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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on April 8, 2026. Claims 1, 6, 9, 11-13, 15, and 17 have been amended. Claim 10 has been canceled. Claim 21 has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 recites “The agricultural system of claim 17.” However, it is suggested to amend to -The method claim 17-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “energy storage device” in claim 3 and “energy storage devices” in claim 14 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder “device” that is coupled with functional language storing energy without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In light of the specification, the limitation “energy storage device(s)” is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure “one or more lithium-ion batteries” described in paragraph 0042.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (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 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 1-8, 12-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xi (CN 107258196 A1) in view of ENGELBRECHT et al. (US 2014/0093397 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Xi discloses an agricultural system comprising a power plant (5), a transmission system operably coupled with the power plant (Par. [0060]), a product application system (Figs. 1 and 4) operably coupled with the transmission system (13) through an application gear assembly (3/23/11), the product application system (Figs. 1 and 4) further comprising: an electric machine (throttle valve 9-3 in conjunction with the generator 10) operably coupled with the application gear assembly (3/23/11), a pump system (9-6/9-7) operably coupled with electric machine (Fig. 4); one or more nozzle assemblies (18) configure to exhaust an agricultural product, the agricultural product driven by the pump system (Par. [0071]).
Xi does not disclose that a computing system communicatively coupled to the application system, the computing system including a processor and associated memory, the memory storing instructions that, when implemented by the processor, configure the computing system to determine whether to operate the electric machine in a first state or a second state based on one or more operational conditions.
ENGELBRECHT teaches an agricultural system comprising a computing system (95) communicatively coupled to the application system, the computing system including a processor and associated memory (controller 95 inherently teaches a processor and associated memory since ENGELBRECHT explicitly teaches the controller includes a desired flow rate), the memory storing instructions that, when implemented by the processor, configure the computing system to determine whether to operate the electric machine (valve 70) in a first state or a second state based on one or more operational conditions (Par. [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the agricultural system of Xi, by incorporating the computing system (95) as taught by ENGELBRECHT communicatively coupled to the electric machine (9-3) of Xi, for the benefit of providing autonomous regulation to adjust the actual fluid rate to correspond to a desire flow rate (Par. [0015]).
With regard to claim 2, the device of Xi as modified by ENGELBRECHT discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Xi further discloses that one or more tanks (7/8) fluidly coupled with the pump system (9-6/9-7).
With regard to claim 3, the device of Xi as modified by ENGELBRECHT discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Xi further discloses that an energy storage device (27) operably coupled with the electric machine (9-3).
With regard to claim 4, the device of Xi as modified by ENGELBRECHT discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 3 above. Xi further discloses that the electric machine (valve 9-3 in conjunction with the generator 10) is operably coupled with the pump system (9-6/9-7) and the energy storage device (27) in a parallel arrangement (Fig. 4).
With regard to claim 5, the device of Xi as modified by ENGELBRECHT discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 4 above. Xi further discloses that the electric machine (valve 9-3 in conjunction with the generator 10) is configured as a generator and a motor (10).
With regard to claim 6, the device of Xi as modified by ENGELBRECHT discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 5 above. Xi further discloses that the electric machine (10) is configured to operate in a first state to generate electrical power from the rotational movement of the application gear assembly (Par. [0060]).
With regard to claim 7, the device of Xi as modified by ENGELBRECHT discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 6 above. Xi further discloses that the electrical power is used to operate the pump system (Par. [0060]).
With regard to claim 8, the device of Xi as modified by ENGELBRECHT discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 7 above. Xi further discloses that the electrical power is stored in the energy storage device (27).
With regard to claim 12, the device of Xi as modified by ENGELBRECHT discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. ENGELBRECHT further discloses that the computing system is further configured to control a flow rate of the agricultural product within the pump system at least partially with a valve assembly (Par. [0015]).
With regard to claims 13-16, 17-18, and 20, the device of Xi as modified by ENGELBRECHT discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1-9 above Since the device of Xi as modified by ENGELBRECHT discloses all structure of the claimed invention, in its use, the device of Xi as modified by ENGELBRECHT will inherently perform all the method steps of claims 13-16, 17-18, and 20.
With regard to claim 21, the device of Xi as modified by ENGELBRECHT discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 17 above. Xi further discloses that the application gear assembly (3/23/11) is operably coupled with the gear train such that an output of the application gear assembly is in a parallel arrangement with one or more output shafts of the transmission system operably coupled with the power plant (Fig. 1 shows the arrangement is a parallel arrangement).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11, and 19 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-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 HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights