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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group 1 in the reply filed on 3/24/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the scope of apparatus and method claims overlap and therefore does not constitute search burden. Traversal is found persuasive and the previous restriction requirement is withdrawn.
Claims 1-20 are addressed 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9, 11, 12, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sullivan (US20160175869).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Sullivan discloses an agricultural sprayer (20, fig. 1) and method performed by the sprayer (via disclosure of the sprayer features operation) comprising:
a spraying system (60) comprising one or more spray nozzles (fig. 2, 60); and
a control system (34; figs. 1, 3) configured to:
control the spraying system to spray a liquid to an agricultural field based on a target application (par. 17: “Equalization of a spray system or subsystem (e.g., a boom section of a sprayer) with multiple nozzles includes the determination of a spray profile for the system or subsystem, where the spray profile indicates a set of respective target outflows for the respective nozzles”, par. 20: “the GPS detected location can be mapped to or correlated with the amount of flow rate for each of the nozzles or boom sections in a particular field location for a given flow pressure or amount of fluid released at the input of the fluid distribution pipes or plumbing”);
receive an indication of a machine disturbance in a path of the agricultural sprayer on the agricultural field (par. 16: “An initial equalization…(i.e. by folding, tilting and rotating the boom sections) creates the effect of hilly or uneven terrain …stored in a lookup table in a manner like this: terrain versus flow rate for each nozzle”), the machine disturbance representing a predicted movement of at least one spray nozzle, of the one or more spray nozzles, relative to a surface of the agricultural field (par. 16: “The sensors measure a distance to the ground or a side hill so that the tilt of the boom or boom sections with respect to the ground is detected or determined from pressure variations. When there is uneven ground or a hill, there is a fluid pressure differential from one end of the boom to the other end…Calibration and equalization are performed for different boom configurations under the different simulated terrains, to determine a set of “hilly” offsets”; boom movement captured/measured during calibration from the simulated terrains is the predicted movement);
generate a spray performance metric (par. 16: “when the spray vehicle is actually traveling on hilly terrain or uneven ground, the hilliness or tilt of the boom is measured and compared or matched with the terrain values in the lookup table”) based on the predicted movement (data during the calibration via simulated terrains, see rejection paragraph above; see par. 16) of the at least one spray nozzle, the spray performance metric being indicative of performance of the spraying system relative to the target application; and
generate a control signal (“pulse width signal”) to control the agricultural sprayer based on the spray performance metric (par. 16: “The flow rate offset associated with the identified terrain values are used to correct or adjust the default pulse width signal that controls the amount of fluid flow in each nozzle or boom section…the simulated values are used along with the terrain sensors to determine the appropriate pulse width adjustment to equalize the performance of the nozzles or nozzle sections”).
Regarding claim 4, Sullivan discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 1, wherein the target application comprises at least one of a target dispersal area (par. 46: “a spray pattern generator 92 is used for pattern analysis (i.e., analysis of the spatial locations of drops or other patterns of sprays)”) on the surface of the agricultural field or a target volume of the liquid on the surface of the agricultural field.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Sullivan discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 5, wherein the agricultural sprayer comprises:
a towed implement (boom assembly 32) that carries the spraying system (60), and
a support machine (22, 24) configured to tow the towed implement (par. 18).
Regarding claim 11, Sullivan discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 1, wherein the control signal is configured to control a display device (98, 104) to render an indication of the spray performance metric (figs. 4A, 4B; par. 66).
Regarding claim 12, Sullivan discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 1, wherein the indication of the machine disturbance is based on a terrain map that identifies a topology of the agricultural field (par. 20: “The GPS detects the locations of the sprayer 20 and can correlate or map an amount of uneven ground or boom tilt with the particular location in the field”).
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.
Claims 2-3, 10, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US20160175869) in view of Giles (US 20060265106).
Regarding claims 2-3, Sullivan is silent regarding the predicted movement relative to the surface comprises a predicted movement of the at least one spray nozzle that is perpendicular to a travel direction of the agricultural sprayer (claim 2); wherein the predicted movement relative to the surface comprises a predicted movement that changes a distance between the at least one spray nozzle and the surface of the agricultural field (claim 3).
However, Giles discloses a comparable agricultural sprayer (fig. 1) in the same field of endeavor, having a boom movement sensor 136 (fig. 5A, sensor mounted to nozzle 26A, which part of the boom shown in fig. 1) configured to generate a sensor signal (par. 69: "sensed vibration") indicative of movement of the spray boom in a direction that is perpendicular to a travel direction of the agricultural sprayer (par. 21: "senses vibrations in at least one of the Z-axis...", which is perpendicular to the horizontal travel direction along the ground), and the control system is configured to generate the spray performance metric based on the sensor signal indicative of movement of the spray boom (par. 69: "Through the sensed vibrations, information regarding the performance of the agricultural components can be obtained information can be gathered regarding the spray pattern of a nozzle and/or the flow rate of the nozzle", par. 28: "the controller can indicate whether or not the fluid nozzle is emitting a proper spray pattern and/or whether the fluid nozzle is operating at the correct flow rate", "the controller can be configured to compare a reference, standard or ideal vibration output to a vibration output received from the vibration sensor. From this comparison, the controller can indicate an irregularity in the operation of the fluid nozzle"; comparisons of information on spray pattern, flow rate and irregularity are performance metric relative to the target application).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sullivan to incorporate the teachings of Giles to consider the predicted movement relative to the surface comprises a predicted movement of the at least one spray nozzle that is perpendicular to a travel direction of the agricultural sprayer (claim 2); wherein the predicted movement relative to the surface comprises a predicted movement that changes a distance between the at least one spray nozzle and the surface of the agricultural field (claim 3). Doing so would yield the predictable result of monitoring irregularity in the operation of the nozzle in different directions so that proper adjustment can be made to achieve the desired operating condition, as suggested in Giles, paragraph 28.
Regarding claim 10, Sullivan discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 1, wherein Sullivan discloses the one or more spray nozzles are carried on a spray boom (32), but is silent regarding the machine disturbance comprises spray boom vibration.
However, Giles discloses a comparable agricultural sprayer (fig. 1) in the same field of endeavor, having a boom movement sensor 136 (fig. 5A, sensor mounted to nozzle 26A, which part of the boom shown in fig. 1) configured to generate a sensor signal (par. 69: "sensed vibration") indicative of movement of the spray boom in a direction that is perpendicular to a travel direction of the agricultural sprayer (par. 21: "senses vibrations in at least one of the Z-axis...", which is perpendicular to the horizontal travel direction along the ground), and the control system is configured to generate the spray performance metric based on the sensor signal indicative of movement of the spray boom (par. 69: "Through the sensed vibrations, information regarding the performance of the agricultural components can be obtained information can be gathered regarding the spray pattern of a nozzle and/or the flow rate of the nozzle", par. 28: "the controller can indicate whether or not the fluid nozzle is emitting a proper spray pattern and/or whether the fluid nozzle is operating at the correct flow rate", "the controller can be configured to compare a reference, standard or ideal vibration output to a vibration output received from the vibration sensor. From this comparison, the controller can indicate an irregularity in the operation of the fluid nozzle"; comparisons of information on spray pattern, flow rate and irregularity are performance metric relative to the target application).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sullivan to incorporate the teachings of Giles to consider the machine disturbance comprises spray boom vibration. Doing so would yield the predictable result of monitoring irregularity in the operation of the nozzle in different directions so that proper adjustment can be made to achieve the desired operating condition, as suggested in Giles, paragraph 28.
Regarding claim 16, Sullivan discloses wherein the target application comprises at least one of a target dispersal area (par. 46: “a spray pattern generator 92 is used for pattern analysis (i.e., analysis of the spatial locations of drops or other patterns of sprays)”) on the surface of the agricultural field or a target volume of the liquid on the surface of the agricultural field. Sullivan is silent regarding the predicted movement relative to the surface comprises a predicted movement of the at least one spray nozzle that changes a distance between the at least one spray nozzle and the surface of the agricultural field.
However, Giles discloses a comparable agricultural sprayer (fig. 1) in the same field of endeavor, having a boom movement sensor 136 (fig. 5A, sensor mounted to nozzle 26A, which part of the boom shown in fig. 1) configured to generate a sensor signal (par. 69: "sensed vibration") indicative of movement of the spray boom in a direction that is perpendicular to a travel direction of the agricultural sprayer (par. 21: "senses vibrations in at least one of the Z-axis...", which is perpendicular to the horizontal travel direction along the ground), and the control system is configured to generate the spray performance metric based on the sensor signal indicative of movement of the spray boom (par. 69: "Through the sensed vibrations, information regarding the performance of the agricultural components can be obtained information can be gathered regarding the spray pattern of a nozzle and/or the flow rate of the nozzle", par. 28: "the controller can indicate whether or not the fluid nozzle is emitting a proper spray pattern and/or whether the fluid nozzle is operating at the correct flow rate", "the controller can be configured to compare a reference, standard or ideal vibration output to a vibration output received from the vibration sensor. From this comparison, the controller can indicate an irregularity in the operation of the fluid nozzle"; comparisons of information on spray pattern, flow rate and irregularity are performance metric relative to the target application).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sullivan to incorporate the teachings of Giles to consider the predicted movement relative to the surface comprises a predicted movement that changes a distance between the at least one spray nozzle and the surface of the agricultural field. Doing so would yield the predictable result of monitoring irregularity in the operation of the nozzle in different directions so that proper adjustment can be made to achieve the desired operating condition, as suggested in Giles, paragraph 28.
Claims 5, 6, 17, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US20160175869) in view of Thompson (US 20190374966).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Sullivan mentions consideration of the speed and distance in the calculations to proportionally adjust either the flow rate or fluid pressure, but is silent regarding the control system is configured to:
determine a target travel speed for the agricultural sprayer on the agricultural field based on a comparison of the spray performance metric to a spray performance metric threshold; and generate the control signal to control the agricultural sprayer based on the target travel speed.
However, Thompson discloses an automatic mobile spray system 10 having a controller 74 configured to automatically adjust any one of the spray parameters to maintain a same deposition rate (spray performance threshold) of the fluid on surface 62 (see fig. 1A, par. 84-85). The system determines target travel speed (calculate speed set point) based spray parameter measurements and set/control the travel speed (sweep speed) at the target speed based on the measurements (par. 85, last 2 sentences).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sullivan to incorporate the teachings of Thompson to configure the control system is configured to: determine a target travel speed for the agricultural sprayer on the agricultural field based on a comparison of the spray performance metric to a spray performance metric threshold; and generate the control signal to control the agricultural sprayer based on the target travel speed. Doing so would ensure the system generate an even, high-quality spray, as suggested by Thompson in paragraph 86.
Regarding claim 6, Sullivan, as modified above, discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 5, wherein the control system is configured to: generate a user interface (98, 104; figs. 4A and 4B) with a target performance user input mechanism (par. 12, 66); and
generate the spray performance metric threshold based on user actuation of the target performance user input mechanism (par. 66: “Using this information, and potentially by manipulating the representations on the interface 104 (e.g., by manipulating the various bars 106, 108 and so on to exhibit different heights corresponding to different outflow rates), the operator may then specify target outflow rates for the various nozzles. The controller 34, for example, may then determine appropriate PWM (or other) signals for control of the various valves of the boom assembly 32, in order to achieve the desired outflows.”).
Regarding claim 7, Sullivan, as modified above, discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 5, wherein the control signal automatically is configured to control a travel speed of the agricultural sprayer based on the target travel speed (as modified in view of Thompson; see Thompson, par. 84-85).
Regarding claim 19, Sullivan discloses an agricultural sprayer comprising:
a spray boom (32) supported by a frame (22, 24);
a spraying system (60) comprising a set of spray nozzles (60) spaced along the spray boom;
a boom movement sensor (par. 16: “height-level sensors and proximity, accelerometers and gyroscope sensors are mounted on each section of the boom”) configured to generate a sensor signal indicative of movement of the spray boom in a direction that is perpendicular to a travel direction of the agricultural sprayer; and
a control system (34; figs. 1, 3) configured to:
control the spraying system to spray a liquid based on a target application to an agricultural field (par. 17: “Equalization of a spray system or subsystem (e.g., a boom section of a sprayer) with multiple nozzles includes the determination of a spray profile for the system or subsystem, where the spray profile indicates a set of respective target outflows for the respective nozzles”, par. 20: “the GPS detected location can be mapped to or correlated with the amount of flow rate for each of the nozzles or boom sections in a particular field location for a given flow pressure or amount of fluid released at the input of the fluid distribution pipes or plumbing”);
generate a spray performance metric (par. 16: “when the spray vehicle is actually traveling on hilly terrain or uneven ground, the hilliness or tilt of the boom is measured and compared or matched with the terrain values in the lookup table”) based on sensor data (data during the calibration via simulated terrains, see par. 16) of the at least one spray nozzle, the spray performance metric being indicative of performance of the spraying system relative to the target application.
Sullivan mentions consideration of the speed and distance in the calculations to proportionally adjust either the flow rate or fluid pressure, but is silent regarding the control system is configured to: determine a target travel speed for the agricultural sprayer on the agricultural field based on a comparison of the spray performance metric to a spray performance metric threshold; and generate the control signal to control the agricultural sprayer based on the target travel speed.
However, Thompson discloses an automatic mobile spray system 10 having a controller 74 configured to automatically adjust any one of the spray parameters to maintain a same deposition rate (spray performance threshold) of the fluid on surface 62 (see fig. 1A, par. 84-85). The system determines target travel speed (calculate speed set point) based spray parameter measurements and set/control the travel speed (sweep speed) at the target speed based on the measurements (par. 85, last 2 sentences).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sullivan to incorporate the teachings of Thompson to configure the control system is configured to: determine a target travel speed for the agricultural sprayer on the agricultural field based on a comparison of the spray performance metric to a spray performance metric threshold; and generate the control signal to control the agricultural sprayer based on the target travel speed. Doing so would ensure the system generate an even, high-quality spray, as suggested by Thompson in paragraph 86.
Regarding claim 20, Sullivan discloses the target application comprises at least one of a target dispersal area (par. 46: “a spray pattern generator 92 is used for pattern analysis (i.e., analysis of the spatial locations of drops or other patterns of sprays)”) on the surface of the agricultural field or a target volume of the liquid on the surface of the agricultural field.
Claims 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US20160175869) in view of Thompson (US 20190374966), further in view of Cash (US 20130311050).
Regarding claim 8, Sullivan, as modified above, discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 5, but is silent regarding the control signal is configured to control a display device to render an indication of the target travel speed.
Cash discloses methods and system for automating farming vehicle/devices that utilize control signals to automatically controls a velocity of the farming vehicle (par. 25: "sending commands to actuators to control application rate, steering angle, engine speed") from one or more microprocessors, and a display device 205 (fig. 2) that would provide a text area 215 showing information related to speed (par. 28).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sullivan and Thompson to incorporate the teachings of Cash to utilize the control signal controls a display device to render an indication of the target velocity. Doing so would eliminate guess work as suggested in paragraph 16 of Cash.
Claims 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US20160175869) in view of Wu (US 20190150357).
Regarding claim 13, Sullivan discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 1, but is silent regarding the indication of the machine disturbance is based on an image of the agricultural field obtained from an imaging sensor.
Wu discloses a comparable agricultural sprayer, wherein consideration of the machine disturbance is based on an image of the agricultural field obtained from an imaging sensor (par. 124; par. 125: "analysis is for differences between the ground altitude or crop elevation or current image map versus the image map from previous years when the same type of crop was previously grown"; par. 52: "Images from adjacent or near adjacent image sensor units 50 are stitched together to map the terrain or crop row 12 to form a 3D image").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sullivan to incorporate the teachings of Wu to consider the indication of the machine disturbance is based on an image of the agricultural field obtained from an imaging sensor. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating ground elevation information for analysis, prompt adjustment, and future practices (See Paragraphs 124, 125).
Regarding claim 14, Sullivan discloses the agricultural sprayer of claim 1, but is silent regarding the indication of the machine disturbance is based on historical field data representing a prior machine disturbance detected at a particular area of the agricultural field.
Wu discloses a comparable agricultural sprayer, wherein consideration of the machine disturbance is based on historical field data representing a prior machine disturbance detected at a particular area of the agricultural field (par. 155; par. 125: "analysis is for differences between the ground altitude or crop elevation or current image map versus the image map from previous years when the same type of crop was previously grown"; par. 51: "A history of the data year over year is accumulated to determine best practices for the following year").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sullivan to incorporate the teachings of Wu to consider the indication of the machine disturbance is based on historical field data representing a prior machine disturbance detected at a particular area of the agricultural field. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating ground elevation information for analysis, prompt adjustment, and future practices (See Paragraphs 124, 125).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUONGMINH NGUYEN PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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 Hall can be reached at 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.
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights