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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Application No. 18/634,121 filed on 04/12/2024 were examined. Examiner filed an non-final office action on 09/11/2025.
Applicant filed remarks on 12/11/2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 103: Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 with respect to Harmon et al. (US20230191436A1) in view of Long et al. (US20220124962A1) and in further view of Sandey et al. (US20220267136A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Applicant argues that Harmon in view of Long and Sandey does not teach or suggest “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” because Harmon’s nozzle sensor 62 does not have a field of view directed towards the portion of the field and is not configured to generate data indicative of a condition of the portion of the field.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees this argument is not persuasive. While Harmon teaches nozzle sensors primarily directed to airflow and application quality parameters, the rejection relies on the combination with Long. Long explicitly teaches sensors having a field of view directed towards portions of the field and configured to generate data indicative of field conditions.
Long teaches: “the orientation sensor 50a may incorporate a height sensor that may be configured as an ultrasonic transducer that sends sound waves toward the agricultural field 40 and receive the energy returned to the orientation sensor 50a. Various other sensors including acoustic, infrared, capacitance, optical, and the like may be utilized to determine the distance between the boom assembly 28 and the agricultural field 40.” (Long, ¶ [0039])
Long further teaches: “The field-related data generated by the sensor(s) 50a-f, the positioning device 94, and/or the weather station 96 may be used by the computing system 76 to monitor the associated field condition(s) of the adjacent field swath.” (Long, ¶ [0061])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Harmon’s spray monitoring system with the field-directed sensors of Long to enable monitoring of actual field conditions (e.g., height, ground profile, crop presence) in addition to nozzle performance, thereby improving overall application accuracy and reducing misapplication, consistent with the objectives of both references.
Applicant argues that Harmon’s computing system 102 does not determine the condition of the portion of the field based on data from the sensor.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees this argument is not persuasive. As explained above, Long teaches a computing system that determines field conditions based on data from field-directed sensors: “The field-related data generated by the sensor(s) 50a-f, the positioning device 94, and/or the weather station 96 may be used by the computing system 76 to monitor the associated field condition(s) of the adjacent field swath.” (Long, ¶ [0061])
It would have been obvious to incorporate Long’s field condition determination into Harmon’s computing system to provide more accurate control of application operations based on actual field conditions, as taught by Long.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach determining a desired agricultural product (e.g., type, composition, concentration) based on the condition of the portion of the field.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees this argument is not persuasive. Long teaches determining optimal application parameters, including product selection and rates, based on field conditions: “The product information may include various information regarding the optimal conditions and rates of application for an individual product that is to be applied to the field 40. The product information may be preloaded or sent to the vehicle 10 via wired or wireless communication therewith. Additionally, or alternatively, the product information may be manually inputted into the database. In some embodiments, based on the selected product information, a different spray quality index and/or acceptable range may be selected.”(Long, ¶ [0053])
Long further teaches: “each agricultural product may be correlated to a different integer based on the application guidelines for that agricultural sprayer product.” (Long, ¶ [0075])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to determine/select the desired product type, composition, or concentration based on the monitored field condition (as taught by Long) to achieve the desired agricultural outcome (e.g., weed control, pest control, fertilization) for the specific portion of the field, consistent with Long’s goal of mitigating misapplications.
Applicant argues that neither Harmon, Long, nor Sandey teaches performing a control action associated with the applicator when the product in the tank is inadequate for the desired product.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees this argument is not persuasive. The combination teaches performing control actions when product application conditions are inadequate. Long teaches active control adjustments based on monitored conditions: “The computing system may actively control various operations of the vehicle 10, such as by making a one-time adjustment to one or more operating parameters associated with the operation of the vehicle 10 and/or the boom assembly 28 prior to making the subsequent pass based on the field condition data generated for the adjacent field swath or by actively adjusting one or more operating application variables associated with the operation of the vehicle 10 and/or the boom assembly 28 as the vehicle 10 and/or the boom assembly 28 make the subsequent pass based on the field condition data to provide on-the-fly adjustments to accommodate localized variations in the monitored field condition(s) along all or a portion of the swath.” (Long, ¶ [0062])
Sandey teaches a specific control action (reclaim mode) when product handling is needed after determining conditions are not optimal for continued operation:
“The computing system may be configured to receive, through a user interface, inputs indicative of activation of a fill mode, detect termination of the fill mode, and activate a reclaim mode to move the agricultural product from at least the conduit to the product tank through activation of the reclaim system.” (Sandey, ¶ [0037])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to incorporate Sandey’s automated reclaim/control action into the combined Harmon/Long system when the current product in the tank is determined to be inadequate (e.g., wrong type, wrong concentration, or insufficient quantity) for the desired product determined from field conditions, thereby reducing operator time and product waste as taught by Sandey (Sandey, ¶ [0004], ¶ [0102]).
Applicant argues that Long does not teach a table correlating different field conditions with different agricultural products, as recited in claim 8.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees this argument is not persuasive. Long teaches the use of tables/lists that correlate application variables (including field conditions) with application suitability and mitigation strategies: “the display 122 may also provide a list or table illustrating each application variable and whether or not each application variable is within a predefined range.”(Long, ¶ [0087])
Long further teaches monitoring field conditions as part of application variables: “The mobile weather station 96 can contain any of the sensors 50a-f that monitor one or more weather application variables, such as temperature, wind speed, wind direction, relative humidity, barometric pressure, cloud cover, and trends thereof.”(Long, ¶ [0063])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to extend Long’s table to include correlations between specific field conditions (e.g., weed type, moisture level) and the corresponding desired agricultural products (type, composition, concentration), as Long already teaches product-specific application guidelines (Long, ¶ [0065], ¶ [0075]) and the goal of selecting optimal product based on conditions.
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 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) 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):
(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.
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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claims 1 and 11 of 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) because each of the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are:
“applicator being configured to dispense” in claims 1 and 11
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In the specification, applicant discloses that, “FIG. 4 with reference to one or more agricultural applicators (e.g., the agricultural sprayer(s) 10),” (See at least [0055] in applicant’s specification). It will therefore be appreciated that the functions disclosed are executed in the form of hardware. This is adequate structure to perform the claimed functions, so no 112(b) rejections are given based on this claim interpretation.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function) or make an argument as to why the claim limitations already recite sufficient structure as written. However, since the specification discloses adequate structure to perform the claimed functions, applicant does not need to take any action in response to this claim interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmon et al. (US20230191436A1) in view of Long et al. (US20220124962A1) and in further view of Sandey et al. (US20220267136A1), hereinafter referred to as Harmon, Long and Sandey respectively.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, Harmon discloses A system for monitoring agricultural application operations (“Accordingly, an improved system and method for monitoring the quality of application of the agricultural product to the field” [0004]),
the system comprising: an agricultural applicator (“Referring now to FIGS. 1 and 2 , a work vehicle 10 is generally illustrated as a self-propelled agricultural applicator.” [0039]) comprising a frame (“As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 , the boom assembly 42 can include a frame 50” [0043]),
an agricultural product tank supported on the frame (“The chassis 12 may also support a product system 38 that includes one or more tanks 40,” [0042]),
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 (“Referring to FIGS. 3 and 4 , the boom assembly 42 may be configured to support a plurality of nozzle assemblies 46. Each nozzle assembly 46 may be configured to dispense an agricultural product stored within the tank 40 (FIG. 1 ) onto the underlying ground surface 20. In several embodiments, the nozzle assemblies 46 may be mounted on and/or coupled to the first and/or second boom arms 52, 54 of the boom assembly 42, with the nozzle assemblies 46 being spaced apart from each other along a lateral direction 56.” [0044]);
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 (“Additionally or alternatively, the nozzle sensor 62 may be configured to capture data indicative of an orientation or position of the boom assembly 42 relative to the ground surface 20 and/or data associated with one or more application variables that may affect the spray quality index. In some examples, the nozzle sensor 62 may correspond to one or more imaging devices. Each imaging device may be configured to capture image data related to one or more spray fans emitted from the nozzle assemblies 46. The imaging device may correspond to any suitable sensing device configured to detect or capture images or other image-like data associated with the spray fans present within its field of view.” [0049]);
and a computing system configured to: receive an input indicative of the agricultural product within the agricultural product tank on the agricultural applicator (“The product tank is generally configured to store or hold an agricultural product, such as a pesticide, a fungicide, a rodenticide, a fertilizer, a nutrient, and/or the like.” [0042] and “Additionally or alternatively, the nozzle sensor 62 may be configured to capture data indicative of an orientation or position of the boom assembly 42 relative to the ground surface 20 and/or data associated with one or more application variables that may affect the spray quality index.” [0049]);
receive the data generated by the at least one sensor (“Additionally or alternatively, the nozzle sensor 62 may be configured to capture data indicative of an orientation or position of the boom assembly 42 relative to the ground surface 20 and/or data associated with one or more application variables that may affect the spray quality index.” [0049]);
determine the condition of the portion of the field based at least in part on the data generated by the at least one sensor (“In other embodiments, the computing system 102 may be configured to execute the airflow analysis module 120 and/or the application analysis module 122, while a separate computing system (e.g., a vehicle computing system associated with the agricultural work vehicle 10) may be configured to execute the control module 124 to control the operation of the agricultural work vehicle 10 based on data and/or instructions transmitted from the computing system 102 that are associated with the monitored objects and/or field conditions. Likewise, in some embodiments, the computing system 102 may be configured to acquire data from the nozzle sensors 62 and/or the position sensors 64 for subsequent processing and/or analysis by a separate computing system (e.g., a computing system associated with a remote server).” [0080]);
Harmon does not explicitly 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
However, Long 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 (“The spray quality index can be defined as a predefined application rate/range that estimates whether an application operation has led to appropriate coverage of a field, or a portion of the field, by the agricultural product based on a summation of monitored application variables. In some instances, the spray quality index can be a scaled integer based on the deviations of each application variable from an optimal threshold or range defined between an upper threshold and a lower threshold for that respective application variable to determine whether the agricultural product was appropriately applied or misapplied to various portions of the field.” [0025]). Both Harmon and Long teach methods for monitoring an agricultural application. However, Long explicitly teaches 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the agricultural monitoring method of Harmon to also include 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, as taught by Long, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves monitoring an agricultural application operation by an agricultural applicator (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Long, 0025]).
Harmon in view of Long does not explicitly teach and 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.
However, Sandey does teach and 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 (“A computing system is communicatively coupled to the reclaim system. The computing system is configured to receive, through a user interface, inputs indicative of activation of a fill mode, detect, through the computing system, termination of the fill mode; and activate, through the computing system, a reclaim mode to move the agricultural product from the flow assembly to the product tank through activation of the reclaim system.” [0007]). Both Harmon in view of Long and Sandey teach methods for monitoring an agricultural application. However, Sandey explicitly teaches performing a control action associated with the agricultural applicator when the agricultural product within the agricultural product tank is inadequate for the desired agricultural product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the agricultural monitoring method of Harmon in view of Long to also include performing a control action associated with the agricultural applicator when the agricultural product within the agricultural product tank is inadequate for the desired agricultural product, as taught by Sandey, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves monitoring an agricultural application operation by an agricultural applicator (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Sandey, 0007]).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Harmon discloses The system of claim 1,
Harmon does not explicitly 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.
However, Sandey 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 (“A computing system is communicatively coupled to the reclaim system. The computing system is configured to receive, through a user interface, inputs indicative of activation of a fill mode, detect, through the computing system, termination of the fill mode; and activate, through the computing system, a reclaim mode to move the agricultural product from the flow assembly to the product tank through activation of the reclaim system.” [0007]). Both Harmon in view of Long and Sandey teach methods for monitoring an agricultural application. However, Sandey explicitly teaches 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the agricultural monitoring method of Harmon in view of Long to also include 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, as taught by Sandey, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves monitoring an agricultural application operation by an agricultural applicator (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Sandey, 0007]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Harmon discloses The system of claim 2,
Harmon does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the agricultural applicator or the tendering system further comprises one or more receiving tanks, 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, Sandey does teach wherein at least one of the agricultural applicator or the tendering system further comprises one or more receiving tanks, 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 (“A computing system is communicatively coupled to the reclaim system. The computing system is configured to receive, through a user interface, inputs indicative of activation of a fill mode, detect, through the computing system, termination of the fill mode; and activate, through the computing system, a reclaim mode to move the agricultural product from the flow assembly to the product tank through activation of the reclaim system.” [0007]). Both Harmon in view of Long and Sandey teach methods for monitoring an agricultural application. However, Sandey explicitly teaches at least one of the agricultural applicator or the tendering system further comprises one or more receiving tanks, 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the agricultural monitoring method of Harmon in view of Long to also include at least one of the agricultural applicator or the tendering system further comprises one or more receiving tanks, 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, as taught by Sandey, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves monitoring an agricultural application operation by an agricultural applicator (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Sandey, 0007]).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Harmon discloses The system of claim 2,
Harmon does not explicitly 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.
However, Sandey 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 (“Furthermore, the chassis 12 may also support at least one or more product tanks 26 and/or one or more auxiliary tanks 42. Each product tank 26 is generally configured to store or hold an agricultural product, such as a pesticide, an herbicide, a nutrient, and/or the like. The auxiliary tank 42 may be configured to store or hold clean water and/or any other product, which may be different from the agricultural product within the product tank 26.” [0040]). Both Harmon in view of Long and Sandey teach methods for monitoring an agricultural application. However, Sandey explicitly teaches 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the agricultural monitoring method of Harmon in view of Long to also include 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, as taught by Sandey, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves monitoring an agricultural application operation by an agricultural applicator (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Sandey, 0040]).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Harmon discloses The system of claim 2,
Harmon does not explicitly teach wherein the computing system is further configured to automatically route the agricultural applicator to the tendering system.
However, Sandey does teach wherein the computing system is further configured to automatically route the agricultural applicator to the tendering system (“In various embodiments, the computing system 102 may be toggled between the various modes manually and/or automatically. For example, the computing system 102 may receive an input, from the user interface 22 and/or a remote electronic device 118, to actuate the reclaim system 164. In response, the movement device 166 operably coupled with the flow assembly 122 may be activated to move the agricultural product from the flow assembly 122 to the product tank 26 and/or the auxiliary tank 42.” [0074]). Both Harmon in view of Long and Sandey teach methods for monitoring an agricultural application. However, Sandey explicitly teaches wherein the computing system is further configured to automatically route the agricultural applicator to the tendering system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the agricultural monitoring method of Harmon in view of Long to also include wherein the computing system is further configured to automatically route the agricultural applicator to the tendering system, as taught by Sandey, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves monitoring an agricultural application operation by an agricultural applicator (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Sandey, 0074]).
Regarding claim 6, Harmon discloses The system of claim 2,
Harmon does not explicitly 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.
However, Sandey 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 (“In some embodiments, a user may provide an input through the user interface 22 or the remote electronic device 118 for the product system 120 to be placed in the fill mode. Based on the received input, the computing system 102 may place the sprayer 10 in the fill mode.” [0075]);
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 (“In various embodiments, the reclaim process may be initiated manually through an input received through the user interface 22 and/or the remote electronic device 118. Additionally or alternatively, the reclaim process may be initiated automatically (e.g., by the computing system 102 without operator input between the completion of the fill mode and the initiation of the reclaim mode) based on one or more predefined conditions. For example, the conditions may include that the fill mode is completed, and the drive system is no longer in a parked state.” [0101]). Both Harmon in view of Long and Sandey teach methods for monitoring an agricultural application. However, Sandey explicitly teaches 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the agricultural monitoring method of Harmon in view of Long to also include 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, as taught by Sandey, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves monitoring an agricultural application operation by an agricultural applicator (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Sandey, 0075 & 0101]).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Harmon discloses The system of claim 1,
Harmon does not explicitly 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.
However, Sandey 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 (“The computing system may be configured to receive, through a user interface, inputs indicative of activation of a fill mode, detect termination of the fill mode, and activate a reclaim mode to move the agricultural product from at least the conduit to the product tank through activation of the reclaim system.” [0037]). Both Harmon in view of Long and Sandey teach methods for monitoring an agricultural application. However, Sandey explicitly teaches 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the agricultural monitoring method of Harmon in view of Long to also include 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, as taught by Sandey, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves monitoring an agricultural application operation by an agricultural applicator (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Sandey, 0037]).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Harmon discloses The system of claim 1,
Harmon does not explicitly 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.
However, Long 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 (“In some examples, the application map 144 may illustrate or present one or more notification regions 152, 154 within any of the layers 146, 148, 150 that may be useful for reapplication and/or future applications of the agricultural product. When a notification region 152, 154 is generated by the computing system 76 and illustrated on the display 122, an operator may be able to define an individual application variable or the various application variables that generally led to the notification region 152, 154. In some examples, the display 122 may also provide a list or table illustrating each application variable and whether or not each application variable is within a predefined range. If any of the application variables deviates from the predefined range, a user may be provided with mitigation strategies for returning the application variable to the appropriate predefined range.” [0087]). Both Harmon and Long teach methods for monitoring an agricultural application. However, Long explicitly teaches 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the agricultural monitoring method of Harmon to also include 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, as taught by Long, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves monitoring an agricultural application operation by an agricultural applicator (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Long, 0087]).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Harmon discloses The system of claim 1,
Harmon does not explicitly teach 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.
However, Long does teach 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 (“The agricultural product is conveyed from the product tank 26 through plumbing components, such as interconnected pieces of tubing, for release onto the underlying field (e.g., plants and/or soil) through one or more nozzle assemblies 30 mounted on the boom assembly 28.” [0032]). Both Harmon and Long teach methods for monitoring an agricultural application. However, Long explicitly teaches 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the agricultural monitoring method of Harmon to also include 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, as taught by Long, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves monitoring an agricultural application operation by an agricultural applicator (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Long, 0032]).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Harmon discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is supported on the agricultural applicator (“As shown, the airspeed sensors are mounted in a generally adjacent position to respective nozzle assemblies 46.” [0048]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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.
/AA/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights