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 and 3-10 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 “uniform” in the claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “uniform” 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. It is unclear what the second dose is uniform compared to. “uniform” is taken to mean the same as. Combined with “dose” implies that a uniform amount of the product is being applied. If a second dose is applied and that dose is uniform to the first dose it is unclear how the amount of the dose is less than an amount of the first dose.
Claim limitations “an error detection unit configured to issue an error signal” in claim 1, “a digital processing unit configured to analyze the images” in claim 1, and “error detection unit 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 unit” and “digital processing unit” 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 and 3-10 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.
Although Mizushima et al US 20220192084; Glasbrenner et al US 20220287290; and Sandey et al US 20220264864 are capable of performing the functional limitations of the claims the claim limitations are not merely intended use recitations but rather structural differences between the claimed system and prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Although the claims have been amended to replace the limitation of “device” with “unit”, “unit” is a generic placeholder. The specification does not link “unit” with corresponding structure that defines it beyond being a generic placeholder.
Applicant alleges that the generic placeholders of claim 1 are supported by the specification disclosing a description of a claimed computer function, and that the units recited in the claims are part of a general purpose computer programed to perform functions as set forth in the claims (Applicant’s arguments, page 1). However, there is no support in the specification for a computer, processor, microprocessor, or any kind of structure that would perform the functions of the units as claimed. The applicant describes the operation of the units (“the error detection unit (300) cooperates with a set of sensors (310) and a digital processing unit (200) to send error signals to a control unit(120).”- applicants arguments pate 1). However, the operation of the units and their associations do not equate with the actual structure of the units. A computer or processor is not claimed, nor recited by the disclosure of the invention.
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
Prosecution Insights