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
Applicants Amendment did not overcome the previous rejections. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered and are not persuasive.
This office action is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 18 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 10, because it repeats limitations already recited in the independent claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van De Woestyne (US 2021/0299692), hereinafter Woestyne.
In re. claim 1, Woestyne teaches a computer-implemented method (instructions on memory) (para [0139]) for monitoring the treatment of an agricultural field with a pesticide product by an agricultural machine (104), wherein the agricultural machine comprises at least one sensor device (128) (para [0023]) (location system (27)) (para [0138]) and at least one treatment component comprising at least one nozzle (112) (para [0026]), the method comprising: providing, in real-time, location-specific sensor data of the agricultural field from the at least one sensor device (location system (27)) (para [0138]); analyzing the location-specific sensor data with respect to at least one treatment indicator (via sprayer performance system (312) includes map generator (378)) (para [0072] and [0092]); generating location-specific control data for the at least one treatment component based on the analyzed location-specific sensor data (target performance at geographic location) (para [0121]); and providing a pesticide savings parameter in real-time (spray quality comparison logic) (para [0092]), wherein the pesticide savings parameter is a comparison between a determined amount of treatment (performance) and a reference treatment (target/prescribed) comprising a flat rate treatment (desired quantity) (para [0116]), wherein the same amount of treatment is applied on the agricultural field, and wherein additionally or alternatively (when the performance equals the target), the reference treatment can also comprise historic data, in particular, data from historic treatments (when utilizing historical data of prediction system (332)) (para [0081]).
In re. claim 2, Woestyne teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the pesticide product is a herbicide product (para [0070]), the sensor device comprises at least one optical sensor (para [0029]) and a number of weed plants and/or a density of weed is the at least one treatment indicator (quantity of crop) (para [0082]).
In re. claim 3, Woestyne teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, further comprising: adopting the location-specific control data for the at least one treatment component such that: an application is made with a predetermined application rate (target/prescribed performance at geographic location) (para [0121]).
In re. claim 4, Woestyne teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the location-specific control data relates to a location-specific on/off-operation of at least one treatment component (some nozzles on while others remain off) (para [0033]).
In re. claim 5, Woestyne teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: controlling the at least one treatment component based on the location-specific control data (target/prescribed performance at geographic location) (para [0121]).
In re. claim 6, Woestyne teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the reference amount of treatment is not location-specific (e.g. when spraying based on detection of pests) (para [0101]).
In re. claim 7, Woestyne teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: displaying the pesticide savings parameter on a display unit (action signal to display based on spray performance) (para [0117]).
In re. claim 8, Woestyne teaches the method according to claim 7, further comprising: updating the pesticide savings parameter in real time (updates made via prediction system (332)) (para [0081]).
In re. claim 9, Woestyne teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the pesticide savings parameter is stored in a map of the agricultural field, wherein the map of the agricultural field is a location-specific map of the agricultural field (generator (378) can correlate the quality metric values to geographic locations and generate a map indicative of a quality of the spraying operation across the field) (para [0092]).
In re. claim 10, Woestyne teaches a computing apparatus (214) comprising a communication interface (communication system (212)) for receiving and sending data (para [0044]), the computing apparatus configured to receive location-specific sensor data via the communication interface (communication with sensors (128)) (para [0047]), analyze the location-specific sensor data with respect to at least one treatment indicator (via sprayer performance system (312)) (para [0072]), generate control data (spray quality comparison logic) (para [0092]), provide a pesticide savings parameter in real-time (spray quality comparison logic) (para [0092]), wherein the pesticide savings parameter is a comparison between a determined amount of treatment (performance) and a reference treatment (target/prescribed) comprising a flat rate treatment (desired quantity) (para [0116]), wherein the same amount of treatment is applied on the agricultural field (when the performance equals the target), and send out the control data via the communication interface (para [0044]).
In re. claim 11, Woestyne teaches a control unit (control system of sprayer system) (para [0024]) for operating a treatment device (102) for applying a treatment product to an agricultural field (para [0021]), the control unit comprises a communication interface (communication system (212)) for receiving and sending data (para [0044]) and the treatment device comprises at least one treatment component (nozzles (112)), wherein the control unit is configured to receive control data (spray quality comparison logic) (para [0092]) and to provide control data to control the at least one treatment component (controllable spray nozzles) (para [0026]).
In re. claim 12, Woestyne teaches a treatment device (102) for applying a treatment product (para [0070]) to an agricultural field, the treatment device comprising at least one treatment component (nozzles (112)), at least one sensor device (128) (para [0023]), wherein the treatment device is adapted to perform the method according to claim 1, such that the at least one treatment component and the at least one sensor device correspond to the at least one treatment component and the at least one sensor device recited in claim 1 (as stated in the rejection of claim 1 above).
In re. claim 13, Woestyne teaches an agricultural machine (104) adapted to perform the method according to claim 1 (para [0069]).
In re. claim 14, Woestyne teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising computer readable instructions, which when loaded and executed by a computing apparatus, cause the computing apparatus to perform the method of claim 1 (computer readable media (para [0144]).
In re. claim 15, Woestyne teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the determined amount of treatment is determined per nozzle of the treatment device (via individual control) (para [0032]).
In re. claim 16, Woestyne teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor device (128) is associated with the nozzle (112) such that its field of view overlaps a spray profile of the nozzle (fig. 2) (para [0084]).
In re. claim 17, Woestyne teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the location-specific control data actuates a valve of the nozzle based on the analyzed location-specific sensor data (controllable valve subsystem) (para [0111]).
In re. claim 18, Woestyne teaches the computing apparatus of claim 10, further configured to provide a pesticide savings parameter in real-time (spray quality comparison logic) (para [0092]), wherein the pesticide savings parameter is a comparison between a determined amount of treatment (performance) and a reference treatment (target/prescribed) comprising a flat rate treatment (desired quantity) (para [0116]), wherein the same amount of treatment is applied on the agricultural field (when the performance equals the target)
In re. claim 19, Woestyne teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the pesticide savings parameter is determined based on a number of non-activated treatment components relative to a total number of treatment components that would be activated under the flat rate treatment ((via valves on the spray nozzle) (para [0059]) to compensate for desired quantity of pesticide) (para [0092]).
In re. claim 20, Woestyne teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the pesticide savings parameter is provided to a display unit in real-time during operation of the agricultural machine (recommendations/indications for the operator (228)) (para [0092]), and wherein the method further comprises adjusting operation of the at least one treatment component based on the displayed pesticide savings parameter such that the pesticide savings parameter is set to zero by applying the flat rate treatment (yes operation of block (632) when performance is within threshold) (para [0122]) (fig. 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Van DeWoestyne's comparison asks whether a target location received adequate spray coverage. Claim 1 includes a pesticide-savings comparison between a determined amount of treatment and a reference treatment, such as the amount that would have been applied under a flat-rate treatment across the agricultural field. In other words, a comparison of spray coverage at a target location to desired coverage or quantity at that target location does not disclose the recited comparison between a determined amount of treatment and a reference treatment comprising a flat rate treatment.
Van De Woestyne's "desired quantity" also is not the claimed "reference treatment." Specifically, paragraph [0116] concerns whether there is enough spray on a desired target location. See Van De Woestyne [0116]. Even assuming the "desired quantity" is a target amount of spray for that location, it is not a "reference treatment comprising a flat rate treatment, wherein the same amount of treatment is applied on the agricultural field." Nor is it used as a baseline against which a determined amount of treatment is compared to provide pesticide savings.
The examiner notes that Figure 9 of Van De Woestyne outlines the operation of the sprayer and provides the performance comparison steps 614, ,618, 628, 630, and 632. The flat rate treatment would be the treatment applied prior to comparing to a target performance. The determined amount of treatment is the determined difference compared to the target performance in step 630 that is compared with a threshold at step 632. Therefore, the prior art discloses the recited comparison to a flat-rate treatment, and the argument is considered non-persuasive.
The distinction is not merely that Van De Woestyne uses different terminology. Van De Woestyne compares spray coverage at a target location against a desired coverage or quantity for that target location. In contrast, claim 1 compares a determined amount of treatment against a reference treatment amount, such as a uniform flat-rate treatment amount for the field, to provide a pesticide savings parameter. In other words, Van De Woestyne determines whether application at a target is sufficient, whereas claim 1 recites providing a pesticide savings parameter relative to a reference treatment.
The examiner notes that when the flat rate treatment of Van De Woestyne is an excessive treatment amount, the action signal generated would be to reduce the quantity of the spray application, according to para [0116]. These determination, comparison, and signal generation steps outlined in figure 9 allow the system to prevent use of excessive treatment, and therefore provide a pesticide savings parameter. Therefore, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
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 Christopher D. Hutchens whose telephone number is (571)270-5535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/C.D.H./
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3647
/Christopher D Hutchens/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights