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 I, Species B in the reply filed on 06/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal of the Species restriction is on the ground(s) that the claims are not species. This is found persuasive. The Species restriction is withdrawn.
Pending claims 1-21, 23-27 are addressed below. Claim 22 is canceled.
Claim Objection
Claim 27 recites “the control system” should recite “the weather control system” for consistent claim scope.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs 41-42 and the reference numbers listed in table on page 3 inconsistently identify the reference numbers 136 as both nozzle orifice and metering tip (fig. 1A-1B shows 135 is the orifice, it is unclear which component is 136), 138 as both the flexible body and spray tip.
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.
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:
Limitation “a mechanism that physically changes the size and shape of the flexible nozzle orifice opening” in claim 1, recites a generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with functional language “physically changes the size and shape of the flexible nozzle orifice opening” without mentioning any other associated structure. Paragraph 39 of the published, pending application indicates “a mechanism 104, 130, 134, 136, 137 that controls effective size of a flexible nozzle orifice opening 135”, referring to linear actuator 104, linear actuator threaded rod 130, metering stem 134, metering tip 136 (par. 41), and metering stem extension adapter 137.
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 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 1-21, 23-27 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.
Limitation in claim 1 lines 4-5 and claim 23 lines 5-6 reciting “the orifice control mechanism” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim. As best understood, limitation “a mechanism that physically changes the size and shape of the flexible nozzle orifice opening” should be amended to recite “an orifice control mechanism that physically changes the size and shape of the flexible nozzle orifice opening” to overcome this issue of the claim.
Claim 14 recites “Equation 1.4” and “Equation 1.5”. Claim 17 recites “Equation 1.3”. It is unclear if these recitations implies inclusion of other equations 1.1-1.3 or 1.1-1.2 not recited in the claim.
Claim 18 recites a table of “polynomial coefficients” with labels “blue” associated with “nozzle01” to “nozzle05” and labels “green” associated with “nozzle01” to “nozzle05” and “mean” as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
395
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is unclear: 1) if claim 18 defines 10 different nozzles of the system that are all connected to the boom or interchangeable nozzles that uses all set of blue or all set of green or mixed of both; 2) how the “mean” values define the structures of the nozzle system; and 3) whether or not each and every values listed are intended to be used in the equations in claim 4 for the nozzle system. The mete and bounds of claim 8 cannot be understood.
Claim 19 recites “The variable-orifice spray nozzle system of claim 14, wherein the polynomial coefficients are set according to linear modeling to determine the coefficients based upon testing or modeling of the at least one variable-orifice spray nozzle”. It is unclear how this limitation further defines the spray nozzle system of claim 14.
Claim 20 recites “The variable-orifice spray nozzle system of claim 14, wherein the polynomial coefficients are set according to first-order for pressure and second order for position modeling to determine the coefficients based upon testing or modeling of the at least one variable-orifice spray nozzle”. It is unclear how this limitation further defines the spray nozzle system of claim 14.
Limitation “a mechanism that physically changes the size and shape of the flexible nozzle orifice opening” in claims 1 and 23 invoke 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. It is unclear if this limitation requires all of the elements 104, 130, 134, 136, 137 described in paragraphs 39, 41-42 to perform the recited function or only at least one of the listed elements. 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.
Other claim(s) listed in the rejection title is/are indefinite due to its/their dependency upon the rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bui (US20040069875) in view of Wilger (US 20190029170).
Regarding claim 1, Bui discloses a variable-orifice spray nozzle system (fig. 1 and figs. 8 or 9) comprising:
at least one variable-orifice spray nozzle (10) including a nozzle body (20) having a flexible nozzle orifice opening (opening of spray tip 20) and a mechanism (60) that physically changes the size and shape of the flexible nozzle orifice opening (28; see figs. 1 and 5; par. 37: “The metering member 60 serves the function of spreading the leveraging members 36 of the spray tip 20 apart and also providing a path for fluid to enter the spray-shaping portion 24 of the spray tip 20”),
an actuator (82 and biasing element 82) to set and change the position of the orifice control mechanism (60; par. 39, 45), and
a mount (see annotation; the current claim language does not distinguish any details of the mount structure) to attach to a spray boom (106), wherein the actuator has a home position (shown in fig. 1);
a pressure sensor (108, par. 45: “The sensor 108 may be either a flow meter that measures the amount of fluid flowing through to the boom, or a fluid pressure sensor”) to sense fluid pressure delivered to the nozzle body (the fluid pressure measured by 108 is delivered to the nozzle body); and
a controller (110) to control the actuator (via manipulation of the outputted fluid pressure from the pump, which causes movement in diaphragm 82 and consequently movement of actuator 60) to set a requested nozzle flow rate (par. 40) and/or droplet size (par. 40) based upon data from the pressure sensor via positioning of the actuator (par. 45: “Using the speed, position, and flow rate inputs, the controller 110 can make adjustments to the flow rate by closing or opening a servo-operated throttle valve 116…”; par. 49: “The controller 110 thus adjusts the speed of the pump 102 in response to the input it receives from the sensor 108,”; par. 39: “The fluid pressure acts against the inside surfaces of the interior chamber 44, which are all substantially rigid, and the flexible diaphragm 82… As the diaphragm 82 moves, the metering member 60 also moves as it is directly attached to the diaphragm 82. Movement of the metering member 60 results in a change in flexure of the leveraging members 36, and a corresponding change in the configuration of the spray tip orifice 28”; par. 40: “As the leveraging members 36 are spread, the spray orifice 28 is deformed to a smaller configuration, thereby increasing the velocity of the spray being emitted by the orifice 28 as well as maintaining the droplet size at a desired size. Without a decrease in orifice size, the spray velocity would decrease and the droplet size would increase.”),
Bui is silent regarding the controller tracks the actuator position relative to its home position via open loop control.
However, Wilger discloses a comparable liquid application apparatus having flow opening shown in fig. 7 with an actuator 17 (par. 30, 41), which can also be a linear actuator, to change position of the orifice control mechanism 19, which physically changes the size and shape of the flow opening 21. The actuator 17 includes a Hall-effect sensor 47 (par. 48) to track the actuator positioning relative to its home position (initial valve position; par. 34: “The controller 23 is also operative to compare a valve position of the valve activator 17 in each control assembly 7 with an initial valve position thereof to determine a malfunction”) to determine a malfunction. Applicant’s disclosure mentions “open-loop control” in association with the Hall-effect sensor in paragraph 49: “Although the actuators included a Hall-effect sensor that provided an indication of fully retracted, or home, position, no other feedback was available to indicate actual position when extended away from home position”; therefore teaching of a Hall-effect sensor for valve position determination is interpreted to be sufficient for addressing “open-loop control” until further clarification is defined in the claim.
Since movement of the valve 19 to physically change flow opening 21 taught by Wilger is in the same manner the control element 60 moves toward or away from the spray tip shown in Bui’s system, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to assess the potential utilization of an actuator 17 or linear actuator similar to Wilger to manipulate movement of the orifice control element 60 for direct physical control action of 60 instead of movement control via fluid pressure alone for wider range of control action and discharge profile. No inventive effort would have been required.
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 Bui to incorporate the teachings of Wilger to provide a valve activator or linear actuator and the controller tracking the actuator position relative to its home position via open loop control. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating direct physical control of the valve to achieve the desired flow rate and determination of a malfunction (par. 30).
Regarding claim 2, Bui, as modified above, discloses the variable-orifice spray nozzle system of claim 1, comprising a home position sensor (sensor 47; par. 48; claim 4 of Wilger) to sense the home position of the actuator (par. 48-50; claim 7: “the controller is operative to compare a valve position of the valve activator in each control assembly with an initial valve position thereof to determine a malfunction”).
Regarding claim 3, Bui, as modified above in view of Wilger, discloses the variable-orifice spray nozzle system of claim 1 having no flow sensor (there is no flow sensor 15 shown in figure 7 of Wilger).
Regarding claim 4, Bui, as modified above in view of Wilger, discloses the variable-orifice spray nozzle system of claim 1, wherein the actuator comprises a stepper motor (Wilger – par. 45: “The valve activator 17 can be provided by a stepper motor such as is known in the art”), and the controller tracks the actuator position by counting motor steps relative to the home position (Wilger - par. 49-50).
Regarding claim 5, Bui, as modified above in view of Wilger, discloses the variable-orifice spray nozzle system of claim 4, wherein the controller runs a loop control (Wilger - par. 49-50), and with each loop checks status of the home position sensor and if the status indicates that the actuator is not in the home position, calculates position, set directions, generates a pulse for each step, and counts ascending or descending steps to maintain a record of actual position (par. 48-50: “uses the pulses to count the revolutions of the motor 39 and to determine the valve position…”; see also par. 30-31).
Regarding claim 21, Bui, as modified above in view of Wilger, discloses the agricultural spray system (fig. 9), comprising the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), and a plurality of the at least one variable-orifice spray nozzles (10) mounted spaced apart on a spray boom (106).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bui (US20040069875) in view of Wilger (US 20190029170), further in view of Zito (US 20180111135).
Regarding claim 23, Bui discloses an agricultural spray system, comprising:
a plurality of variable-orifice spray nozzles (10) spaced apart on a spray boom (fig. 9; par. 44), each of the plurality of variable-orifice spray nozzles including a nozzle body (20) having a flexible nozzle orifice opening (28) and a mechanism (60) that physically changes the size and shape of the flexible nozzle orifice opening, an actuator (82, 84) to set and change the position of the orifice control mechanism, and a mount (see annotated figure of Bui above) to attach to a spray boom, wherein the actuator has a home position (shown in fig. 1);
a pressure sensor (108, par. 45: “The sensor 108 may be either a flow meter that measures the amount of fluid flowing through to the boom, or a fluid pressure sensor”) to sense fluid pressure delivered to the nozzle body (the fluid pressure measured by 108 is delivered to the nozzle body); and
a controller (110) to control the actuator (via manipulation of the outputted fluid pressure from the pump, which causes movement in diaphragm 82 and consequently movement of actuator 60) to set a requested nozzle flow rate (par. 40) and/or droplet size (par. 40) based upon data from the pressure sensor via positioning of the actuator (par. 45: “Using the speed, position, and flow rate inputs, the controller 110 can make adjustments to the flow rate by closing or opening a servo-operated throttle valve 116…”; par. 49: “The controller 110 thus adjusts the speed of the pump 102 in response to the input it receives from the sensor 108,”; par. 39: “The fluid pressure acts against the inside surfaces of the interior chamber 44, which are all substantially rigid, and the flexible diaphragm 82… As the diaphragm 82 moves, the metering member 60 also moves as it is directly attached to the diaphragm 82. Movement of the metering member 60 results in a change in flexure of the leveraging members 36, and a corresponding change in the configuration of the spray tip orifice 28”; par. 40: “As the leveraging members 36 are spread, the spray orifice 28 is deformed to a smaller configuration, thereby increasing the velocity of the spray being emitted by the orifice 28 as well as maintaining the droplet size at a desired size. Without a decrease in orifice size, the spray velocity would decrease and the droplet size would increase.”),
Bui is silent regarding the controller tracks the actuator position relative to its home position via open loop control.
However, Wilger discloses a comparable liquid application apparatus having flow opening shown in fig. 7 with an actuator 17 (par. 30, 41), which can also be a linear actuator, to change position of the orifice control mechanism 19, which physically changes the size and shape of the flow opening 21. The actuator 17 includes a Hall-effect sensor 47 (par. 48) to track the actuator positioning relative to its home position (initial valve position; par. 34: “The controller 23 is also operative to compare a valve position of the valve activator 17 in each control assembly 7 with an initial valve position thereof to determine a malfunction”) to determine a malfunction. Applicant’s disclosure mentions “open-loop control” in association with the Hall-effect sensor in paragraph 49: “Although the actuators included a Hall-effect sensor that provided an indication of fully retracted, or home, position, no other feedback was available to indicate actual position when extended away from home position”; therefore teaching of a Hall-effect sensor for valve position determination is interpreted to be sufficient for addressing “open-loop control” until further clarification is defined in the claim.
Since movement of the valve 19 to physically change flow opening 21 taught by Wilger is in the same manner the control element 60 moves toward or away from the spray tip shown in Bui’s system, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to assess the potential utilization of an actuator 17 or linear actuator similar to Wilger to manipulate movement of the orifice control element 60 for direct physical control action of 60 instead of movement control via fluid pressure alone for wider range of control action and discharge profile. No inventive effort would have been required.
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 Bui to incorporate the teachings of Wilger to provide a valve activator or linear actuator and the controller tracking the actuator position relative to its home position via open loop control. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating direct physical control of the valve to achieve the desired flow rate and determination of a malfunction (par. 30).
Bui discloses changes of flowrate and droplet size but is also silent regarding a weather control system including one or more sensors, the weather control system being configured to adjust the requested nozzle flow rate and/or droplet size of the controller according to sensed weather conditions of the one or more sensors.
Zito discloses a comparable nozzle with automatic adjustable aperture having a weather control system including one or more sensors (par. 34: “set of sensors”), the weather control system being configured to adjust the aperture according to sensed weather conditions of the one or more sensors (par. 34: “The adjustment of aperture size provides specific benefits. In this embodiment, when a set of sensors measure the soil moisture of a remote area, read the water vapor pressure, and measure the wind direction and velocity, then this information can be processed by a computer to adjust an aperture to provide an optimum plume of mist that will be carried by the wind over the dry area”).
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 Bui to incorporate the teachings of Zito to provide a weather control system including one or more sensors, the weather control system being configured to adjust the requested nozzle flow rate and/or droplet size of the controller according to sensed weather conditions of the one or more sensors. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating the optimum discharge that will reach the targeted region of the field (See Paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 24, Bui, as modified above in view of Wilger and Zito, discloses the agricultural spray system of claim 23, wherein the one or more sensors comprises wind speed, wind direction and humidity sensors (Zito – par. 34: “when a set of sensors measure the soil moisture of a remote area, read the water vapor pressure, and measure the wind direction and velocity, then this information can be processed by a computer to adjust an aperture to provide an optimum plume of mist that will be carried by the wind over the dry area”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-20, 25-27 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zimmer (US 4203554) discloses a comparable diaphragm defined in claim 6 but does not teach or suggest reasonably compatibility with the actuator and valve configuration shown in Bui and Wilger.
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