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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 27, 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on March 5, 2026. The submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The submission entered January 27, 2026 in response to an Office Action mailed October 6, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10, 12, 14-19 are pending. Claim(s) 11, 13 is/are cancelled. Claim(s) 1, 3, 12 is/are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112, applicant traverses the rejections, arguing “These disclosures provide a complete and deterministic roadmap for implementing the claimed airflow control. In particular, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the difference between the two measured pressures (a differential pressure) is used to derive the actual airflow via standard fluid-dynamics relations (applying Bernoulli's equation given the known areas of the two sections), and that a conventional control signal is then generated to adjust the fan speed based on the difference between the desired airflow setpoint and the derived actual airflow. Each of these operations relies on fundamental engineering principles and well-established formulas, requiring no inventive effort or undue experimentation to carry out. Therefore, the specification's description fully enables and supports the claimed concepts even without an explicitly recited formula or algorithm, since the necessary steps for achieving the claimed function are inherently understood by the skilled artisan.” As applicant argues the language is inherently understood by one of ordinary skill, this is found persuasive, because the language would be clear and definite to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, applicant presents several arguments.
Applicant argues “the proposed substitution would frustrate the intended operation of Scholich’s system rather than improve Binsirawanich’s device”. This is because Binsirawanich discloses a compact and highly curved fluid conduit (38) in Figures 1 and 2 that would not provide the straight line space required to accommodate Scholich’s equalization tube and that if Scholich’s transducer were incorporated into the tightly curved pipeline of Binsirawanich, the turbulent flow conditions would undermine the conditions upon which Scholich relies to achieve the level of precision. This appears to be arguing the bodily incorporation of Scholich into Binsirawanich. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Binsirawanich teaches measuring flow rate of an airflow and controlling the airflow based on that measurement. Binsirawanich further shows the conduit (38) being straight in Figure 3. Scholich teaches a measurement part having parts of different cross section areas and using pressure differential to measure flow rate. Scholich further discloses that metering orifices, like the one used by Binsirawanich, have relatively high accuracy, but cause a relatively large drop in pressure of a flow. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use a measurement part having parts of different cross section areas to measure the flow rate of the airflow while reducing the pressure drop.
Applicant further argues that Binsirawanich relies on a material-centric control loop while the present invention employs an airflow-centric control loop, and that “arriving at the claimed configuration would require substantially redesigning Binsirawanich's control software and operational methodology to abandon its material-centric approach in favor of Applicant's airflow-centric control strategy”. Binsirawanich discloses “the controller 74 is communicatively coupled to the air source 34, and configured to instruct the air source to adjust the air flow based on the determined mass flow rate of product, the measured flow rate of the air flow and/or the measured velocity of the air flow” [Col. 8:53-58]. The controller of Binsirawanich controls the air source to obtain a desired airflow based on the measured quantity (“measured flow rate of the air flow”). As Binsirawanich uses the term “and/or”, the measure flow rate of the air flow can solely be used to adjust the air flow, or can be used in conjunction with other measurements to control the airflow. Therefore, the claimed configuration would not require substantially redesigning Binsirawanich’s control software.
Further, it is noted that the claim language does not exclude a material-centric control loop. As broadly recited, the claimed control unit requires at least the control is based on the measured quantity relating to the airflow in the flow path.
Regarding the language “based on a relation between the size of the first cross section area and the second cross section area”, it is known to use the ratio of areas in a differential pressure transducer to calculate the flow rate of a fluid, as evidenced by Equation 1 of Cohen et al. (US Pub 20030130818 A1), cited by applicant in the IDS of March 5, 2026. Therefore, the differential pressure transducer of Scholich would inherently take into account the ratio of areas of the first part and second part when calculating the flow rate.
In view of the above, the previously presented rejections are maintained.
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) 1-9, 12, 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binsirawanich et al. (USPN 8746158) in view of Scholich et al. (US Pub 20180224344 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Binsirawanich et al. (USPN 8746158) teaches an agricultural implement (implement 10) comprising a feed system for at least one agricultural product, the feed system comprising: a flow path (conduit 38); an airflow generating unit (air source 34) arranged in fluid communication with the flow path; at least one metering device (meter roller 40) arranged to provide the at least one agricultural product to the airflow in the flow path; at least one distribution unit (header 20) connected to the flow path downstream of the at least one metering device, wherein the at least one distribution unit comprises a plurality of outlets [Col. 2:55-67, “implement 10 may include additional tools 16, headers 20 and/or hoses 22” implies a plurality of outlets], at least one sensor (air flow sensor 70) arranged to measure a quantity (flow rate) relating to the airflow in the flow path, and a control unit (controller 74) arranged to control the airflow generating unit to obtain a desired airflow in the flow path based on measurements by the at least one sensor [Col. 8:53-58, “controller 74…configured to instruct the air source to adjust the air flow based on the determined mass flow rate of product, the measured flow rate of the air flow and/or the measured velocity of the air flow” (emphasis added) ]. The air flow sensor [Col. 6:17-47] measures a pressure differential across an orifice plate to determine a flow rate of the air. Further, the sensor can include a hot wire sensor and/or a pitot tube to determine the velocity of the air flow. Binsirawanich et al. further teaches each of the plurality of outlets is connected to a separate corresponding one of a plurality of ducts (22) for conveying the agricultural product to the ground (at ground engaging tool 16). Binsirawanich et al. fails to teach the flow path comprises a measurement part comprising a first part having a first cross section area and a second part having a second cross section area, wherein the size of the first cross section area is different from the size of the second cross section area, the at least one sensor is arranged to measure the quantity relating to the airflow in the flow path at the first part and at the second part, and the control unit is arranged to control the airflow generating unit to obtain the desired airflow in the flow path based on the measured quantity relating to the airflow in the flow path at the first part and at the second part and based on a relation between the size of the first cross section area and the second cross section area. Scholich et al. (US Pub 20180224344 A1) teaches a measurement part (differential pressure transducer 10) comprising a first part (section 30) having a first cross section area (at diameter 32) and a second part (region 36) having a second cross section area (at diameter 28), wherein the size of the first cross section area is different from the size of the second cross section area [Para. 46, “the ratio between the second inner diameter 32 and the first inner diameter 28 is roughly 1.4 and thus lies within a typical range extending from 1.2 to 2.5”]. Scholich et al. notes that metering orifices produce a relatively large pressure drop [Para. 3], and the construction of the pressure transducer results in a small pressure loss [Para. 11]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Binsirawanich et al. in view of Scholich et al. such that the flow path comprises a measurement part comprising a first part having a first cross section area and a second part having a second cross section area, wherein the size of the first cross section area is different from the size of the second cross section area, the at least one sensor is arranged to measure the quantity relating to the airflow in the flow path at the first part and at the second part, and the control unit is arranged to control the airflow generating unit to obtain the desired airflow in the flow path based on the measured quantity relating to the airflow in the flow path at the first part and at the second part and based on a relation between the size of the first cross section area and the second cross section area. The measurement part would produce a smaller pressure drop over the metering orifice.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Binsirawanich et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the measurement part is formed in an adapter positioned in the flow path. Scholich et al. teaches the pressure transducer is an adapter (formed in a single overall piece). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the measurement part as an adapter to allow rapid connections to the flow path.
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Binsirawanich et al. teaches the control unit is further arranged to control the airflow generating unit based on a differential pressure between a pressure in the first part and a pressure in the second part, wherein the differential pressure may be a differential static pressure, said differential pressure being obtained from the measured quantity relating to the airflow in the flow path at the first part and at the second part. The control unit receives a differential pressure measurement [Col. 6:25, “measuring the pressure difference”; Col. 6:66, “controller 74 may then determine a mass flow rate…based on the pressure drop”] and controls the air source based on the measurement [Col. 8:53, “controller 74 is communicatively coupled to the air source 34, and configured to instruct the air source to adjust the air flow based on the determined mass flow rate”].
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Binsirawanich et al. teaches the at least one sensor comprises at least one pressure sensor [Col. 6:36, “sensor 70 may include a pitot tube configured to measure both static and dynamic pressures”].
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Binsirawanich et al. teaches air flow sensor contains orifice plate and measures pressure before and after the orifice plate [Col. 6:17-47] and control unit is arranged to determine a relation between measurements [Col. 6:66, “controller 74 may then determine a mass flow rate…based on the pressure drop”]. Binsirawanich et al. fails to teach the at least one sensor comprises a first sensor arranged to measure the quantity at the first part and a second sensor arranged to measure the quantity at the second part and wherein the control unit is arranged to determine a relation between the measurement at the first and second parts. Scholich et al. teaches a first sensor arranged to measure the quantity at the first part (at line 48) and a second sensor arranged to measure the quantity at the second part (at line 42) [Para. 49]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a first sensor arranged to measure the quantity at the first part and a second sensor arranged to measure the quantity at the second part and wherein the control unit is arranged to determine a relation between the measurement at the first and second parts in order to determine a pressure differential.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Binsirawanich et al. teaches the at least one sensor comprises at least one airflow sensor (as described above).
Regarding Claim(s) 7, Binsirawanich et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the first part comprises a first port and wherein the second part comprises a second port and wherein the first and second ports are connected to the sensor measuring a difference between the quantity relating to the flow path at the first part and at the second part. Scholich et al. teaches a first port (44) and a second port (38). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a first and second port in order to retrieve measurements at the first and second parts.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Binsirawanich et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the at least one sensor is integrally formed with the adapter. However, it has been held that that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the sensor integrally formed with the adapter to produce a one piece construction as engineering expedient. This would simplify the construction of the implement.
Regarding Claim(s) 9, Binsirawanich et al. teaches the air flow sensor is upstream of the metering device (as seen in Figure 3), yet fails to teach the adapter is arranged upstream of the at least one metering device. Scholich et al. teaches the adapter (as described above). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the adapter upstream of the metering device to prevent product from entering the adapter.
Regarding Claim(s) 12, Binsirawanich et al. teaches a method for controlling an airflow in a feed system for at least one agricultural product of an agricultural implement (10), the feed system comprising: a flow path (conduit 38, hose 36); an airflow generating unit (air source 34) arranged in fluid communication with the flow path; at least one metering device (metering system 32) arranged to provide the at least one agricultural product to the airflow in the flow path; at least one distribution unit (header 20) connected to the flow path downstream of the at least one metering device, wherein the at least one distribution unit comprises a plurality of outlets each connected to a separate corresponding one or a plurality of ducts (hoses 22) for conveying the agricultural product to the ground (at ground engaging tool 16) [Col. 2:55-67, “implement 10 may include additional tools 16, headers 20 and/or hoses 22” implies a plurality of outlets]; at least one sensor (air flow sensor 70) arranged to measure a quantity relating to the flow path (as described above); and a control unit (controller 74) arranged to control the airflow generating unit to obtain a desired airflow in the flow path based on measurements by the at least one sensor (as described above), the method comprising: measuring at a measurement part of the flow path (location of sensor 70), using said at least one sensor, the quantity related to a current airflow at the measurement part (differential pressure is measured, as described above), and controlling the airflow generating unit to obtain a desired airflow in the flow path based on the measurements of the quantity related to the airflow (as described above). Binsirawanich et al. fails to teach measuring at a measurement part of the flow path, using said at least one sensor, the quantity related to a current airflow at a first part having of the measurement part, said first part having a first cross section area and at a second part having a second cross section area, wherein the size of the first cross section area is different from the size of the second cross section area, and controlling the airflow generating unit to obtain a desired airflow in the flow path based on the measurements of the quantity related to the airflow at the first part and at the second parts and based on a relation between the size of the first cross section area and the size of the second cross section area. Scholich et al. (US Pub 20180224344 A1) teaches a measurement part (differential pressure transducer 10) comprising a first part (section 30) having a first cross section area (at diameter 32) and a second part (region 36) having a second cross section area (at diameter 28), wherein the size of the first cross section area is different from the size of the second cross section area [Para. 46, “the ratio between the second inner diameter 32 and the first inner diameter 28 is roughly 1.4 and thus lies within a typical range extending from 1.2 to 2.5”]. Scholich et al. notes that metering orifices produce a relatively large pressure drop [Para. 3], and the construction of the pressure transducer results in a small pressure loss [Para. 11]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Binsirawanich et al. in view of Scholich et al. to measure at a measurement part of the flow path, using said at least one sensor, the quantity related to a current airflow at a first part having of the measurement part, said first part having a first cross section area and at a second part having a second cross section area, wherein the size of the first cross section area is different from the size of the second cross section area, and control the airflow generating unit to obtain a desired airflow in the flow path based on the measurements of the quantity related to the airflow at the first part and at the second parts and based on a relation between the size of the first cross section area and the size of the second cross section area. The measurement part would produce a smaller pressure drop over the metering orifice.
Regarding Claim(s) 14, Binsirawanich et al. in view of Scholich et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fail to teach a computer-readable media comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method according to claim 12. However, the Office takes official notice that computer-readable media comprising instructions is old and well-known and using a computer to carry out the method of claim 12 would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art as engineering expedient.
Regarding Claim(s) 15, Binsirawanich et al. teaches the at least one pressure sensor is a static pressure sensor [Col. 6:36, “sensor 70 may include a pitot tube configured to measure both static and dynamic pressures”].
Regarding Claim(s) 16, Binsirawanich et al. teaches a hot wire sensor (as described above).
Regarding Claim(s) 17, recitations directed toward the material acted upon by an apparatus do not bear on the patentability of the apparatus. See MPEP 2115. That being said, Binsirawanich et al. teaches a particulate material [Col. 2:56, “seeds”].
Regarding Claim(s) 18, recitations directed toward the material acted upon by an apparatus do not bear on the patentability of the apparatus. See MPEP 2115. That being said, Binsirawanich et al. teaches the particulate material is one of seeds, fertilizer, or granules [Col. 2:56, “seeds”].
Regarding Claim(s) 19, Binsirawanich et al. teaches the control unit is configured to determine the desired airflow [Col. 7:21-45] based on a differential measurement. The measured parameters are stored in a database, and an operator selects a type of product and the controller determines from the database the desired empirical parameters, one of which is flow rate of air flow. As Binsirawanich et al. teaches an orifice plate, the measurement would be a differential pressure measurement. Binsirawanich et al. fails to teach a differential measurement between the first and second parts and a predefined relationship between respective cross-sectional areas thereof. Scholich teaches (as described above) a differential measurement between first and second parts having different diameters, and therefore, different cross-sectional areas. Scholich teaches selecting a ratio of diameters [Para. 46]; therefore, the relationship between the cross-sectional areas would be predefined. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a differential measurement between the first and second parts and a predefined relationship between respective cross-sectional areas thereof to determine a desired airflow by substituting the transducer of Scholich for the orifice of Binsirawanich et al. as the transducer of Scholich would produce the measurements using a smaller pressure drop.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. 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, MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH can be reached on (571) 272-7805. 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.
/WILLIAM R HARP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights