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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/06/2026 has been entered.
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]), 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 have been considered but 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.
Conclusion
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