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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed on May 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “active substance,” “application elements” in claim 1, where the “substance,” “elements” are placeholder and “active,” “application” are functional language.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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 1-15 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.
The term “direct” in line 1 of claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “direct” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “direct,” in the context of the terms “direct infeed,” is reasonably defined/interpreted as an adjective, 1a: “proceeding from one point to another in time or space without deviation or interruption” in https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/direct. Based on the aforementioned definition, the maximum allowable deviation or interruption to meet the claim limitation is not known. Fig. 1 of the Applicant’s invention shows many system elements in between the main tank 12 and active substance container 28 to the application elements 20. What is the maximum allowable deviation or interruption, incurred by the additional system elements, to meet the claim limitation? Clarification is respectfully requested. Same rejection applies to the term “direct” of the direct infeed system recited in line 3 of claim 14.
The term “changed” in line 15 of claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “changed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The maximum or minimum percentage of the active substance concentration needed in the carrier fluid to meet the claim limitation is not known. For the purpose of examination, any carrier fluid mixed with any amount of the active substance is considered a “changed active substance concentration” fluid.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "infeed of the active substance" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “dynamic” in line 6 of claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “dynamic” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The minimum non-static of or relating to physical force or energy needed to meet the claim limitation is not known and the method of measuring such “dynamic” is not provided in the original disclosure. Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Stuke et al. (DE102017220006. Stuke hereinafter. IDS by the Applicant. See attached English translation by Google Patents).
With respect to claim 1, Stuke discloses a method (100. Figs. 1-3) for operating an agricultural spraying device (10) having a direct infeed system (Fig. 1. Similar to the Applicant’s configuration), comprising:
feeding an active substance (from 18) into a line system (Fig. 1) of the agricultural spraying device, said line system being connected to application elements (46) and conducting a carrier fluid (14), using the direct infeed system in order to (capable of) generate a spray fluid (under 60 in Fig. 1) containing the active substance and the carrier fluid, wherein the feeding of the active substance takes place at an infeed point (upstream of 20) of the line system; and
changing a concentration of the active substance of the spray fluid by adjusting infeed of the active substance and/or by adjusting a volume flow of the carrier fluid at the infeed point (“…conveyor units may be configured to increase the injection pressure…” Page 6, fourth paragraph. “The change in the active agent concentration includes both a change in the concentration value and a change in the Concentration distribution in the spray liquid…” Page 9, third paragraph. “The delivery unit is designed to increase or adjust the active agent concentration in the spray liquid by means of a pump, in particular a delivery pump and a metering pump…” Page 9, fifth paragraph. “…the mixing unit 54 and / or the conveyor unit 24 . 32 to activate the agent concentration in the spray liquid 36 to change or increase…” Page 12, last paragraph and via circulation pipe 61. Fig. 1);
wherein a control unit (58, 56, 54 and 48) automatically (“The process for monitoring and / or changing the active agent concentration can be started automatically…” Page 10, fourth paragraph and “…the mixing unit can be started automatically either by the farmer manually or by means of the control device…” Page 10, sixth paragraph) causes the active substance concentration of the spray fluid to be changed (start adjusting) before the application elements reach an area-internal application limit (designated spray area. Page 5, seventh paragraph. Before the agricultural field sprayer or a plant protection device (Page 5, eight paragraph) arrived to the designated spray area) within an agricultural area, so that the spray fluid with the changed active substance concentration (in 36, including the off-targeted concentration (fluid with little active agent) fluid to the targeted concentration (fluid with desired amount of active agent) fluid) is present at one or more application elements when the area-internal application limit is reached (“The spray liquid can be mixed ready filled in the spray liquid tank of the sprayer…” Page 6, fourth paragraph and Fig. 1).
Alternatively, Stuke fails to specifically discloses the control unit automatically causes the active substance concentration of the spray fluid to be (fully and 100%) changed (limitation not currently in claim 1) before the application elements reach an area-internal application limit within an agricultural area, so that the spray fluid with the (fully and 100%) changed active substance concentration is present at one or more application elements when the area-internal application limit is reached.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the desired active substance concentration in the mixed spray fluid and have the mixed spray fluid present and ready at one or more application elements when the area-internal application limit is reached because workers/farmers time will not be wasted and there is really no incentive to spray something useless or less effective to the field. Furthermore, it is noted that skill, not the converse, is presumed on the part of those practicing in the art (In re Sovish, 226 USPQ 771) and a conclusion of obviousness can be made from "common sense" of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. (In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)). In the present case, it is common sense to have the desired active substance concentration in the mixed spray fluid and have the mixed spray fluid present and ready at one or more application elements when the area-internal application limit is reached in order to provide desirable spray fluid to the field based on the available property information.
With respect to claim 2, Stuke discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the control unit causes (initiates or completes) the active substance concentration of the spray fluid to be changed at an adjustment location (the field. Page 5, ninth paragraph and Page 10, fourth and fifth paragraphs) on the agricultural area and/or at an adjustment time (“…defined or predetermined duration…” Page 9, fourth paragraph; Page 10, sixth and last paragraphs to page 11, first paragraph) during an application process and determines the adjustment location and/or the adjustment time, taking into account a dynamic provision delay (when using recirculation pipe 61. Similar to the Applicant’s configuration) of the spray fluid with the changed active substance concentration at the one or more application elements.
With respect to claim 3, Stuke discloses the method according to claim 2,
wherein the dynamic provision delay determined by the control unit
relates to a delay time between the adjustment time and a time at which the one or more application elements reach the area-internal application limit (“…defined or predetermined duration…” Page 9, fourth paragraph; Page 10, sixth and last paragraphs to page 11, first paragraph); or
relates to a lag distance (the time needed to use the circulation pipe 61. Fig. 1) between the adjustment location and the area-internal application limit.
With respect to claim 4, Stuke discloses the method according to claim 3,
wherein the control unit calculates the lag distance taking into account a fluid exchange volume (“…In conjunction with a volumetric flow meter can then be determined by the volume flow signal and the previously set mixing ratio of the necessary desire volume the active ingredient and the pump can be controlled…” Page 7, second paragraph), an area-related application rate of carrier fluid or spray fluid and/or a working width (total area of the field) of the spraying device until the area-internal application limit is reached.
With respect to claim 5, Stuke discloses method according to claim 3,
wherein the control unit calculates the lag distance taking into account a travel path and application interruptions (manually input by farmers. Page 10, sisth and seventh paragraphs) occurring along the travel path, until the area-internal application limit is reached.
With respect to claim 6, Stuke discloses the method according to claim 2, further comprising:
measuring a flow rate, in particular a volume flow rate and/or a flow velocity, of the carrier fluid and/or the spray fluid (via 54 and 28) through the line system by means of one or more flow measuring devices (pumps 26, 34, 52; valves 48, agent delivery unit 32, conveyor unit 24),
wherein the control unit calculates the dynamic provision delay (when to use the circulation pipe 61. Fig. 1) as a function of the measured flow rate.
With respect to claim 7, Stuke discloses the method according to claim 2, further comprising:
determining imminent (manually input by farmers. Page 10, sisth and seventh paragraphs), in particular planned, changes in a flow rate, in particular the volume flow rate and/or the flow velocity, of the carrier fluid and/or the spray fluid through the line system until the area-internal application limit is reached, in particular by evaluating a planned application routine (“…the values of the property information and / or the active agent concentrations in the spray liquid with a predefinable reference value and / or a predefinable reference value range of the property information…” Page 9, second paragraph),
wherein the control unit calculates the dynamic provision delay as a function of the determined imminent changes in the flow rate of the carrier fluid and/or the spray fluid through the line system until the area-internal application limit is reached (desired pressure and concentration is reached).
With respect to claim 11, Stuke discloses the method according to claim 2,
wherein the area-internal application limit, the adjustment location, the adjustment time, the dynamic provision delay, in particular as a delay time or lag distance, are visualized by means of an electronic display device (68), in particular in connection with a map view (property information 64).
With respect to claim 14, Stuke discloses a system (100. Figs. 1-3) for (capable of) controlling the application of spray fluid by an agricultural spraying device (10), comprising:
a direct infeed system (Fig. 1. Similar to the Applicant’s configuration), by which an active substance (from 18) can be fed into a line system (Fig. 1) of the agricultural spraying device, said line system being connected to application elements (46) and conducting a carrier fluid (14), in order to (capable of) generate a spray fluid (under 60 in Fig. 1) comprising the active substance and the carrier fluid, wherein the direct infeed system is adapted to (capable of) feed in the active substance at an infeed point (upstream of 20) of the line system; and
a control unit (58, 56, 54 and 48) which is adapted to (capable of) cause (initiates or completes) a change in an active substance concentration of the spray fluid by adjusting the active substance feed and/or by adjusting a volume flow of the carrier fluid at the infeed point ( “…conveyor units may be configured to increase the injection pressure…” Page 6, fourth paragraph. “The change in the active agent concentration includes both a change in the concentration value and a change in the Concentration distribution in the spray liquid…” Page 9, third paragraph. “The delivery unit is designed to increase or adjust the active agent concentration in the spray liquid by means of a pump, in particular a delivery pump and a metering pump…” Page 9, fifth paragraph. “…the mixing unit 54 and / or the conveyor unit 24 . 32 to activate the agent concentration in the spray liquid 36 to change or increase…” Page 12, last paragraph and via circulation pipe 61. Fig. 1);
wherein the control unit is adapted to (capable of) automatically (“The process for monitoring and / or changing the active agent concentration can be started automatically…” Page 10, fourth paragraph and “…the mixing unit can be started automatically either by the farmer manually or by means of the control device…” Page 10, sixth paragraph) cause the active substance concentration of the spray fluid to be changed (start adjusting) before the application elements reach an area-internal application limit (designated spray area. Page 5, seventh paragraph. Before the agricultural field sprayer or a plant protection device (Page 5, eight paragraph) arrived to the designated spray area) within an agricultural area, so that the spray fluid with the changed active substance concentration (in 36, including the off-targeted concentration (fluid with little active agent) is present at one or more application elements when the area-internal application limit is reached (“The spray liquid can be mixed ready filled in the spray liquid tank of the sprayer…” Page 6, fourth paragraph and Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 15, Stuke discloses wherein the system is adapted to (capable of) operate the direct infeed system according to one of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the Applicant argues that the term "active substance" is a well-known agricultural term of art that refers to substances such as pesticides or fertilizers and the term "applicant element" is a well-known agricultural term of art that refers to component through which the spray fluid flows. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as clearly elaborated above, the claim limitations, "active substance" and "applicant element," meet the three-prong test for interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph as explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I. The claim limitations a) serves as a non-structural placeholder for a component, b) the functional language, "active" and "applicant," modify the terms, "substance" and " element," such as describing what the substance achieves and c) the claim does not recite specific structural boundaries or material limits.
With respect to the claims 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), the Applicant argues that the limitations rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) are well-known to those skilled in the art. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the terms, listed above, lack objective boundaries, and no measurement standard disclosed in the specification thus causing ambiguity for skilled artisans. Second, simply arguing that the terms are "well-known" do not give a clear number or standard because two experts could read the word in different ways. Third, MPEP 2173.05(b) states that relative terms are fine only if the specification gives a standard to measure them. Clearly, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
With respect to the claims 1-7, 11, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. &102(a)(1), the Applicant argues that Stuke does not teach or suggest a control unit that causes an active substance concentration of a spray fluid to be changed before application elements reach an area-internal application limit within an agricultural area. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant's argument is unpersuasive because Stuke teaches a control unit, concentration adjustment, and area tracking. Stuke explicitly discloses modifying the active substance concentration of a spray fluid before the application elements reach an internal field boundary or limit. Stuke describes a processor-based system that manages spray fluid delivery in page 8, last paragraph to page 9 first paragraph and page 11, fifth paragraph of the English translation by Google Patents (previously attached). The system adjusts the active substance ratio during operation and position tracking triggers changes prior to crossing internal zone thresholds (page 6, second paragraph). Again, as clearly elaborated in the rejection above, with detailed mapping and annotations, Stuke’s reference anticipates the Applicant’s claim invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur O. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 July 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights