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 .
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: “controller configured to determine whether the agricultural product requires recirculation“ in claim 1.
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.
The corresponding structure for performing the claimed function can be found in specification para. 0052 (sensors readings above a threshold) and also para. 0071 (predetermined schedule based) and manual (user input).
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 § 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 1-7 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dunkel et al. US 2020/0047206 A1.
Dunkel teaches:
1. A controlled recirculation system for recirculating an agricultural product in a tender vehicle, comprising:
a tender vehicle [Fig. 1 100] having a primary carrier tank [tanks 264] for delivering the agricultural product to an agricultural sprayer [sprayer 100];
a carrier pump [pump 224] and recirculation plumbing installed on the tender vehicle [fluidic pathway 254],
the carrier pump and recirculation plumbing in fluid communication with the primary carrier tank and configured to facilitate recirculation of the agricultural product from the primary carrier tank, through the recirculation plumbing [para. 0036, “In one example, a rinse cycle operation includes a recirculation operation that includes using pump(s) 224 to pump a mixture of rinse substance 266 and cleaning agent 278 from tank(s) 106, along fluidic pathway 254 extending across boom 108, and back to tank(s) 106 as indicated by block 327. This recirculation can be repeated one or more times, depending on the rinse cycle operation, before the rinsing liquid is discharged from the system through nozzle(s) 126.”], and
subsequently returning the agricultural product to the primary carrier tank [product returned to tanks 264]; and
a controller [Fig. 2 202] operatively connected to the primary carrier tank and the carrier pump [Fig. 2 controllable subsystems 250, pumps 224 and fluidic pathway],
the controller configured to determine whether the agricultural product requires recirculation [Fig. 2 residue detection system 124 and paras. 0027-0029; sensor signals reach threshold and prompt user to recirculate fluids or automatically recirculate],
thereby maintaining the homogeneity of the agricultural product during transport and delivery to the agricultural [this limitation is directed towards the intended result or outcome and has no weight].
Dunkel teaches:
2. The controlled recirculation system of claim 1, wherein the agricultural product is stored in the primary carrier tank of the tender vehicle. [para. 0024, “Substance tank(s) 268 can include one or more substances 270 to be sprayed on an agricultural field. This can include a wide variety of substances depending on a desired spraying operation.”]
Dunkel teaches:
3. The controlled recirculation system of claim 1, wherein the controller utilizes a schedule-based method to initiate the recirculation of the agricultural product. [para. 0023, “Additionally, rinse substance 266 with cleaning agent 278 can be recirculated any number of times within sprayer 100 during a rinse cycle operation. After recirculating rinse substance 266 with cleaning agent 278 through fluidic pathway 254 one or more times, the mixture can be pumped through nozzle(s) 126.”]
Dunkel teaches:
4. The controlled recirculation system of claim 3, wherein the recirculation is initiated based on predetermined intervals. [para. 0023, “Additionally, rinse substance 266 with cleaning agent 278 can be recirculated any number of times within sprayer 100 during a rinse cycle operation. After recirculating rinse substance 266 with cleaning agent 278 through fluidic pathway 254 one or more times, the mixture can be pumped through nozzle(s) 126.”]
Dunkel teaches:
5. The controlled recirculation system of claim 3, further comprising a user interface for inputting data and wherein the recirculation is initiated based on a frequency set by an operator through the user interface. [Fig. 3 user input 339]
Dunkel teaches:
6. The controlled recirculation system of claim 5, wherein the user interface allows the operator to input and receive information about the agricultural product and to set automatic recirculation schedules. [Fig. 3 user-input 339 and para. 0029, “The user interface display can include a recommendation suggesting additional rinse cycles prior to conducting an additional spraying operation with a new fluid. Additionally, this can also include automatically or semi-automatically generating action signals for control system 210 to carry out additional rinse cycles.”]
Dunkel teaches:
7. The controlled recirculation system of claim 1, further comprising a sensor for determining a homogeneity of the agricultural product in the primary carrier tank [Fig. 3 304], and wherein the controller utilizes the sensor to trigger the recirculation when predetermined thresholds are detected [Fig. 3 312 and 316].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 8-11 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunkel et al. US 2020/0047206 A1 in view of Faust et al. US 2022/0266209 A1.
Dunkel does not teach the following limitation, however, Faust teaches:
8. The controlled recirculation system of claim 7, wherein the sensor monitors both the viscosity and homogeneity of the agricultural product in the primary carrier tank. [turbidity sensor 620 or CIR 1068]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the teachings of Faust with those of Dunkel. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because Faust is directed towards mixing liquids in a tank sufficient to prevent settling, the same problem as applicant although in a different field of endeavor (agricultural commercial packing plant).
Faust teaches:
9. The controlled recirculation system of claim 7, wherein the sensor is an infrared sensor. [para. 0055, “The mixing assembly 202 includes a turbidity sensor 273 (e.g., based on spectroscopy, visible light, infrared light, ultraviolet light). The turbidity sensor is configured to measure the turbidity (e.g., homogeneity, consistency) of the emulsion in the tank 240.”]
Faust teaches:
10. The controlled recirculation system of claim 7, wherein the sensor is a LED sensor. [para. 0055, “The mixing assembly 202 includes a turbidity sensor 273 (e.g., based on spectroscopy, visible light, infrared light, ultraviolet light). The turbidity sensor is configured to measure the turbidity (e.g., homogeneity, consistency) of the emulsion in the tank 240.”]
Faust teaches:
11. The controlled recirculation system of claim 7, wherein the sensor is a camera. [para. 0055, “The mixing assembly 202 includes a turbidity sensor 273 (e.g., based on spectroscopy, visible light, infrared light, ultraviolet light). The turbidity sensor is configured to measure the turbidity (e.g., homogeneity, consistency) of the emulsion in the tank 240.”]
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunkel et al. US 2020/0047206 A1 in view of Faust et al. US 2022/0266209 A1 and further in view of ANDERSON et al. US 2020/0346467 A1.
The combination of Dunkel and Faust does not teach the following limitation, however, ANDERSON teaches:
12. The controlled recirculation system of claim 7, wherein the sensor is positioned at or near the bottom of the primary carrier tank for use when an agricultural product is denser than water. [Fig. 1 105 – sensor]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the teachings of ANDERSON with those of Dunkel and Faust. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because Anderson teaches placement of sensors at various locations in a tank to detect lack of homogeneity and need to stir. (See para. 0032).
ANDERSON teaches:
13. The controlled recirculation system of claim 12, wherein the sensor is a floating sensor that floats on the agricultural product. [Fig. 3 315-1]
ANDERSON teaches:
14. The controlled recirculation system of claim 7, wherein the sensor is positioned at or near the bottom of the primary carrier tank when an agricultural product is less dense than water. [Fig. 3 312-2]
Regarding method claims 15-23, these claims recite the methods for carrying out the functions of the apparatus recited in claims 1-14 above and are rejected on the same grounds and rationale as corresponding claims above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 1-930PM 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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/GARY COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights