Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/372,004

SYSTEM FOR TREATING PLANTS ESPECIALLY IN AGRICULTURE

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Sep 22, 2023
Examiner
HAYES, KRISTEN C
Art Unit
3642
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
BILBERRY SAS
OA Round
4 (Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
857 granted / 1250 resolved
+16.6% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
1299
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
§102
34.3%
-5.7% vs TC avg
§112
33.1%
-6.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1250 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 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 1-10 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. The term “nominal” in claims 1 and 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “nominal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the product". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The product has previously only been functionally claimed. From the way the claim is written it is unclear if the applicant intends to positively recite a product as part of the system. Claim limitations “an error detection device configured to issue an error signal” in claim 1, “a digital processing device configured to analyze the images” in claim 1, and “error detection device configured for detecting” in claim 10 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. “Error detection device” and “digital processing device” are generic placeholders is coupled with functional language. The “error detection” and “digital processing” devices are not clarified or further defined within the specification making it unclear what structure actually performs the functional language. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The previously cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest an error detection device configured to issue an error signal to a spray control device configured to apply in response to the error signal a uniform dose of the product. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 07/07/2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under Mizushima, Glasbrenner, or Sandey have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 2 is discussed and elaborated upon above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN C HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-7881. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm. 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, Michener Joshua can be reached at 571.272.1467. 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. /KRISTEN C HAYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 22, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 15, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 14, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 13, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Jul 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Oct 13, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 21, 2025
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599802
TRAINING MECHANISM AND ROBOT FOR WATER-BASED LOWER-LIMB REHABILITATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599114
Cover for a Retractable Dog Leash
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588603
INTERENGAGEABLE CONTAINERS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582850
CABLE SLEEVE FOR FALL PROTECTION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582058
PRODUCTION FACILITY LAYOUTS FOR AUTOMATED CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT AGRICULTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+21.6%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1250 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month