crop; however, Pleines teaches a similar system (Pleines, abstract, Fig. 1C) wherein the target vegetation is a specialty crop (Pleines, tomato, para 39: “As such, farming actions the farming machine 100 implements as part of a treatment plan may be applied to plants 104 in the field 160. The plants 104 can be crops but could also be weeds or any other suitable plant 104. Some example crops include cotton, lettuce, soybeans, rice, carrots, tomatoes”).
Thus, Zhang teaches a system for spraying target vegetation with a substance, but fails to teach wherein the target vegetation is a specialty crop; however, Pleines teaches the identification and treatment application to a specialty crop. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, could have combined the system taught by Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner with the target vegetation of Pleines, using known methods. In doing so, each element merely would have performed the same functions as it did separately (The system of Zhang could target a tomato crop species instead of a weed; see also section 2.2 on pg. 99 where tomato species may be identified.) and would achieve the predictable results of removing a targeted specialty crop, when needed (Pleines, plants may need to be removed/incinerated, etc., para 54: “the effect of treating a plant 104 with a treatment mechanism 120 may include any of plant necrosis, plant growth stimulation, plant portion necrosis or removal, plant portion growth stimulation, or any other suitable treatment effect…the treatment mechanism 120 can apply a treatment that dislodges a plant 104 from the substrate 106, severs a plant 104 or portion of a plant 104 (e.g., cutting), incinerates a plant 104 or portion of a plant 104”).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Bechard, Tanner, and Lee et al. (Lee, W. S., Slaughter, D. C., & Giles, D. K. (1999). Robotic weed control system for tomatoes. Precision Agriculture, 1(1), 95-113), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 6 (dependent on claim 1), Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner fails to explicitly teach wherein the multiple individually controllable nozzles of the integrated sprayer are arranged in two rows or three rows perpendicular to a direction of travel of the robot along the pathway (Although Zhang teaches wherein the imaging system scans perpendicular to the travel direction, see last paragraph before 2.3 on pg. 99, it is not explicitly stated that the rows are arranged this way.). However, Lee teaches a similar system (Lee, abstract: “intelligent robotic weed control system”) wherein the spray nozzles are arranged in two rows or three rows perpendicular to a direction of travel of the robot along the pathway (Lee, see Figure 4 on pg. 108, attached below; last paragraph on pg. 105: “each micro-spray nozzle emitted an elliptical deposit 0.9 cm along the direction of travel and 1.27 cm perpendicular to the direction of travel when operated at 103 kPa from a nozzle height of 10.16 cm above the seedbed”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the nozzle arrangement of Lee with the system of Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner in order to adequately cover the width of the crop row (Lee, see Figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
645
562
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7 (dependent on claim 6), Zhang in view of Bechard, Tanner, and Lee teaches wherein the integrated manifold heat exchanger is configured to heat the multiple individually controllable nozzles of the integrated sprayer (Zhang, heated spray, 1st paragraph on pg. 99: “All connection fittings were stainless steel (nominal 6.35 mm) for transporting heated food-grade oil to the spray manifold for micro-dosing applications. Fins were added to the interior oil chamber to increase heat transfer rates to the foodgrade oil volume (Fig. 3a)”; referring to the heated reservoirs, see also section 2.1 on pg. 98; individually controlled spray, 2nd paragraph in right column on pg. 99: “The flow through each nozzle was independently controlled by a bank of eight solenoid valves”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Bechard, Tanner, and Hoeferlin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2022/0406039 A1), hereinafter Hoeferlin.
Regarding claim 10 (dependent on claim 1), Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner fails to teach wherein the substance is a fertilizer; however, Hoeferlin teaches a similar system (Hoerferlin, abstract and para 41) wherein the substance is a fertilizer (Hoerferlin, para 17: “the sprayer can also be used for applying a crop protection agent or fertilizer to a useful plant”).
Thus, Zhang teaches a system for spraying target vegetation with a substance, but fails to teach wherein the substance is a fertilizer; however, Hoeferlin teaches a sprayer that applies fertilizer to a plant. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, could have combined the system taught by Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner with the substance of Hoeferlin, using known methods. In doing so, each element merely would have performed the same functions as it did separately and would achieve the predictable results of treating targeted vegetation and surrounding soil with fertilizer in order to aid its maintenance/growth (Hoerferlin, para 39: “In this case, a mechanical tool can be accurately guided right up to the position of the plant or the sprayer, for applying the pesticide, crop protection agent or fertilizer, can be guided to a position at a predefined distance from the weed or the useful plant and can be directed at the latter”).
Further, Hoerferlin references the use of hot oil, similar to the invention disclosed by Zhang (Hoerferlin, para 17: “Furthermore, even further processing tools, such as, for instance, an electric processing tool, a laser, microwaves, hot water or oil, are conceivable”). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine aspects from both disclosures.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Bechard, Tanner, and Sibley et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2022/0117215 A1), hereinafter Sibley.
Regarding claim 11 (dependent on claim 1), Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner fails to explicitly teach wherein the control system includes at least one on-board processor; however, Sibley teaches a similar system (Sibley, abstract). Sibley further discloses wherein the control system includes at least one on-board processor (Sibley, para 135: “agricultural treatment system 400 can include an on-board computing unit 420, such compute unit 420 computing unit embedded with a system on chip. The on-board computing unit can include a compute module 424 configured to process images”; para 343: “onboard circuitry, processors and sensors”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the on-board processor of Sibley with the system of Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner in order to efficiently perform the image processing functions to control the robot system (Sibley, para 343: “the agricultural treatment system has onboard circuitry, processors and sensors that allows the system to obtain imagery of agricultural objects and then identify a target object to be sprayed”).
Regarding claim 12 (dependent on claim 1), Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner fails to teach wherein the control system includes multiple processors, one of which is an on-board processor, and further comprising a communications module electronically coupled to the remote processor and configured to transmit data between the on-board processor and a remoting computing system.
However, Sibley teaches a similar system (Sibley, abstract) wherein the control system includes multiple processors (Sibley, para 343: “processors”), one of which is an on-board processor (Sibley, para 343: “onboard circuitry”), and further comprising a communications module (Sibley, para 137: “The communications module 426, as well as any telemetry modules on the computing unit, can be configured to receive and transmit data”) electronically coupled to a remote processor and configured to transmit data between the on-board processor and a remoting computing system (Sibley, para 137: “processed either on a computer or computing device on-board the vehicle, such as one or more computing devices or components for the compute module 424, or remotely from a remote device close to the device on-board the vehicle or at a distance farther away from the agricultural scene or environment that the agricultural treatment system 400 maneuvers on”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the processors of Sibley with the system of Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner in order to efficiently perform the image processing functions to control the robot system and manage computational resources as needed (Sibley, para 343: “the agricultural treatment system has onboard circuitry, processors and sensors that allows the system to obtain imagery of agricultural objects and then identify a target object to be sprayed”; para 100: “embedded in the system 100, or supported by one or more servers or computing devices remote from the vehicle supporting the system 100”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Bechard, Tanner, and Long et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,035,707 B2), hereinafter Long.
Regarding claim 14 (dependent on claim 1), Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner fails to teach wherein the control system is further configured to determine the position of the robot on the pathway by analyzing a location characteristic of the captured image. However, Long teaches a similar system (Long, col 4, ln 54-65: “first work vehicle that may be used to detect one or more targets within the field during a first operation and a second vehicle that may apply an agricultural product to each target during a second operation”; although the vehicles are separate, the embodiment still demonstrates wherein images of the crops are captured before targeted spraying, similar to the claimed invention) wherein the control system is further configured to determine the position of the robot on the pathway by analyzing a location characteristic of the captured image (Long, col 16, ln 15-21: “the path analysis module 224 may be configured to process/analyze the sprayer path 242 to estimate or determine a position of the second vehicle 200. For example, in some embodiments, the path analysis module 224 may receive data from the image analysis module 222 and/or the positioning system 220”; image analysis module analyzes image characteristics, col 15-16, ln 65-11: “the image analysis module 222 may be configured to process/analyze the images received from the target sensors 90, and/or the data deriving therefrom to estimate or determine the location of one more weeds 96…the image analysis module 222 may receive one or more imaged portions of the field 20 from the target sensors 90 and correlate the captured portions of the field 20 with the field data to locate a previously identified object”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the determination of the robot’s position on the pathway, taught by Long, with the system of Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner in order to ensure that the robot is operating within the correct region (Long, col 16, ln 21-25: “the instructions may ensure that the second vehicle 200 is being operated within a defined region and/or with a specific agricultural product based on the region within which the second vehicle 200 is operating.”).
Claims 18-19 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Bechard, Tanner, and Van De Woestyne (U.S. Patent No. 2021/0299692 A1).
Regarding claim 18 (dependent on claim 1), Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner fails to teach wherein the control system further comprises a post-spray checking module configured to: initiate the imaging module to begin capture of a post-spray image of the target vegetation, the post-spray image captured after the targeted micro-dose of the substance is dispensed on the target vegetation, determine an actual sprayed area of the target vegetation from a characteristic in the post-spray image, compare the actual sprayed area to an expected sprayed area of the target vegetation, and determine a difference value of the actual sprayed area to the expected sprayed area of the target vegetation, and output the difference value.
However, Van De Woestyne teaches a post-spray checking module (Van De Woestyne, para 88: “sprayer performance system”) configured to:
initiate the imaging module to begin capture of a post-spray image of the target vegetation, the post-spray image captured after the targeted micro-dose of the substance is dispensed on the target vegetation (Van De Woestyne, para 89: “The sensors can include, for example, an optical sensor that captures an image of the corn plant after the substance has been sprayed”), determine an actual sprayed area of the target vegetation from a characteristic in the post-spray image (Van De Woestyne, para 92: “Spray application logic 352 identifies the coverage of pesticide/insecticide (as well as other sprayed substances) on corn silks”), compare the actual sprayed area to an expected sprayed area of the target vegetation (Van De Woestyne, para 88: “performance system 312 can compare the difference between the performed spray application and the target/prescribed application to a spray quality threshold”), and determine a difference value of the actual sprayed area to the expected sprayed area of the target vegetation (Van De Woestyne, compared difference, see last citation from para 88), and output the difference value (Van De Woestyne, para 92: “spray quality threshold logic 358 can compare the difference to one or more threshold values. The threshold values can be automatically determined or manually selected (e.g., by a user or operator). The threshold values can represent, for example, an acceptable deviation from the desired quantity of pesticide/insecticide applied to the corn”; para 93: “Based on the identified performance characteristics, spray application determination system 351 can generate various recommendations/indications for the operator 228 or remote user 216”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the post-spray checking module of Van De Woestyne with the system of Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner in order to ensure that the target vegetation is being adequately sprayed (Van De Woestyne, para 16: “the blanket application of pesticide can miss the portions of plants that would actually benefit from pesticide and thus pests are not prevented from damaging the crop. Furthermore, in an attempt to cover as much of the crop as possible, much of the pesticide being sprayed goes to waste. Thus, these typical approaches can lead to increased costs and reduced yields.”).
Regarding claim 19 (dependent on claim 18), Zhang in view of Bechard, Tanner, and Van De Woestyne teaches wherein the control system is further configured to adjust a subsequent spray of the target vegetation based on the difference value (Van De Woestyne, para 88: “performance system 312 can compare the difference between the performed spray application and the target/prescribed application to a spray quality threshold. Upon determining these various characteristics, action signals are generated and used to control the operation of agricultural sprayer system 102, or to generate recommendations/indications, as well as various other actions”; see also para 94).
Regarding claim 31 (dependent on claim 1), Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner teaches wherein the substance is an oil (Zhang, abstract on pg. 96: “Food-grade oil, heated to approximately 160C, was applied to weeds), but fails to explicitly teach further comprising an oil pressure monitoring system configured to monitor the pressure of the oil dispensed through the sprayer (Zhang teaches measuring the pressure of the delivery system, top left of pg. 98, during initial tests). However, Van De Woestyne teaches a pressure monitoring system configured to monitor the pressure of a substance dispensed through the sprayer (Van De Woestyne, para 51: “substance operation sensor(s) 236 can sense the pressure of fluid within the substance tank(s) 272, the pressure at which the fluid pump(s) 270 are pumping the substance, a flow rate of the substance through the conduits, the pressure of the fluid within the conduits, along with various other characteristics of the operation of the substance to be sprayed within sprayer system 102”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the pressure monitoring system of Van De Woestyne with the oil spraying system of Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner in order to ensure that the oil is being sprayed correctly (Van De Woestyne, para 51: “substance operation sensor(s) 236 can sense operational characteristics of the spraying subsystem 254”).
Regarding claim 32 (dependent on claim 31), Zhang in view of Bechard, Tanner, and Van De Woestyne teaches wherein the oil pressure monitoring system includes one or more pneumatic accumulators integrated into the manifold and configured to maintain constant pressure of the oil dispensed through the sprayer (Zhang, pressurized nitrogen/pressure regulator, Figure 2 and last paragraph on pg. 98: “The new design for heated oil applications utilized pressurized nitrogen gas, providing a pressure head, to deliver the heated oil to the spray manifold through an internally pressurized chamber”; integrated into the manifold, top right on pg. 99: “A pressurized nitrogen (0.3 m3, 13,700 kPa) cylinder provided a constant pressure of 275 kPa (single stage regulator) within the headspace volume of the submersed interior chamber to deliver heated oil from the interior reservoir to the manifold/nozzles for site-specific heated oil application”).
Regarding claim 33 (dependent on claim 1), Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner fails to explicitly teach further comprising a temperature sensor configured to monitor a temperature of one or both of the heated thermal fluid and the substance (Zhang teaches measuring the temperature of the substance, top left of pg. 98, during initial tests); however, Van De Woestyne teaches a temperature sensor configured to monitor a temperature of the substance (Van De Woestyne, temperature of the substance sprayed, para 89: “a temperature sensor that generates an indication of spray coverage based on a temperature difference between the corn plant and the substance sprayed”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the temperature sensor of Van De Woestyne with the system of Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner in order to ensure that the substance is being sprayed correctly (Van De Woestyne, para 89: “In one example, sensor accessing logic 362 receives an indication of how well the substance covered a corn silk. This is indicated by the sensor signals generated by one or more of sensors 128”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Bechard, Tanner, Xu et al. (CN Patent No. 103548802 A), hereinafter Xu, and Polzounov et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2019/0362146 A1), hereinafter Polzounov.
Regarding claim 20 (dependent on claim 1), Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner teaches wherein the control system is further configured to transmit an instruction to the integrated sprayer to initiate an ON pulse of 10 milliseconds (ms) in which the one or more of the multiple individually controllable nozzles of the integrated sprayer are open to form a droplet to dispense as the targeted micro-dose of the substance when the robot is moving along the pathway over the crop row (Zhang, last paragraph before section 2.2 on pg. 99: “delivered 85 mg/ cm2 (standard deviation of 19 mg/cm2 ) of heated food-grade oil based on a ground travel speed of 0.04 m/s and 10 ms valve opening time”), but fails to teach wherein the robot is moving at a speed of 0.5 meters per second along the pathway over the crop row. However, Xu teaches a similar system (Xu, para 10-11 on pg. 6-7) wherein the robot is moving at a speed of 0.5 meters per second along the pathway (Xu, para 14 on pg. 12: “The forward speed of the self-propelled orchard automatic target sprayer is 0.5-1m/s”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have increased the speed of the robot of Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner, as taught by Xu, to improve the efficiency of the system to complete the spraying of the target crop rows (Xu, para 10 on pg. 6: “The purpose of this technology is to provide a self-propelled orchard automatic target sprayer that can automatically target, is less affected by the environment, has a fast response time, has high target detection accuracy, will not miss or over-spray, and prevents waste of pesticides.”).
Zhang discloses wherein the travel speed of the system is constrained by the imaging system (Zhang, last paragraph before section 2.2 on pg. 99: “The travel speed of the system was constrained by the hyperspectral image transfer rate from camera to computer”). However, Polzounov teaches a similar system (Polzounov, abstract: “The control system of the farming machine executes a plant identification model configured to identify plants in the field for treatment”; para 52: “For example, a treatment mechanism 120 is a nozzle that sprays treatment fluid”) with an imaging system that identifies plants (Polzounov, para 29: “The semantic segmentation model encodes an image of the field to a convolutional neural network trained to reduce the encoded image and identify plants in the field. Rather than decoding the identified plants back to an image, the semantic segmentation model decodes the identified plants to a treatment map which the farming machine uses to treat the plants in the field”) in a similar way to the Zhang disclosure (Zhang and Polzounov both disclose trained computer models to identify plants in images), but further allows the system to move faster (Polzounov, para 52: “the velocity of the farming machine is 2.5 m/s”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the imaging system of Polzounov with the system of Zhang in view of Bechard, Tanner, and Xu in order to more efficiently treat the crop area (Polzounov, para 29: “The dimensionality of the treatment map is, generally, much less than the dimensionality of the image and, therefore, the processing time is reduced. The semantic segmentation model has higher accuracy, specificity, and provides better resolution for the treatment mechanisms than other traditional plant identification models”). Polzounov teaches an imaging system that allows the robot to move at a rate of at least 0.5 m/s.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Bechard, Tanner, and Redden et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2021/0406540 A1), hereinafter Redden.
Regarding claim 22 (dependent on claim 1), Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner fails to teach wherein the robot is a towed implement; however, Redden teaches a similar system (Redden, para 22-23 and Figure 1) wherein the robot is a towed implement (Redden, para 27: “the transportation mechanism 130 may include a hitch that allows the mobile treatment platform 100 to be attached to a separate vehicle to be towed through the field”).
Thus, Redden teaches a system that detects plants and treats them while traversing an area. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, could have combined the system of Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner with the towed implement of Redden, using known methods. In doing so, each element merely would have performed the same functions as it did separately and would achieve the predictable results of creating a mobile system that can be attached to different types of vehicles, allowing for the robot to be used with various vehicles depending on what is appropriate for the terrain.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Bechard, Tanner, and Sibley et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2021/0185942 A1), hereinafter ‘942.
Regarding claim 23 (dependent on claim 1), Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to determine the position on the pathway of the robot based on a position characteristic in the captured image. However, ‘942 teaches a similar system (‘942, abstract and Figure 1) wherein the processor is further configured to determine the position on the pathway of the robot based on a position characteristic in the captured image (‘942, position within the geographic boundary based on detected markers, para 52: “As agricultural treatment delivery system 111 and/or sensory platform 113 traverses path portions 119, image capture devices may detect fiducial markers, reflective surfaces, or the like, so that logic within sensory platform 113 or vehicle 110 (e.g., one or more processors and one or more applications including executable instructions) may be configured to detect or confirm a position of vehicle 110 or emitter 112c, or both, as a position within geographic boundary 120 or relative to an agricultural object.”; para 68: “motion estimator/localizer 219 may be configured to determine a location of one or more component of agricultural treatment delivery vehicle 210 relative to a reference coordinate system”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the position characteristic of ‘942 with the system of Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner in order to aid the robot in traversing the crop rows (‘942, para 51: “Any of agricultural treatment delivery systems 111a or 111b may be configured to operate, for example, in a sensor mode during which a sensor platform 113 may be configured to receive, generate, and/or derive sensor data from any number of sensors as vehicle 110 traverses various path portions 119”).
Regarding claim 24 (dependent on claim 23), Zhang in view of Bechard, Tanner, and ‘942 teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine the location of the robot based on the position characteristic in the captured image (‘942, location information based on the visual marker, para 52: “any image capture device may be configured to detect a visual fiducial marker or any other optically-configured item (e.g., a QS code, barcode, or the like) that may convey information, such as position or location information, or other information”).
Regarding claim 25 (dependent on claim 24), Zhang in view of Bechard, Tanner, and ‘942 teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine the location of the robot based on one or both of wheel odometry sensor data from a wheel position sensor on the robot and accelerometer data received from one or more accelerometers positioned on the robot (‘942, location sensor, para 51: “Sensor platform 113 may also include one or more location or position sensors, such as one or more global positioning system (“GPS”) sensors and one or more inertial measurement units (“IMU”), as well as one or more radar devices, one or more sonar devices, one or more ultrasonic sensors, one or more gyroscopes, one or more accelerometers, one or more odometry sensors (e.g., wheel encoder or direction sensors, wheel speed sensors, etc.), and the like”).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Bechard, Tanner, and Donaldson (U.S. Patent No. 2023/0069163 A1).
Regarding claim 27 (dependent on claim 1), Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner teaches wherein the manifold heat exchanger is located adjacent to or near the integrated sprayer (Zhang, see Figure 2 from pg. 98 wherein the hot oil reservoir is near the manifold and nozzles), but fails to teach a second, spray manifold heat exchanger.
However, Donaldson teaches a system for heating and spraying a fluid (Donaldson, abstract and para 2), disclosing a second, integrated spray manifold heat exchanger (Donaldson, para 30: “first heat exchanger 100” and “second heat exchanger 102”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the second integrated spray manifold heat exchanger of Donaldson with the system of Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner in order to allow for the spraying of more than one type of fluid (Donaldson, para 30: “configured to spray a mixture of a first component fluid and second component fluid… a first heat exchanger 100 configured to supply heat to the first component fluid; and a second heat exchanger 102 configured to supply heat to the second component fluid… the system 10 can provide that the first heat exchanger 100 and second heat exchanger 102 are independently controlled by a control system 36. in some embodiments, the system 10 can provide that the control system 36 is configured to control a first pump 12, 14 and a second pump 12, 14 independently”). In doing so, each element merely would have performed the same functions as it did separately and would achieve the predictable results of allowing substances to be concurrently dispensed at different temperatures depending on the type of substance and plant. Further, substances could be kept separate and then subsequently mixed for application.
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Bechard, Tanner, and Pirobloc (PIROBLOC, Food Industry, 24 October 2021, [online], [retrieved on 2025-08-29]. Retrieved from the Internet <URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20211024053524/https://www.pirobloc.com/en/applications-and-sectors/food-industry/>).
Regarding claim 29 (dependent on claim 28), Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner fails to explicitly teach wherein the food-safe fluid is heated to a temperature of 175C (Zhang teaches wherein the heated substance to be sprayed is heated to 160 degrees Celsius, meaning that the thermal fluid should exceed that; however, a temperature is not explicitly disclosed). However, Pirobloc discloses utilizing thermal fluids for heat transfer in oil heating systems (Pirobloc, pg. 2). Pirobloc teaches wherein a thermal fluid is heated to around 230C in order to heat vegetable oil to 175C (Pirobloc, 5th paragraph on pg. 3: “With a thermal fluid/vegetable oil heat exchanger, the temperature of the former is around 230 ºC, ensuring a stable and extremely precise temperature of 175 ºC in the vegetable oil…the heat source does not exceed 230 ºC”). Thus, Pirobloc teaches wherein the heated thermal fluid is heated to a temperature of 175C (Pirobloc, up to 230C includes heating to 175C). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the temperature of the thermal fluid, taught by Pirobloc, with the system of Zhang in view of Bechard and Tanner in order to ensure that the heated oil to be sprayed remains at a stable temperature and is less susceptible to degradation (Pirobloc, 5th paragraph on pg. 3: “The higher the film temperature of the vegetable oil, the sooner it will oxidise and degrade…ensuring a stable and extremely precise temperature of 175 ºC in the vegetable oil”).
Regarding claim 30 (dependent on claim 29), Zhang in view of Bechard, Tanner, and Pirobloc teaches wherein the substance is canola oil (Zhang, last paragraph in left column on pg. 99: “Food-grade canola oil is generally recognized as safe (GRAS) as defined by the US FDA. Physical density and kinematic viscosity of the canola oil applied to the weeds”) heated by the food-safe fluid to a temperature of 160C prior to the canola oil being dispensed from the sprayer (Zhang, (1) on pg. 104: “accurately delivered 85 mg/cm2 per 10 ms pulse duration of food-grade oil preheated to 160C to targeted weed foliage”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Meshram et al. (Meshram, A. T., Vanalkar, A. V., Kalambe, K. B., & Badar, A. M. (2022). Pesticide Spraying Robot for Precision Agriculture: A Categorical Literature Review and FutureTrends. Journal of Field Robotics, 39, 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1002/rob.22043)
Weiss et al. (Weiss, U., & Biber, P. (2011). Plant detection and mapping for agricultural robots using a 3D LIDAR sensor. Robotics and autonomous systems, 59(5), 265-273.)
Gao et al. (Gao, G., Xiao, K., & Ma, Y. (2018). A leaf-wall-to-spray-device distance and leaf-wall-density-based automatic route-planning spray algorithm for vineyards. Crop Protection, 111, 33-41.)
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA E DRYDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, ANDREW BEE can be reached at (571) 270-5183. 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.
/EMMA E DRYDEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/ANDREW W BEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2677