DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 27, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an RCE March 27, 2026. Claims 1, 8, 11, and 20 were amended. Claims 1–20 are currently pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments filed March 27, 2026 with respect to the prior ground of rejection have been fully considered but they are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument in view of Smith et al. (US20220174933A1) in view of Humpal et al. (US20220192175A1) and further in view of Long et al. (US20220272960A1).
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.
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.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US20220174933A1) in view of Humpal et al. (US20220192175A1) and further in view of Long et al. (US20220272960A1), hereinafter referred to as Smith, Humpal and Long.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Smith discloses
an agricultural applicator comprising a frame, an agricultural product tank supported on the frame, and at least one dispensing assembly fluidly couplable to the agricultural product tank, the agricultural applicator being configured to dispense an agricultural product from the agricultural product tank via the at least one dispensing assembly as the agricultural applicator moves across a field during an agricultural application operation (“the agricultural sprayer 10 may include a chassis or frame 12 configured to support or couple to a plurality of components” [0022]; “the frame 12 may also support one or more tanks 26 and a frame or boom 28 mounted on the frame 12. Each tank 26 is generally configured to store or hold an agricultural product … a plurality of nozzle assemblies 68 … may be configured to selectively dispense the agricultural product stored in an associated tank 26” [0023]);
at least one sensor having a field of view directed towards a portion of the field, the at least one sensor being configured to generate data indicative of a condition of the portion of the field (“sensors mounted on the boom sections that detect one or more field conditions (e.g., weeds, moisture content, etc.)” [0003]; “one or more sensors 74 configured to capture data indicative of field conditions within the field” [0028]; “detect field conditions (e.g., plants, weeds, etc.) in one swath” [0035]);
a computing system (“the system 200 may include a controller 202” [0044]) configured to:
receive the data generated by the at least one sensor (“data generated by the sensors 74 indicative of the field conditions” [0030]; “sensors 74 configured to detect field conditions … communicatively coupled to and/or controlled by the controller 202” [0044]);
determine the condition of the portion of the field based at least in part on the data generated by the at least one sensor (“monitoring, with a computing device, a field condition … based at least in part on data received from a sensor” [0006]; “perform a control action based on the monitored field condition” [0050]); and
perform a control action associated with the agricultural applicator (“The control module 216 may generally be configured to perform a control action based on the monitored field condition. In several embodiments, the control action includes controlling the operation of one or more of the nozzle assemblies 68” [0050]).
Smith does not explicitly disclose
receive an input indicative of the agricultural product within the agricultural product tank on the agricultural applicator (claim 1) / receiving, with a computing system, data indicative of the agricultural product within the agricultural product tank of the agricultural applicator (claim 11);
determine a desired agricultural product to dispense from the agricultural applicator based at least in part on the condition of the portion of the field (claim 1) / determining, with the computing system, a desired agricultural product to dispense from the agricultural applicator based at least in part on the condition of the portion of the field (claim 11);
perform a control action associated with the agricultural applicator when the agricultural product within the agricultural product tank is inadequate for the desired agricultural product,
the agricultural product within the agricultural product tank being inadequate when one or more of a type, a mixture, or a concentration of the desired agricultural product cannot be dispensed by the at least one dispensing assembly of the agricultural applicator using the agricultural product within the agricultural product tank.
However, Humpal does teach
determine a desired agricultural product to dispense from the agricultural applicator based at least in part on the condition of the portion of the field / determining, with the computing system, a desired agricultural product to dispense from the agricultural applicator based at least in part on the condition of the portion of the field (“Multi-product controller 179 determines which product is to be applied” [0077]; “receive or obtain a prescription (the particular material to be applied, the application rate or dosage, etc.) indicating how the material is to be applied” [0225]; “Substance/dosage identifier 400 identifies the prescription for treating those weeds, based upon the prescription” [0226]; “ Image processing modules 124 then process the images captured by image sensors 122 to correct them and to identify targets (e.g., crop rows, weeds, etc.) in the images…………….. The image processing modules 124 identify which nozzles are to be actuated, and when they are to be actuated, to apply the material to the targets.” [0074]);
the agricultural product within the agricultural product tank being inadequate when one or more of a type, a mixture, or a concentration of the desired agricultural product cannot be dispensed by the at least one dispensing assembly of the agricultural applicator using the agricultural product within the agricultural product tank (“if a weed was treated by a first material during a first pass in the field, but the weed is still vibrant (e.g., green) during the second pass, then this may mean that the weed is resistant to the first material that was applied at a first rate during the first pass. Therefore, the prescription may indicate that the weed should be treated, on the current pass, with a higher application rate of the first material or that the weed should be treated with a second material” [0227]; “multi-product controller 179 can generate an output indicating that the weed should be treated with a different material or at a different application rate” [0229]; see also tank/reservoir 110 carrying material to be applied “agricultural machine 100 may have more than one material reservoir 110 each carrying a different material or different concentration of material.” [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensing-and-spray control system and method of Smith to include determining a desired agricultural product (material/dosage) based on the sensed field condition and performing a control action when the on-board product is inadequate for that desired product as taught by Humpal, because Smith already identifies field conditions (e.g., weeds) and controls nozzles based on those conditions ([0003], [0030], [0050]), and Humpal expressly teaches selecting which product/material/rate to apply—including switching to a different material or rate when a first material is inadequate due to resistance ([0238], [0240])—thereby improving treatment efficacy for identified targets. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Humpal with Smith to ensure the correct product type/rate is applied to sensed weeds, with a reasonable expectation of success.
However, Long does teach
receive an input indicative of the agricultural product within the agricultural product tank on the agricultural applicator / receiving, with a computing system, data indicative of the agricultural product within the agricultural product tank of the agricultural applicator (“precision farming controls can determine how much product has been applied, how much product is in the tank, and how much area is left to spray” [0004]; “the current amount of fluid can be determined from a sensor configured to sense an amount of fluid in a tank” [0041]; “product tank 34 storing an agricultural liquid product 36” [0021]);
perform a control action associated with the agricultural applicator when the agricultural product within the agricultural product tank is inadequate for the desired agricultural product (“determine whether sufficient fluids are available in storage tanks of the machine 10 to complete the field operation. … if sufficient fluids are not available (“No”), the process can proceed to step 186” [0039]–[0040]; “automatically couple with a tendering system to receive such product” [0003]; “a predetermined quantity of the desired fluid … is automatically provided to the machine 10” [0034]; “mixing exact amounts of chemical concentration and carrier fluid” [0041]).
Therefore, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Humpal to include receiving an input/data indicative of the agricultural product within the tank and performing a control action when that on-board product is inadequate, as taught by Long ([0004], [0039]–[0041]), including preparing product as chemical concentration and carrier fluid ([0041]), because knowing tank contents and triggering automated refill/changeover when contents are insufficient is a known complement to multi-product spray control, enabling the applicator to obtain the desired product for the sensed condition. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Long with Smith in view of Humpal to reduce operator error and downtime when on-board product cannot meet the treatment need, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2,
Smith does not explicitly disclose
further comprising a tendering system separate of the agricultural applicator, the tendering system having at least one tendering tank, wherein the computing system is configured to perform the control action by controlling the tendering system to fill the agricultural product tank on the agricultural applicator with the desired agricultural product.
However, Long does teach
further comprising a tendering system separate of the agricultural applicator, the tendering system having at least one tendering tank, wherein the computing system is configured to perform the control action by controlling the tendering system to fill the agricultural product tank on the agricultural applicator with the desired agricultural product (“automatically couple with a tendering system to receive such product” [0003]; “various storage tanks of the machine 10, such as the product tank 34 … can be refilled with corresponding fluids by a tender system 102. The tender system 102 could comprise a tender 104 … The tender 104 can include multiple storage containers 108 holding various fluids in separate containers” [0024]; “a predetermined quantity of the desired fluid, calculated by the control system 80, is automatically provided to the machine 10” [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Humpal to include a separate tendering system that fills the applicator product tank with the desired agricultural product as taught by Long, because when Humpal’s multi-product selection indicates a different/desired material is needed and the on-board tank cannot supply it, Long’s automated tender fill supplies that desired fluid with reduced operator effort and waste ([0003], [0034]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Long with Smith in view of Humpal to obtain the desired product on-board when the sensed condition so requires, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, Smith discloses
wherein at least one of the agricultural applicator or the tendering system further comprises one or more receiving tanks (“the frame 12 may also support one or more tanks 26 and a frame or boom 28 mounted on the frame 12. Each tank 26 is generally configured to store or hold an agricultural product … a plurality of nozzle assemblies 68 … may be configured to selectively dispense the agricultural product stored in an associated tank 26” [0023]);
The combination of Smith and Humpal does not explicitly disclose
wherein the computing system is further configured to perform the control action by instructing evacuation of the agricultural product from the agricultural product tank into the one or more receiving tanks before controlling the tendering system to fill the agricultural product tank with the desired agricultural product.
However, Long does teach
wherein the computing system is further configured to perform the control action by instructing evacuation of the agricultural product from the agricultural product tank into the one or more receiving tanks before controlling the tendering system to fill the agricultural product tank with the desired agricultural product. (“product delivery systems … can include rinse and air systems for liquid and pneumatic purging of various lines of the sprayer” [0002]; “Rinse system 40 includes a rinse liquid storage system 42 having rinse tank 44 storing a rinse liquid 46 such as water or another suitable rinse liquid” [0021]; “The tender 104 can include multiple storage containers 108 holding various fluids in separate containers for refilling the machine 10” [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Smith, Humpal to evacuate residual product into temporary holding/transfer containers on the tender or machine before filling with the desired product, as taught by Long. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so to preserve residual product and prevent mixing incompatible materials, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4,
Smith does not explicitly disclose
wherein at least one of the agricultural applicator or the tendering system includes a cleaning fluid tank configured to hold a cleaning fluid, wherein the computing system is further configured to perform the control action by instructing supply of the cleaning fluid through the agricultural product tank before controlling the tendering system to fill the agricultural product tank with the desired agricultural product.
However, Long does teach
wherein at least one of the agricultural applicator or the tendering system includes a cleaning fluid tank configured to hold a cleaning fluid, wherein the computing system is further configured to perform the control action by instructing supply of the cleaning fluid through the agricultural product tank before controlling the tendering system to fill the agricultural product tank with the desired agricultural product (“Rinse system 40 includes a rinse liquid storage system 42 having rinse tank 44 storing a rinse liquid 46 such as water or another suitable rinse liquid” [0021]; “A pump 54 can push either liquid product 36 or rinse liquid 46 through plumbing components … during spraying or rinsing operations” [0022]; “rinse and air systems for liquid and pneumatic purging” [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Humpal and Long to include Long’s rinse/cleaning fluid tank and rinse-through plumbing before tender fill with the desired product, because clearing residual prior product prevents cross-contamination when changing to Humpal’s different desired material. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these teachings to ensure the newly filled desired product is not diluted or contaminated, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5,
Smith does not explicitly disclose
wherein the computing system is further configured to automatically route the agricultural applicator to the tendering system.
However, Long does teach
wherein the computing system is further configured to automatically route the agricultural applicator to the tendering system (“the system can determine an optimum refill path or location to exit the prescribed travel route which minimizes the current amount of fluid … and minimize distance between the machine 10 and the tender system 102” [0040]; prescription-map route of the machine relative to the tender system, see also FIG. 6 and ¶¶ [0043]–[0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Humpal and Long to automatically route the applicator to the tendering system as taught by Long when on-board product is inadequate for the desired product, because optimizing the path to refill reduces downtime and waste ([0040]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Long’s routing with the Smith/Humpal/Long tendering changeover, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6,
Smith does not explicitly disclose
wherein the computing system is further configured to perform the control action by: controlling a user interface to request filling the agricultural product tank with the desired agricultural product; and receiving an input via the user interface indicative of accepting the request before controlling the tendering system to fill the agricultural product tank on the agricultural applicator with the desired agricultural product.
However, Long does teach
wherein the computing system is further configured to perform the control action by: controlling a user interface to request filling the agricultural product tank with the desired agricultural product; and receiving an input via the user interface indicative of accepting the request before controlling the tendering system to fill the agricultural product tank on the agricultural applicator with the desired agricultural product (“the system can receive a command from a user of the machine 10 to initiate loading of a storage tank, such as the product tank 34. The command could be submitted by the user through a Human Machine Interface (HMI) arranged in the cab 18” [0030]; “provide such feedback to the user via the HMI” [0031]; “indicate an alert to user, such as when approaching the tender system 102” [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Humpal and Long to use an HMI to request/confirm tender fill of the desired product as taught by Long, because operator confirmation before automated loading improves safety and control over product changeover ([0030]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Long’s HMI initiate-loading command with the Smith/Humpal inadequacy-triggered tender fill, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7,
Smith does not explicitly disclose
wherein the computing system is configured to perform the control action by controlling a user interface to indicate that the agricultural product within the agricultural product tank is inadequate for the desired agricultural product.
However, Long does teach
wherein the computing system is configured to perform the control action by controlling a user interface to indicate that the agricultural product within the agricultural product tank is inadequate for the desired agricultural product (“provide such feedback to the user via the HMI” [0031]; “the current amount of fluid can be determined from a sensor configured to sense an amount of fluid in a tank. ……….. the tender 104, in turn, can prepare the refill amount in advance, such as mixing exact amounts of chemical concentration and carrier fluid, …… Next, at step 190, the system can indicate an alert to user, such as via the HMI,” [0041]; “the control system 80 can indicate an alert to user, such as when approaching the tender system 102” [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Humpal and Long to control a user interface to indicate that on-board product is inadequate for the desired product, because Smith already includes a user interface with the controller ([0044]) and Long teaches HMI feedback/alerts related to refill needs ([0031], [0045]), informing the operator when a product change/refill is required. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these teachings to improve operator awareness, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8,
Smith does not explicitly disclose
wherein the computing system is configured to determine the desired agricultural product based at least in part on a table correlating different field conditions with different agricultural products, the condition of the portion of the field being associated with the desired agricultural product within the table, each of the different agricultural products having one or more of an associated type, an associated mixture, or an associated concentration.
However, Humpal does teach
wherein the computing system is configured to determine the desired agricultural product based at least in part on a table correlating different field conditions with different agricultural products, the condition of the portion of the field being associated with the desired agricultural product within the table, (“receive or obtain a prescription (the particular material to be applied, the application rate or dosage, etc.)” [0225]; “Substance/dosage identifier 400 identifies the prescription for treating those weeds, based upon the prescription” [0226]; “the weed should be treated … with a higher application rate of the first material or … with a second material” [0227]; “an image of the weed taken during the first pass can be stored along with the prior weed map, and that image can be compared to the current image to determine whether the weed is dying (meaning it is not resistant to the material applied during the first pass) or whether the weed is still vibrant (meaning that it may be resistant). Multi product controller 179 then generates an output to treat the weed with a different material or at a different rate or in another way. Analyzing the image(s) for application rate or multi-product application is indicated by block 917 in FIG. 37. Determining whether to spray can be done in other ways as well, as indicated by block 919.” [0229]; “For instance, the mapping coefficients are retrieved from memory. Mapping coefficient identifier in image remapping system 232 identifies the mapping coefficients corresponding to this particular image sensor at this particular boom height. Region of interest identifier 342 then identifies the ROI by applying the mapping coefficients to the image. The mapping coefficients may be stored in a lookup table” [0169]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensing-and-spray control system and method of Smith to include determining the desired agricultural product based at least in part on a correlation/prescription correlating different field conditions with different agricultural products, the condition of the portion of the field being associated with the desired agricultural product as taught by Humpal, thereby improving treatment efficacy for identified targets. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Humpal with Smith to ensure the correct product type/rate is applied to sensed weeds, with a reasonable expectation of success.
However, Long further teaches
each of the different agricultural products having one or more of an associated type, an associated mixture, or an associated concentration (“mixing exact amounts of chemical concentration and carrier fluid” [0041]; “The system can determine the projected amounts, for example, by monitoring progress of the agricultural field operation, including product application rate and speed of the machine 10, relative to a prescription map.” [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Humpal and Long to determine the desired agricultural product from a table correlating field conditions with agricultural products (including type/mixture/concentration attributes) as taught by Humpal’s prescription/substance-dosage identification ([0236]–[0238]) and Long’s chemical concentration and carrier mixing ([0041]), because a lookup table is a predictable computer-implementation of a known condition-to-product correlation. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to implement the correlation as a table for efficient real-time product selection, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, Smith discloses
wherein the condition of the portion of the field comprises at least one of a type of plant present within the portion of the field or moisture content within the portion of the field (“detect one or more field conditions (e.g., weeds, moisture content, etc.)” [0003]; “detect field conditions (e.g., plants, weeds, etc.)” [0035]; plant-identifying sensor [0008]).
Regarding claim 10, Smith discloses
wherein the at least one sensor is supported on the agricultural applicator (“the sensor(s) 74 may be installed or otherwise positioned on one or more boom sections of the boom 28” [0028]; “sensors 74 may be positioned at any suitable location(s) on and/or coupled to any other suitable component(s) of the agricultural sprayer 10” [0029]).
Regarding claim 12,
Smith does not explicitly disclose
wherein performing the control action comprises controlling a tendering system to fill the agricultural product tank on the agricultural applicator with the desired agricultural product, the tendering system being separate of the agricultural applicator.
However, Long does teach
wherein performing the control action comprises controlling a tendering system to fill the agricultural product tank on the agricultural applicator with the desired agricultural product, the tendering system being separate of the agricultural applicator (“automatically couple with a tendering system to receive such product” [0003]; “refilled with corresponding fluids by a tender system 102 … tender 104 can include multiple storage containers 108” [0024]; “a predetermined quantity of the desired fluid … is automatically provided to the machine 10” [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith in view of Humpal to include controlling a separate tendering system to fill the product tank with the desired agricultural product as taught by Long, for the same reasons set forth regarding claim 2—namely, supplying the Humpal-selected desired material when on-board product is inadequate ([0003], [0034]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Long with Smith in view of Humpal, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13,
The combination of Smith and Humpal does not explicitly disclose
wherein performing the control action further comprises instructing evacuation of the agricultural product from the agricultural product tank into one or more receiving tanks before the tendering system fills the agricultural product tank with the desired agricultural product, the one or more receiving tanks being part of at least one of the agricultural applicator or the tendering system.
However, Long does teach
instructing evacuation of the agricultural product from the agricultural product tank into one or more receiving tanks before the tendering system fills the agricultural product tank with the desired agricultural product, the one or more receiving tanks being part of at least one of the agricultural applicator or the tendering system (“rinse and air systems for liquid and pneumatic purging of various lines of the sprayer” [0002]; “ Rinse system 40 includes a rinse liquid storage system 42 having rinse tank 44 storing a rinse liquid 46 such as water or another suitable rinse liquid. The Rinse system 40 allows rinsing the spray boom 12 to remove the product 36 therefrom.” [0021]; “multiple storage containers 108 holding various fluids in separate containers” [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Smith and Humpal to instruct evacuation of residual product into receiving/holding containers before tender fill with the desired product, as taught by Long (Long rinse/purge and multi-container teachings [0002], [0021], [0024]; avoid cross-contamination). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14,
Smith does not explicitly disclose
wherein performing the control action further comprises instructing supply of cleaning fluid from a cleaning fluid tank of at least one of the agricultural applicator or the tendering system through the agricultural product tank before the tendering system fills the agricultural product tank with the desired agricultural product.
However, Long does teach
wherein performing the control action further comprises instructing supply of cleaning fluid from a cleaning fluid tank of at least one of the agricultural applicator or the tendering system through the agricultural product tank before the tendering system fills the agricultural product tank with the desired agricultural product (“Rinse system 40 includes a rinse liquid storage system 42 having rinse tank 44 storing a rinse liquid 46” [0021]; “A pump 54 can push either liquid product 36 or rinse liquid 46 through plumbing components … during spraying or rinsing operations” [0022]; rinse/purge [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Humpal and Long to instruct supply of cleaning/rinse fluid through the product tank before tender fill as taught by Long, for the same reasons set forth regarding claim 4 (prevent cross-contamination when changing to the desired product). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these teachings, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15,
Smith does not explicitly disclose
wherein performing the control action further comprises automatically routing the agricultural applicator to the tendering system.
However, Long does teach
wherein performing the control action further comprises automatically routing the agricultural applicator to the tendering system (“determine an optimum refill path or location to exit the prescribed travel route … minimize distance between the machine 10 and the tender system 102” [0040]; see also FIG. 6 and ¶¶ [0043]–[0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Humpal and Long to automatically route the applicator to the tendering system as taught by Long, for the same reasons set forth regarding claim 5. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these teachings, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16,
Smith does not explicitly disclose
wherein determining the desired agricultural product comprises determining the desired agricultural product based at least in part on a table correlating different field conditions with different agricultural products, the condition of the portion of the field being associated with the desired agricultural product within the table.
However, Humpal does teach
wherein determining the desired agricultural product comprises determining the desired agricultural product based at least in part on a correlation/prescription correlating different field conditions with different agricultural products, the condition of the portion of the field being associated with the desired agricultural product (“receive or obtain a prescription (the particular material to be applied, the application rate or dosage, etc.)” [0225]; “Substance/dosage identifier 400 identifies the prescription for treating those weeds” [0226]; different material / higher rate based on weed condition [0227]; “For instance, the mapping coefficients are retrieved from memory. Mapping coefficient identifier in image remapping system 232 identifies the mapping coefficients corresponding to this particular image sensor at this particular boom height. Region of interest identifier 342 then identifies the ROI by applying the mapping coefficients to the image. The mapping coefficients may be stored in a lookup table” [0169]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Humpal and Long to determine the desired agricultural product from a table correlating field conditions with agricultural products as taught by Humpal’s prescription/substance-dosage identification ([0236]–[0238]), for the same reasons set forth regarding claim 8. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to implement the correlation as a table, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17,
Smith does not explicitly disclose
wherein performing the control action comprises controlling a user interface to indicate that the agricultural product within the agricultural product tank is inadequate for the desired agricultural product.
However, Long does teach
wherein performing the control action comprises controlling a user interface to indicate that the agricultural product within the agricultural product tank is inadequate for the desired agricultural product (“provide such feedback to the user via the HMI” [0031]; “indicate an alert to user, such as when approaching the tender system 102” [0045]; “The refill amount can be calculated from the determined path to the location and the current and projected amounts of fluid. …….current amount of fluid can be determined by monitoring application rate of the fluid and speed of the machine 10. …. to communicate the refill amount to the wireless communications system 106 ……..the system can indicate an alert to user, such as via the HMI” [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Humpal and Long to control a user interface to indicate inadequacy of on-board product for the desired product, for the same reasons set forth regarding claim 7. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these teachings, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18, Smith discloses
wherein determining the condition of the portion of the field comprises determining at least one of a type of plant present within the portion of the field or moisture content within the portion of the field (“field conditions (e.g., weeds, moisture content, etc.)” [0003]; “plants, weeds” [0035]; plant-identifying sensor [0008]).
Regarding claim 19, Smith discloses
wherein receiving the data generated by the at least one sensor comprises receiving the data generated by the at least one sensor supported on the agricultural applicator (“sensor(s) 74 may be installed or otherwise positioned on one or more boom sections of the boom 28” [0028]; “positioned at any suitable location(s) on … the agricultural sprayer 10” [0029]; controller receives sensor data [0030], [0044]).
Regarding claim 20, Smith discloses
further comprising controlling, with the computing system, the at least one dispensing assembly of the agricultural applicator to dispense the agricultural product within the portion of the field (“control a supply of agricultural product through the nozzle assemblies 68 based at least in part on data generated by the sensors 74” [0030]; “the control action includes controlling the operation of one or more of the nozzle assemblies 68 to spray a product” [0050]).
Smith does not explicitly disclose
when the agricultural product within the agricultural product tank corresponds to the desired agricultural product,
the agricultural product within the agricultural product tank corresponds to the desired agricultural product when the one or more of the type, the mixture, or the concentration of the desired agricultural product is dispensable by the at least one dispensing assembly of the agricultural applicator using the agricultural product within the agricultural product tank.
However, Humpal does teach
when the agricultural product within the agricultural product tank corresponds to the desired agricultural product, (“Multi-product controller 179 determines which product is to be applied” [0077]; “those outputs are provided to the nozzle identification system and nozzle activation control system 246 so that the nozzle bodies can be controlled based on the spray determinations” [0230]; prescription identifies particular material/rate to apply [0225]–[0227]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith and Humpal to control the dispensing assembly to dispense when on-board product corresponds to the desired agricultural product (as selected by Humpal’s multi-product/prescription control), because Smith already controls nozzles based on sensed conditions ([0030], [0050]) and Humpal teaches applying the identified product via nozzle activation ([0077], [0241]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to dispense only when the on-board product matches the desired treatment, with a reasonable expectation of success.
However, Long further teaches
the agricultural product within the agricultural product tank corresponds to the desired agricultural product when the one or more of the type, the mixture, or the concentration of the desired agricultural product is dispensable by the at least one dispensing assembly of the agricultural applicator using the agricultural product within the agricultural product tank. (“mixing exact amounts of chemical concentration and carrier fluid” [0041]; product tank storing agricultural liquid product [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Humpal and Long to control the dispensing assembly to dispense when on-board product corresponds to the desired agricultural product (as selected by Humpal’s multi-product/prescription control and as compositionally prepared per Long), because Smith already controls nozzles based on sensed conditions ([0030], [0050]) and Humpal teaches applying the identified product via nozzle activation ([0077], [0241]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to dispense only when the on-board product matches the desired treatment, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED ALKIRSH whose telephone number is (703) 756-4503. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, FADEY JABR can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
