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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the auxiliary input as recited in claim 32 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the “auxiliary input” as recited in claim 32.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: “applicator is turning determine” in lines 6-7 should read --applicator is turning; determine.-- Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure, as originally filed, does not disclose that the invention comprising an auxiliary input as amended in claim 32. Since the drawings and the specification failed to disclose the limitation “auxiliary input,” it is unclear if the limitation is a structural element as a passage “input” or an electronic signal of the control? Clarification is respectfully requested.
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 22-29, 36 and 41 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.
Claims 22-25 recites the preamble/limitation "the ground applicator machine" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this preamble/limitation in the claim.
Claims 26-28 recites the preamble/limitation "the ground applicator control" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this preamble/limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the ground applicator" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Same rejection applies to claims 28, 36 and 41.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "wherein controller is further configured to ground meter a flow of the liquid product" in lines 1-2. It appears to be idiomatically and/or grammatically incorrect. It is unclear what is the meaning of “ground meter?” Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "speed data from one or more speed sensors" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 22-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The preamble of claims 22-25 recites “The ground applicator machine” and the preamble of claims 26-28 recites “The ground applicator control.” The preambles in these claims are different from the preamble of the independent claim 21. It is unclear if claims 22-28 are further limiting the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 21-27 and 29-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doherty et al. (US 5,904,296. Doherty hereinafter).
With respect to claim 21, Doherty discloses a ground applicator control system (Figs. 1-12), the control system comprising: one or more electronically controlled gates (50 and 46) configured to (capable of) dispense a plurality of granules (44); one or more electronically controlled spray tips (at 64) configured to (capable of) dispense a liquid product (in 54); an operator control interface (control box in Figs. 3-5); and a controller (216); wherein the controller is coupled to the operator control interface, the one or more electronically controlled gates, and the one or more electronically controlled spray tips, the controller configured to (capable of): receive, from the operator control interface, a mode selection (knobs and switches shown in control box in Figs. 3-5); dispense, the liquid product or the granule product, based on the mode selection.
With respect to claim 22, Doherty discloses wherein the controller is further configured to (capable of): receive, from the operator control interface, a pattern selection (dispersion of the left, center and right of both the liquid and granular. Figs. 3-5); and dispense, the liquid product or the granule product, based on the mode selection and the pattern selection.
With respect to claim 23, Doherty discloses wherein the controller is further configured to (capable of): receive, from the operator control interface, a calibration selection (86, 88, 90, 93, 98, 100, 116); and dispense, the liquid product or the granule product, based on the mode selection and the calibration selection.
With respect to claim 24, Doherty discloses wherein the calibration selection received from the operator control interface is a selection a preset (minimum to maximum 86, 88, 90, 93, 98, 100, 116) in calibration or a custom (marked speed in 86, marked width in 93 and 116) calibration.
With respect to claim 25, Doherty discloses wherein in the custom calibration includes the controller being further configured to (capable of): determine a maximum speed the one or more electronically controlled gates can dispense the plurality of granules (marked speed in 86, marked width in 93 and 116); or determine a maximum speed the one or more electronically controlled spray tips can dispense the liquid product (“…liquid can alternatively also be spread by means of a rotating disk…” Col. 5, lines 57-67).
With respect to claim 26, Doherty discloses wherein the one or more electronically controlled gates or the one or more electronically controlled spray tips stop dispensing when the ground applicator is below a minimum speed (when the 40 is not operating and parked back in the station/garage).
With respect to claim 27, Doherty discloses the ground applicator control of claim 21 further including one or more speed sensors (knobs and switches shown in control box in Figs. 3-5. Switch or knob can be considered a type of sensor because it detects a physical condition (like position or rotation) and converts it into an electrical signal that can be processed by a system) configured to (capable of) regulate dispensing from the one or more electronically controlled gates or the one or more electronically controlled spray tips.
With respect to claim 29, Doherty discloses wherein controller is further configured to (capable of) ground meter a flow of the liquid product or a flow of the plurality of granules based on speed data (marked speed in 86, marked width in 93 and 116) from one or more speed sensors (86, 93 and 116).
With respect to claim 30, Doherty discloses the ground applicator control system of claim 21 further comprising a spray pump, wherein a speed of the spray pump varies (Col. 5, lines 12-32 and lines 57-67).
With respect to claim 31, Doherty discloses wherein the speed of the spray pump increases (from OFF to ON) when the one or more electronically controlled spray tips are activated.
With respect to claim 32, Doherty discloses wherein the controller is further configured to (capable of): receive, from the operator control interface, an auxiliary (user) input; and dispense an additional amount of the liquid product based on the auxiliary input (by turning QL at 98).
With respect to claim 33, Doherty discloses a ground applicator control system (Figs. 1-12) for application of granular material, the system comprising: one or more electronically controlled gates (50 and 46) configured to (capable of) dispense a plurality of granules (44); one or more variable speed spreading disks (46); an operator control interface (control box in Figs. 3-5); and a controller (216); wherein the controller is coupled to the operator control interface, the one or more electronically controlled gates, and the one or more variable speed spreading disks, the controller configured to (capable of): receive, from the operator control interface, a user selection (via knobs and switches shown in control box in Figs. 3-5); wherein the user selection is variable by the user; or wherein the user selection is one or more preset (minimum to maximum 86, 88, 90, 93, 98, 100, 116) selections; dispense, the plurality of granules, based on the user selection.
With respect to claim 34, Doherty discloses wherein the user selection further includes a spread width (Figs. 6a-7c).
With respect to claim 35, Doherty discloses wherein the user selection further includes selection of spreading predominately to a right side, a left side, or a center (102, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112).
With respect to claim 36, Doherty discloses wherein the one or more electronically controlled gates stop dispensing when the ground applicator is below a minimum speed (when the 40 is not operating and parked back in the station/garage).
With respect to claim 37, Doherty discloses the ground applicator control system of claim 33 further comprising a hopper (48) and a material vibrator (50 and 46), wherein the material vibrator is coupled to the controller and the controller is further configured to (capable of) activate the material vibrator when the one or more electronically controlled gates are open.
With respect to claim 38, Doherty discloses a ground applicator control system (Figs. 1-12) for application of liquid material (in 54), the system comprising: one or more electronically controlled spray tips (at 64) configured to (capable of) dispense a liquid product; one or more electronically controlled spray pumps (146, 136, 138 and 140); an operator control interface (control box in Figs. 3-5); and a controller (216); wherein the controller is coupled to the operator control interface, the one or more electronically controlled spray tips, and one or more electronically controlled spray pumps, the controller configured to (capable of): receive, from the operator control interface, a user selection (via knobs and switches shown in control box in Figs. 3-5); wherein the user selection is variable by the user; or wherein the user selection is one or more preset selections (minimum to maximum 86, 88, 90, 93, 98, 100, 116); dispense, the liquid product, based on the user selection.
With respect to claim 39, Doherty discloses wherein the user selection further includes a spread width (Figs. 6a-7c).
With respect to claim 40, Doherty discloses wherein the user selection further includes selection of spreading predominately to a right side, a left side, or a center (102, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112).
With respect to claim 41, Doherty discloses wherein the one or more electronically controlled spray tips stop dispensing when the ground applicator is below a minimum speed (when the 40 is not operating and parked back in the station/garage).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 28/ is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doherty in view of Leeb et al. (US10244747. Leeb hereinafter).
With respect to claim 28, Doherty discloses the ground applicator control as in claim 27 except for wherein the one or more speed sensors includes a first speed sensor and a second speed sensor, and wherein the controller is further configured to: determine, based on the first and second speed sensors, whether the ground applicator is turning determine, based on the first and second speed sensors, a direction and a magnitude of the turn; dispense, the liquid product or the granule product, based on the direction and the magnitude of the turn.
However, Leeb teaches a ground applicator control system (Figs. 1-8), the control system comprising: one or more electronically controlled spray tips (at 18) configured to (capable of) dispense a liquid product (in 14), an operator control interface (in 12); and a controller (36); wherein the controller is coupled to the operator control interface. Leeb also teaches one or more speed sensors includes a first speed sensor (32) and a second speed sensor (56 and GPS), and wherein the controller is further configured to (capable of): determine, based on the first and second speed sensors, whether the ground applicator is turning (angular rate sensor that determines the yaw, pitch and roll rates. Figs. 6A-8 and Col. 13, line 3-39); determine, based on the first and second speed sensors, a direction and a magnitude of the turn (angular rate sensor that determines the yaw, pitch and roll rates. Figs. 6A-8 and Col. 13, line 3-39); dispense, the liquid product or the granule product, based on the direction and the magnitude of the turn (Col. 11, line 39-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a first speed sensor and a second speed sensor, as taught by Leeb, to Doherty’s ground applicator control, in order to determine the exact location of the ground applicator relative to the designated spray area (Col. 13, line 3-61).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to a ground applicator control system: Boyer et al., Holland, Picardat, Kupper, Holsworth, Ehrat and Wise et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached on (571)270-1814. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 December 22, 2025