DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on January 29, 2024. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,996,516 A to Benneweis et al. (herein after "Benneweis et al. patent").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 1,
the Benneweis et al. patent discloses a method, comprising:
detecting a blower type of blower on an agricultural air cart (see Col. 5, Lines 18 – 30, where the Benneweis et al. patent identifies specific hardware configurations, e.g. blower specs, to ensure proper calibration and control scaling for the specific cart model);
identifying a first target blower speed based on an application rate at which material is applied to a field from the air cart (see Col. 4, Lines 45 – 60, where “[t]he air velocity is controlled by inputting a base fan speed through the control panel and then sequentially setting the rotational position of each respective air damper mechanism so that each bank of product delivery tubes can have a different resulting air velocity for proper delivery of the product, e.g. seed or fertilizer, through the respective product delivery tubes”)(Emphasis added);
accessing a set of stored blower control values to identify a first hydraulic fluid control signal value based on the first target blower speed (Air cart systems are implicitly known to have pre-programmed or learned target fan speeds, e.g., 2800 RPM, mapped to hydraulic flow settings in the tractor's display, i.e. selective control valve settings which allows the operator to customize hydraulic flow rates, detent times, and modes for each remote outlet via a monitor);
controlling a controllable hydraulic fluid source to provide hydraulic fluid to the blower based on the first hydraulic fluid control signal value (see Col. 4, lines 18 – 20, where the Benneweis et al. patent discloses “an electric actuator and a hydraulic valve circuit” to control the fan speed or vary the hydraulic oil flow to the hydraulic motor of the blower which is analogous to controlling a controllable hydraulic fluid source to provide hydraulic fluid to the blower based on the first hydraulic fluid control signal value);
detecting the blower speed to obtain a detected blower speed (see Col. 4, lines 1 – 10, where the Benneweis et al. patent discloses “providing an air seeder with a control system for controlling the velocity of air flowing though the product delivery tubes between the product storage tanks and the planting mechanism for delivering the product into the ground” which is analogous to detecting the blower speed to obtain a detected blower speed; see also Col. 8,lines 40 – 43, where “[o]nce the linear actuators have set the fan speed and positioned the air dampers, velocity sensors read the air flow rate, which are transmitted to the console on the communications bus and then the data is output on the display screen”)(Emphasis added);
generating a closed loop hydraulic fluid control signal value to bring the detected blower speed within a threshold value of the first target blower speed (see Col. 8, lines 44 – 47, where the Benneweis et al. patent discloses a closed-loop system where adjustments are made to the fan until the desired setting is reached and maintained during operation); and
updating the stored blower control values based on the closed loop hydraulic fluid control signal value (see Col. 6, lines 15 – 20, where the Benneweis et al. patent discloses an adaptive learning or calibration process where output data informs the operator and the system stores updated settings/offsets for future use).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Benneweis et al. patent in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,321,624 B2 to Reich et al. (herein after “Reich et al. patent").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 9,
the Benneweis et al. publication discloses a method of controlling a blower on an agricultural air cart, comprising:
identifying a first target blower speed based on a first application rate at which material is applied to a field from the agricultural air cart (see Col. 7, Line 65 through Col. 8, lines 23, where the Benneweis et al. publication discloses adjusting the fan speed based on product application rates and number of runs);
controlling the blower based on the first target blower speed (see Col. 7, Lines 3 – 23 and Col. 8, Line 15 – 23, where the Benneweis et al. publication discloses regulating the hydraulic flow to the fan to achieve a specific RPM);
detecting a reduction of the application rate to zero within a threshold time period (It is well established in the art for Variable Rate Technology (VRT) systems on air carts to detect when the master clutch or an individual section clutch disengages, marking zero flow. The system detects a complete stop of the metering roller rotation while the air cart fan remains running. This indicates that the mechanical drive (sprocket or roller) has been disconnected, resulting in an immediate cessation of product flow to the seed boot, which is then communicated to the monitor as a controlled stop rather than a, blockage);
controlling the blower to maintain the first target blower speed after the application rate is zero (It is standard practice in the art to avoid plugging lines and for the blower speed to be held constant for a set duration after seeding stops); and
detecting an application rate change to a non-zero application rate (When a VRT or automated headland management system detects the clutch engaging at the end of a headland turn, it signifies the automatic, synchronized reactivation of the implement and drivetrain to resume work).
The Benneweis et al. publication, however, fails to specifically disclose identifying a second target blower speed based on the non-zero application
rate; and
controlling the blower based on the second target blower speed.
The Reich et al. patent explicitly mentions adjusting air flow in response to changes in material delivery. (See Col. 13, lines 55 – 65 and Col. 15, lines 17 – 24.)
The Reich et al. patent also discloses the system automatically modifying the blower speed (or damper position) to achieve the new air flow requirement. (See Col. 15, lines 25 – 37.) Such disclosures suggest identifying a second target blower speed based on the non-zero application rate, and controlling the blower based on the second target blower speed.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Benneweis et al. publication to identify a second target blower speed based on the non-zero application rate, and control the blower based on the second target blower speed, as suggested by the Reich et al. patent, in order to balance the flow of seeds in an air seeder for crop treatment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 – 20 are allowed.
Claims 2 – 8 and 10 – 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666