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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention Group II (Claims 6-16) and Spray System Species II (Fig. 2) in the reply filed on April 22nd, 2026 is acknowledged.
During a telephone conversation with Ibrahim Hallaj on June 11th, 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Nozzle Species I (Fig. 5A). Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Claims 1-5 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 22nd, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the length axis that is orthogonal to the horizontal axis and the vertical axis in claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It appears in Fig. 6 that the length axis 632 is parallel to the vertical axis 640 instead of being orthogonal. The examiner recommends revising the drawing to better depict the length axis is orthogonal to the vertical axis. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “610” in Fig. 6 has been used to designate both a dotted area and an arrow in Fig. 6.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 6-16 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 “about” in claim 6, ln. 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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 specification does not quantify the term “about” nor explain how about the offset angle between the first and second axes is greater than or equal to 0 degrees and less than or equal to 45 degrees. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the offset angle between the first and second axes is greater than or equal to 0 degrees and less than or equal to 45 degrees.
The term “about” in claim 7, ln. 3-4 and 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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 specification does not quantify the term “about” nor explain how about the first angle is greater than or equal to 0 degrees and less than or equal to 20 degrees, and how about the second angle is greater than or equal to 10 degrees and less than or equal to 55 degrees. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the first angle is greater than or equal to 0 degrees and less than or equal to 20 degrees, and the second angle is greater than or equal to 10 degrees and less than or equal to 55 degrees.
The term “about” in claim 8, ln. 1-2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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 specification does not quantify the term “about” nor explain how about the first angle is to 6 degrees, and how about the second angle is to 12 degrees. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the first angle is 6 degrees, and the second angle is 12 degrees.
Claim 15 recites “at least one fluid line” in ln. 2. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the at least one fluid line in claim 15 is referring to the at least one fluid line previously claimed in claim 10, or if applicant is referring to a new and different feature. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the at least one fluid line in claim 15 is referring to the at least one fluid line previously claimed in claim 10.
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.
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) 6-9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrickson (US 20210283637 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Hendrickson discloses an agricultural spray system (11, Fig. 1) comprising:
an agricultural vehicle (entire structure, Fig. 2);
a tank (65, Fig. 2) mounted on the agricultural vehicle (entire structure, shown in Fig. 2), the tank (65, Fig. 2) configured to hold one or more liquid chemicals (101, Fig. 5) for treating weeds in an agricultural field (Paragraph 0060);
a spray boom (54, Fig. 2) attached to the agricultural vehicle (entire structure, shown in Fig. 2), the spray boom (54, Fig. 2) extending along a horizontal axis (shown in Fig. 2); and
at least one multi-cap nozzle (60, Figs. 3-4) mounted on the spray boom (54, shown in Fig. 3), each multi-cap nozzle (60, Figs. 3-4) fluidly coupled to the tank (65, nozzle assemblies 60 are fed via supply lines 76, 64 connected to tank 65, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0055) and comprising:
a housing (external structure of nozzle assembly 60, shown in Fig. 4) having a cavity (214, Fig. 4) to receive the one or more specific liquid chemicals (crop inputs from tank 65 are conveyed to manifold 214, Paragraph 0056);
a first nozzle cap (222L, Fig. 4) attached to the housing (external structure of nozzle assembly 60, shown in Fig. 4), the first nozzle cap (222L, Fig. 4) defining a first nozzle channel (channel within left upper nozzle 222L, shown in Figs. 3-4) that is fluidly coupled to the cavity (214, shown in Fig. 4); and
a second nozzle cap (224L, Fig. 4) attached to the housing (external structure of nozzle assembly 60, shown in Fig. 4), the second nozzle cap (224L, Fig. 4) defining a second nozzle channel (channel within left intermediate nozzle 224L, shown in Figs. 3-4) that is fluidly coupled to the cavity (214, shown in Fig. 4), wherein:
the first and second nozzle caps (222L, 224L, Fig. 4) extend along first and second axes (horizontal axes of left upper nozzle 222L and left intermediate nozzle 224L, shown in Fig. 4), respectively, and
an offset angle (the angle that is the difference between the second down-tilt angle 433L and the first down-tilt angle 431L, shown in Fig. 4) between the first and second axes (horizontal axes of left upper nozzle 222L and left intermediate nozzle 224L, shown in Fig. 4) is greater than or equal to about 0 degrees (the first down-tilt angle can be less than the second down-tilt angle and angles may be changed, shown in Fig. 4, Paragraphs 0057, 0065).
Hendrickson discloses the claimed invention except for the explicit teaching of an offset angle between the first and second axes is greater than or equal to about 0 degrees and less than or equal to about 45 degrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an offset angle between the first and second axes is greater than or equal to about 0 degrees and less than or equal to about 45 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II-A). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0080 of the specification, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Hendrickson discloses the spray system of claim 6, wherein:
the first axis (horizontal axis of left upper nozzle 222L, shown in Fig. 4) is oriented at a first angle (431L, Fig. 4) with respect to a vertical axis (vertical axis of nozzle assembly 60, shown in Fig. 4), the vertical axis (vertical axis of nozzle assembly 60, shown in Fig. 4) orthogonal (interpreting as having perpendicular slopes or tangents at the point of intersection, Merriam-Webster Dictionary) to the horizontal axis (horizontal axis of left upper nozzle 222L, shown in Fig. 4), the first angle greater than or equal to about 0 degrees (angles may be changed, shown in Fig. 4, Paragraphs 0057, 0065),
the second axis (horizontal axis of left intermediate nozzle 224L, shown in Fig. 4) is oriented at a second angle (433L, Fig. 4) with respect to the vertical axis (vertical axis of nozzle assembly 60, shown in Fig. 4), and the second angle is greater than or equal to the first angle (the first down-tilt angle can be less than the second down-tilt angle and angles may be changed, shown in Fig. 4, Paragraphs 0057, 0065).
Hendrickson discloses the claimed invention except for the explicit teaching of the first angle greater than or equal to about 0 degrees and less than or equal to about 20 degrees, and the second angle greater than or equal to about 10 degrees and less than or equal to about 55 degrees. 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 first angle greater than or equal to about 0 degrees and less than or equal to about 20 degrees, and the second angle greater than or equal to about 10 degrees and less than or equal to about 55 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II-A). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0079 of the specification, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 8, Hendrickson discloses the spray system of claim 7. Hendrickson discloses all aspects of the claimed invention except for the explicit teaching of the first angle is about 6 degrees and the second angle is about 12 degrees. 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 first angle is about 6 degrees and the second angle is about 12 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II-A). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0079 of the specification, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
With respect to claim 9, Hendrickson discloses the spray system of claim 6, wherein the first and second nozzle caps (222L, 224L, Fig. 4) are oriented away from a direction of travel (direction of travel of the vehicle is in and out of the page, shown in Figs. 3-4) of the agricultural vehicle (entire structure, Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 16, Hendrickson discloses the spray system of claim 6, wherein the tank (65, Fig. 2) comprises a broadcast (interpreting as to scatter or sow (seed or something similar) over a broad area, Merriam-Webster Dictionary) tank configured to hold one or more general-application liquid chemicals for preventing the weeds from growing (tank 65 contains fluid or liquid material 101 that includes a crop input for spraying or application to crop, plants, or soil, such as herbicides, over an area of a field, Paragraphs 0018, 0022, 0060).
Claim 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrickson (US 20210283637 A1) in view of Funseth et al. (US 20200406281 A1).
In regards to claim 10, Hendrickson discloses the spray system of claim 6, further comprising:
at least one fluid line (64, Figs. 3, 5), each fluid line (64, Figs. 3, 5) fluidly coupling a respective multi-cap nozzle (60, Figs. 3-4) to the tank (65, shown in Fig. 5);
at least one valve (44, 47, nozzle actuators 44, 47 can be valves, Figs. 1, 4, Paragraph 0056), each valve (44, 47, Figs. 1, 4) fluidly coupled to a respective fluid line (64, shown in Figs. 3-4) and having an open state in which fluid flows from the tank to the respective multi-cap nozzle and a closed state in which a flow of the fluid from the tank to the respective multi-cap nozzle is obstructed (actuators 44, 47 control the flow of fluid between the manifold 214 and the nozzles such as an on/off state, Paragraph 0056); and
one or more processors (38, 50, Fig. 1) in electrical communication with the valve(s) (44, 47, shown in Fig. 1), the processor(s) (38, 50, Fig. 1) configured to cause the valve(s) (44, 47, Figs. 1, 4) to transition between the open state and the closed state (second data processor 38 and nozzle control module 50 can control, activate, and deactivate nozzles of each nozzle assembly 60, Paragraph 0058).
However, Hendrickson does not teach the processor(s) configured to cause the valve(s) to transition between the open state and the closed state at a frequency and a duty cycle that minimizes an overlap between a first spray area of the first nozzle cap and a second spray area of the second nozzle cap.
Funseth teaches an agricultural spray system (600, Fig. 2) comprising the processor(s) (602, 620, Fig. 2) configured to cause the valve(s) (30, 32, Fig. 4) to transition between the open state and the closed state at a frequency and a duty cycle that minimizes an overlap between a first spray area of the first nozzle cap (40, Fig. 5) and a second spray area of the second nozzle cap (42, electric pulse signals are applied to actuators that open and close valves 30 and 32, based on a duty cycle and a frequency, to achieve different spray coverage coming out of outlets 40 and 42, and pulse width or frequency may be varied depending on spray overlap amount, Fig. 5, Paragraphs 0083-0085, 0102, 0164).
Hendrickson and Funseth are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural spray systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the processor(s) and valve(s) taught in Funseth’s system to Hendrickson’s system, to have the motivation to allow the user to tune and adjust the spray pattern according to specific needs and cover a wider range of spray operation (Funseth, Paragraphs 0006, 0083-0085).
In regards to claim 11, Hendrickson, as modified by Funseth, discloses the spray system of claim 10. However, Hendrickson does not disclose the processor(s) is/are configured to dynamically determine the frequency as a function of a current speed of the agricultural vehicle, a current height of the spray boom, and the first and second angles, and the processor(s) is/are configured to dynamically determine the duty cycle as a function of the current speed of the agricultural vehicle and a maximum speed of the agricultural vehicle.
Funseth further teaches wherein:
the processor(s) (602, 620, Fig. 2) is/are configured to dynamically determine the frequency as a function of a current speed of the agricultural vehicle, a current height of the spray boom, and the first and second angles (frequency can be controlled based on travel speed of the vehicle, boom height, and nozzle angle, Paragraphs 0068, 0114, 0164), and
the processor(s) (602, 620, Fig. 2) is/are configured to dynamically determine the duty cycle as a function of the current speed of the agricultural vehicle and a maximum speed of the agricultural vehicle (control of sprayer system makes dynamic decisions that take into account factors such as speed of vehicle travel, allowing for pulse width to be automatically adjusted to be within a specified range for a particular speed of travel of the vehicle, which includes a current speed and a maximum speed, Paragraphs 0068, 0077, 0103, 0105).
Hendrickson and Funseth are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural spray systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the processor(s) taught in Funseth’s system to Hendrickson’s system, to have the motivation to cover a larger dynamic range of performance, maintain fluid droplet size and other particular variables more steadily under different travel speeds, and achieve the best coverage based on speed of travel of the vehicle (Funseth, Paragraphs 0006, 0077, 0105).
With respect to claim 12, Hendrickson, as modified by Funseth, discloses the spray system of claim 10. Hendrickson further discloses wherein:
the processor(s) (38, 50, Fig. 1) is/are configured to cause at least one of the valve(s) (44, 47, Figs. 1, 4) to transition to the open state when the second nozzle cap (224L, Fig. 4) is positioned to spray a proximal (interpreting as next to or nearest the point of origin, Merriam-Webster Dictionary) end of a target field area and the first nozzle cap (222L, Fig. 4) is positioned to spray a proximal field area (nozzle control module 50 determines whether to activate a first nozzle actuator 44 and a second nozzle actuator 47 based on at least one of the measured distance, an observed height, the observed position of the sprayer vehicle 61 to a zone associated with a particular nozzle, such that different zones are targeted, Paragraphs 0004, 0022, 0033, 0048), the agricultural vehicle (entire structure, Fig. 2) reaching the proximal field area before the target field area as the agricultural vehicle moves along the direction of travel (target path planner 18 provides a path plan for the vehicle traveling along the field, and each target zone may have a corresponding waypoint, a range of waypoints, a path segment, a point or geographic location, along the path plan of the vehicle, Paragraphs 0018, 0022),
the processor(s) (38, 50, Fig. 1) is/are configured to cause the at least one of the valve(s) (44, 47, Figs. 1, 4) to the closed state after the first nozzle cap (222L, Fig. 4) sprays a distal (situated away from the point of origin, Merriam-Webster Dictionary) end of the target field area and the second nozzle cap (224L, Fig. 4) sprays a distal field area (first nozzle actuator 44 and second nozzle actuator 47 deactivate left upper nozzle 222L and left intermediate nozzle 224L in response to control signals or data from nozzle control module 50 consistent with target placement data 72 and application rate data 70 for applied or sprayed crop inputs as the vehicle progresses along the path plan in the field, Paragraphs 0058-0059), the agricultural vehicle (entire structure, Fig. 2) reaching the distal field area after the target field area as the agricultural vehicle moves along the direction of travel (target path planner 18 provides a path plan for the vehicle traveling along the field, and each target zone may have a corresponding waypoint, a range of waypoints, a path segment, a point or geographic location, along the path plan of the vehicle, Paragraphs 0018, 0022), and
the target field area is between and neighboring the proximal field area and the distal field area (each target zone may have a corresponding waypoint, a range of waypoints, a path segment, a point or geographic location, along the path plan of the vehicle, that can include a proximal field area, a target field area, and a distal field area, Paragraph 0022)
Claim 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrickson (US 20210283637 A1) in view of Funseth et al. (US 20200406281 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Buse et al. (US 20240123461 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Hendrickson, as modified by Funseth, discloses the spray system of claim 10. Hendrickson discloses the system further comprising:
an image sensor (34, Figs. 1, 6) configured to capture images of the agricultural field in a direction of travel of the agricultural vehicle (entire structure, Fig. 2), the image sensor having a field of view that is aligned with and corresponds with one or more of the multi-cap nozzles (imaging device 34 captures images of plants or plant rows that provide guidance information along with location or motion data from location-determination receiver 10 to guide the vehicle relative to a nozzle within the plant rows, Paragraph 0034); and
one or more computers (89, 91, Fig. 6) in electrical communication with the image sensor (34, Figs. 1, 6) to receive captured images from the image sensor (34, image processing module 91 is used to apply image processing to collected image data from imaging device 34, Figs. 1, 6, Paragraph 0034), the computer(s) (89, 91, Fig. 6) configured to detect target weed(s) in one or more of the captured images using a trained machine learning (ML) model, the trained ML model having been trained with first and second training images of agricultural fields, the first training images including the target weed(s), the second training images not including the target weed(s) (image processing module 91 can use color differentiation to distinguish background pixels from plant pixels, using a reference database or range of plant pixels for a particular crop type, optional plant identifier 89 compares reference images of reference plants stored in second data storage device to observed images to identify the crop type, Paragraphs 0034, 0070-0071), the computer(s) (89, 91, Fig. 6) producing an output signal that causes one or more of the valves (44, 47, Figs. 1, 4) to transition between an inactive state and an active state (imaging device 34 provides image and location data of a plant to the second data processor 38 which can be used to permit nozzle control module 50 to control, activate, and deactivate nozzles of each nozzle assembly 60 through actuators 44, 47 when in vicinity of weeds, Paragraphs 0034, 0054, 0056, 0058, 0060), the one or more valves (44, 47, Figs. 1, 4) associated with the one or more of the captured images in which the target weed(s) is/are detected (imaging device 34 is adapted to estimate plant height to assign target zones that second data processor 38 or nozzle control module 50 uses to determine one or more nozzles via the corresponding actuators based on a measured distance or observed height of the nozzle to the ground, Paragraph 0054), wherein:
in the inactive state, the one or more valves (44, 47, Figs. 1, 4) are in the closed state (actuators 44, 47 control the flow of fluid between the manifold 214 and the nozzles such as an on/off state, Paragraph 0056),
when the respective valve transitions from the inactive state to the active state at a beginning of the length of time, only the first nozzle cap of the respective multi-cap nozzle sprays the proximal field area (nozzle control module 50 determines when to activate a first nozzle actuator 44 based on at least one of the measured distance, an observed height, the observed position of the sprayer vehicle 61 to a zone associated with the particular nozzle, along the path plan of the vehicle, Paragraphs 0004, 0022, 0033, 0048), and
when the respective valve transitions from the active state to the inactive state at an end of the length of time, only the second nozzle cap of the respective multi-cap nozzle sprays the distal field area (nozzle control module 50 determines when to activate a second nozzle actuator 47 based on at least one of the measured distance, an observed height, the observed position of the sprayer vehicle 61 to a zone associated with the particular nozzle, along the path plan of the vehicle, Paragraphs 0004, 0022, 0033, 0048).
Funseth further teaches in the active state, the one or more valves (30, 32, Fig. 4) transition between the open state and the closed state at the frequency and the duty cycle (shown in Fig. 4A, Paragraph 0080).
However, Hendrickson and Funseth do not teach a plurality of image sensors mounted on the spray boom, the field of view of each image sensor has a respective width and a respective length to define a respective field area, the respective width corresponding to a spray width of a respective multi-cap nozzle, the respective length corresponding to a length of time that a respective valve for the respective multi-cap nozzle is in the active state, the respective width is measured with respect to the horizontal axis, and the respective length is measured with respect to a length axis that is orthogonal to the horizontal axis and to a vertical axis.
Buse teaches an agricultural spray system (100, Fig. 1A) comprising a plurality of image sensors (122, Figs. 1A-1B) mounted on the spray boom (118, shown in Figs. 1A-1B), wherein:
the field of view (indicated by dotted lines shown in Fig. 1A) of each image sensor (122, Figs. 1A-1B) has a respective width and a respective length to define a respective field area (shown in Fig. 1A), the respective width corresponding to a spray width of a respective multi-cap nozzle (120, shown in Fig. 1A), the respective length corresponding to a length of time that a respective valve (190, Fig. 1C) for the respective multi-cap nozzle (120, Figs. 1A, 1C) is in the active state (sensors 122 provide inputs to target identification system 158 to generate an output that indicates which valves of which nozzles to be activated and the duration of time they are activated for, based on image analysis performed, Paragraphs 0023, 0037),
the respective width (horizontal length of dotted region shown in Fig. 1A) is measured with respect to the horizontal axis (horizontal axis of agricultural machine 100, shown in Fig. 1A), and
the respective length (vertical length of dotted region shown in Fig. 1A) is measured with respect to a length axis (axis of vertical length of dotted region shown in Fig. 1A) that is orthogonal to the horizontal axis (horizontal axis of agricultural machine 100, shown in Fig. 1A) and to a vertical axis (vertical axis of agricultural machine 100, shown in Fig. 1A).
Hendrickson, Funseth, and Buse are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural spray systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the plurality of image sensors taught in Buse’s system to Hendrickson’s system, as modified by Funseth, to have the motivation to have a target identification and control system that operates accurately without false positives or false negatives of where material should be applied (Buse, Paragraph 0021).
In regards to claim 14, Hendrickson, as modified by Funseth and Buse, discloses the spray system of claim 13, wherein the tank (65, Fig. 2) comprises a selective-spot spray (SSP) tank configured to hold one or more specific liquid chemicals for treating one or more target weeds growing in the agricultural field (tank 65 contains fluid or liquid material 101 that includes a crop input for spraying or application to weeds at a specific point or geographic location, Paragraphs 0022, 0060).
Regarding claim 15, Hendrickson, as modified by Funseth and Buse, discloses the spray system of claim 14, further comprising:
at least one fluid line (64, Figs. 3, 5), each fluid line (64, Figs. 3, 5) fluidly coupling a respective multi-cap nozzle (60, Figs. 3-4) to the SSP tank (65, shown in Fig. 5);
respective first and second valves (44, 47, nozzle actuators 44, 47 can be valves, Figs. 1, 4, Paragraph 0056) associated with each multi-cap nozzle (60, Figs. 3-4), the respective first valve (44, Fig. 4) fluidly coupled to a respective first nozzle cap (222L, shown in Fig. 4), the respective second valve (47, Fig. 4) fluidly coupled to a respective second nozzle cap (224L, shown in Fig. 4); and
one or more processors (38, 50, Fig. 1) in electrical communication with the respective first and second valves (44, 47, shown in Fig. 1) of each multi-cap nozzle (60, Figs. 3-4), the processor(s) (38, 50, Fig. 1) configured to transition the respective first and second valves (44, 47, Fig. 4) of each multi-cap nozzle (60, Figs. 3-4) between a respective open state and a respective closed state (second data processor 38 and nozzle control module 50 can control, activate, and deactivate nozzles of each nozzle assembly 60, Paragraph 0058).
Funseth further teaches the processor(s) (602, 620, Fig. 2) configured to transition the respective first and second valves (30, 32, Fig. 4) between a respective open state and a respective closed state at a frequency, a duty cycle, and a relative phase that minimizes an overlap between a respective first spray area of the respective first nozzle cap (40, Fig. 5) and a respective second spray area of the respective second nozzle cap (42, electric pulse signals are applied to actuators that open and close valves 30 and 32, based on a duty cycle, a frequency, and a width of pulse signals to alter phase, to achieve different spray coverage coming out of outlets 40 and 42, and pulse width or frequency may be varied depending on spray overlap amount, shown in Fig. 5, Paragraphs 0083-0085, 0102, 0164).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights