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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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
Applicant's arguments filed January 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach or suggest the claim language “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 (200) is arranged to control the airflow generating unit (14) 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 the difference between the size of the first cross section area and the second cross section area.” Applicant argues this is because Scholich discloses a passive measurement device and fails to contemplate “a proactive control logic driven construction that uses dual-area measurements and their geometric relationship to actively control airflow”. Binsirawanich et al. discloses determining the volumetric and mass flow rate of air using an air flow sensor [Col. 6:17-47] and discloses the sensor could be an orifice plate or a hot wire sensor. Binsirawanich et al. also discloses [Col. 6:44-47, “It should also be appreciated that alternative embodiments may include other suitable air flow sensors configured to measure flow rate and/or velocity of the air flow 40”]. Binsirawanich et al. discloses controlling the airflow based on the determined flow rate of the air flow [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)]. Based on this disclosure, the airflow from the air source (34) could be controlled based on the measured flow rate of air flow, which is measured by sensor (70), without any calculations being performed to determine a mass flow of product. Scholich teaches a pressure transducer by measuring pressures at sections having different cross section areas. Scholich further teaches determining volume flow or mass flow of an air flow using a metering computer [Para. 35]. Scholich teaches the transducer creates a lower pressure drop than customary transducers, such as a metering orifice. One of ordinary skilled in art would have a motivation to substitute the transducer of Scholich for the orifice plate of Binsirawanich et al. The operation of the transducer would be predictable, in that the transducer of Scholich would provide measurements to the controller in order to determine a flow rate for the airflow, through which the controller would control the airflow. The combination would therefore provide a construction wherein “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 (200) is arranged to control the airflow generating unit (14) 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 relation between the size of the first cross section area and the second cross section area.”
Applicant argues the Office Action appears to conflate the physical structure of a sensor with the logic of the claimed control unit, the claimed configuration and the cited prior art documents rely on fundamentally different physical phenomena, such that the combination of the prior art would be physically incompatible for the intended purpose, and that the result of the proposed combination would not be predictable. It appears applicant is arguing against the substitution of the transducer of Scholich for the pressure taps (66) and (68) of Binsirawanich. However, the substitution would occur at the air flow sensor (70) of Binsirawanich, which is measuring the air flow from the air source (34). The pressure taps (66, 68) serve a different purpose in the calculation of the product flow rate, which would the delta_p in Equation 1. The flow rate measured by the air flow sensor (70) would be the m.sub.a in Equation 1. The sensor (70) in Binsirawanich is used to measure the flow rate of air provided by the air source. The output of the sensor is one of several inputs to the controller (74) to determine the product flow rate. Substituting the transducer of Scholich for the sensor (70) of Binsirawanich would be predictable because the pressure transducer would measure the flow rate of air from the air source and input that flow rate to the controller (74). This would be the mass flow rate of the air flow in Equation 1 of Binsirawanich as part of the calculation of product flow rate. The combination would continue to operate for its intended purpose. Applicant argues the claimed control unit uses the geometric principle defined by the ratio of the areas to operate as intended, using Bernoulli's principle. However, Bernoulli's principle is the basis for flow meters such as orifice plates (as used in Binsirawanich) and venturi nozzles (as used in Scholich). The ratio of the areas of the measurement parts is usually distilled down to a constant in the calculation of flow rate, as the area of each section typically does not change. The substitution of the transducer of Scholich for the air flow sensor (70) of Binsirawanich would control the airflow based on the relation between the cross-sectional areas, would not make the combination incompatible for the intended purpose and would be predictable, as the transducer would be used to measure flow rate of air, just as the flow sensor contemplated by Binsirawanich.
Applicant argues the claimed configuration enables an adjustment of airflow based on measurements at two different cross-sectional areas and their geometric relationship and the claimed configuration utilizes the geometric principle (Bernoulli’s principle) defined by the ratio of the areas as a basis for the adjustments made. However, applicant’s specification makes no mention of using Bernoulli’s principle or using the ratio of the area as a basis for adjustments nor do the claims recite such limitations.
Applicant argues there is no suggestion in Scholich to adapt its complex structural requirements to the downstream conditions created by an agricultural distribution manifold with dozens of branching ducts. 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). Further, applicant is arguing features that are not claimed. The claim language only requires the sensor be arranged in the flow path. The sensor (70) of Binsirawanich is located in the flow path upstream of the metering system (32) and upstream of a distribution header.
Applicant argues those of ordinary skill in the industry, in order to achieve the claimed configuration, would have to bypass the mass-flow estimation logic of Binsirawanich and structuralize the Scholich transducer as a feedback anchor for a multi-duct distribution. 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). The air flow sensor (70), disclosed as an orifice plate, of Binsirawanich measures the flow rate of air coming from air source (34) and Binsirawanich discloses the measured flow rate of air could be used to control the air source [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)]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would not have to bypass the mass-flow estimation logic of Binsirawanich. Scholich discloses that it is generally known to use differential pressure transducers, including metering orifices, to measure volume flow of fluids and that metering orifices cause a large unwanted pressure drop in the fluid [Para. 3]. Scholich discloses a differential pressure transducer that causes a small pressure loss [Para. 11]. 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 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:
See “load sensing system” in claim 10, with “system” being the generic placeholder and “load sensing” being the modifying functional language.
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.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-10, 14-19 are 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.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, the language “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 the difference between the size of the first cross section area and the second cross section area” is not supported by the original specification. Specifically, the language “based on the difference between the size of the first cross section area and the second cross section area” is not supported as the original specification that the control is based on a relation between the size of the first cross section and the second cross section, not the difference between the size of the first cross section and the second cross section. The “difference” between the two areas is considered narrower than the “relation” between two areas. Therefore, the claim language is not supported by the original specification and is considered new matter.
Claims 2-10, 15-19 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 1-10, 12, 14-19 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.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, the language “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 the difference between the size of the first cross section area and the second cross section area” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the control unit is arranged to control the airflow generating unit based on the difference between the size of the first cross section area and the second cross section area. The specification does not disclose subtracting one area from the other to obtain a difference nor does the specification disclose an algorithm the takes into account the difference in area. As a necessary algorithm is not disclosed, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim limitation “load sensing system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claim(s) 12, the language “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” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the the airflow generating unit is controlled based on a relation between the size of the first cross section area and the second cross section area. The specification does not disclose an algorithm the takes into account a relation between the size of the first cross section area and the second cross section area. As a necessary algorithm is not disclosed, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Regarding Claim(s) 19, the language “the control unit is configured to further determine the desired airflow based on…a predefined relationship between respective cross-sectional areas thereof” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the control unit determines the airflow based on the predefined relationship. The specification does not disclose an algorithm the takes into account the relationship between the cross-sectional areas. As a necessary algorithm is not disclosed, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claims 2-10, 14-19 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 the difference 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 the difference 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 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 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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