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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Status of Claims
The preliminary amendment to the claims dated 15 August 2024 is entered. Claims 1-11 are amended. Claim 12 is canceled. Claim 13 is new. Claims 1-11 and 13 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein.
Effective Filing Date
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of DE 10 2022 103 567.0 filed on 16 February 2022 was received on 15 August 2024. Furthermore, this application is a national stage entry of PCT/EP2023/052785 filed 6 February 2023 which was added to the file wrapper on 15 August 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 August 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) 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:
Metering and/or actuating elements in Claim 7.
At least one metering and/or actuating element in Claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Metering and/or actuating elements in Claim 7 are PWM valves, or the like.
At least one metering and/or actuating element in Claim 11 is at least one valve, or the like.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“with the step of” in Claim 1.
“at least one of the following steps” in Claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-2 and 11: “said distribution material” should be “said liquid distribution material”.
Claims 1 and 13: “said distribution machine” should be “said agricultural distribution machine”.
Claim 1: “the controlled variable, in particular the system pressure or the flow rate” should be “the at least one controlled variable
Claim 5: “the one or more relationship are determined based on the flow rate and the number of spreading nozzles” should be “[[the]] one or more relationship are determined based on the flow rate and the number of spreading nozzles” (alternatively, to overcome this objection, Claim 5 could be amended to “The method according to claim [[3]] 4”, but this is not how the claim was interpreted for this action).
Claim 6: “the one or more relationship determined in the second control strategy” should be “[[the]] one or more relationship determined in the second control strategy” (alternatively, to overcome this objection, Claim 6 could be amended to “The method according to claim [[3]] 4”, but this is not how the claim was interpreted for this action).
Claim 8: “from the first control strategy to the second control strategy” should be “from [[the]] a first control strategy to [[the]] a second control strategy” (alternatively, to overcome this objection, Claim 8 could be amended to “The method according to claim [[1]] 2”, but this is not how the claim was interpreted for this action).
Claim 10: “during the acceleration” should be “during the one or more acceleration processes”.
Claim 11: “spreading of nozzles” should be “spreading [[of]] nozzles”.
Claim 11 “said distribution machine” should be “said field sprayer
Claim 11: “said spreading material” should be “said liquid distribution
Claim 11: “which can be adjusted by at least one, in particular central, metering and/or actuating element, based on the control strategies” should be “which can be adjusted by the at least one, in particular central, metering and/or actuating element, based on the control strategies”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected because the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claims, 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 scope of the claims is indefinite because one of ordinary skill would not know how to determine when the controlled variable is “at least substantially ignored”. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will consider that switching the amount of dependence on either controlled variable reads on this limitation. Claims 2-10 and 13 are rejected for being dependent on an indefinite claim. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 3 is further rejected because the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of compact prosecution, this claim has been interpreted not to require the portion modified by preferably (“as needed and/or nozzle by nozzle”). Claims 4-7 are further rejected for being dependent on an indefinite claim. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 7 is further rejected because the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of compact prosecution, this claim has been interpreted not to require the portion modified by preferably (“as a duty cycle”). Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 9 is further rejected because the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of compact prosecution, this claim has been interpreted not to require the portion modified by for example (“a limit value for the system pressure”). Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0136671 (Kocer et al., hereinafter, Kocer).
Regarding Claim 1, Kocer discloses A method for control of an agricultural distribution machine, in particular a field sprayer, when spreading liquid distribution material (see at least FIG. 1 and FIG. 5), with the step of:
- determining or predefining at least one controlled variable, including a system pressure or a flow rate, for said distribution material, on the basis of which said distribution material is conveyed at least in sections along a liquid circuit formed within said distribution machine, wherein the controlled variable, in particular the system pressure or the flow rate, is adjusted by way of at least one, in particular central, metering and/or actuating element arranged along said liquid circuit (see at least [0028]-[0030] and FIG. 4: “The standard loop control module 46 includes a flow difference node 48 (e.g., a difference node or comparator), configured to associate and compare a system flow rate at a location 56 of the sprayer system such as a header, sprayer boom 4, boom section, nozzle assembly or the like (e.g., received from flowmeter 54) to the system target flow rate 42. The flow difference node 48 outputs a difference measurement (e.g., error) and delivers the difference measurement (error measurement) to a flow controller 50. The flow controller 50 calculates a corresponding control signal (e.g., voltage adjustment) that results in a pump 52 (valve or general flow controller) altering the flow rate of the agricultural product at the location 56 to approach the system target flow rate. That is, the flow controller 50 sends a signal to the pump 52 (valve or general flow controller) to adjust the agricultural product flow rate 56. In various examples, the pump 52 is an overall system pump upstream of the sprayer boom, such that the pump 52 is configured to adjust the agricultural product flow rate 56 for the entire boom 4 (or booms). In other examples, the pump 52 includes another flow controlling device such as an adjustable valve (e.g., a ball valve or the like).”; “Although FIG. 4 illustrates each control loop 46, 60 as having separate duplicative components (e.g., difference nodes 48, 62, flow meters 54, 80, and system flow rate locations 56,88) embodiments of the present agricultural delivery system include utilizing the same or separate components between the two control loops 46, 60.”),
wherein said agricultural distribution machine can be operated with different control strategies, wherein the controlled variable, which is adjusted by said at least one, in particular central, metering and/or actuating element is switched or at least substantially ignored based on said control strategies (see at least [0010], [0037], FIG. 3, and FIG. 4: “providing an automated overall control configuration configured to switch between at least two modes of agricultural product delivery flow control operations, including, but not limited to, flow based and pressure based”; “After calibration and storage of the pressure-flow rate matches (e.g., for an operating range of pressures and flow rates) measurement of the flow rate, for instance with the flow meter 80, is optional. Instead, measurement of the difference in pressure at the pressure difference node 72 is conducted based on the measured pressure with the pressure sensor 78 and target pressure provided from the database of the system database module 84 to accordingly adjust control of the pump 76 (valve or pump controller) to achieve the desired target flow rate.”).
Regarding Claim 2, Kocer discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Kocer discloses wherein said distribution material conveyed along said liquid circuit is adjusted to the determined and/or predefined system pressure in a selectable first control strategy (see at least [0037], [0048]-[0049], FIG. 3, and FIG. 4: cascade control 30 without the optional use of flow meter 80) and to the determined and/or predefined flow rate in a selectable second control strategy (see at least [0037], [0048]-[0049], FIG. 3, and FIG. 4: all instances using flow meter 54 and/or flow meter 80 including standard control 26 and cascade control 30 with the optional use of flow meter 80) by way of said at least one, in particular central, metering and/or actuating element (see at least [0028]-[0030] and FIG. 4: pump 52; “In other examples, the pump 52 includes another flow controlling device such as an adjustable valve (e.g., a ball valve or the like”; “Although FIG. 4 illustrates each control loop 46, 60 as having separate duplicative components (e.g., difference nodes 48, 62, flow meters 54, 80, and system flow rate locations 56,88) embodiments of the present agricultural delivery system include utilizing the same or separate components between the two control loops 46, 60.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Kocer discloses all the limitations of Claim 2. Furthermore, Kocer discloses further including:
- determining and/or predefining a spreading quantity with which said distribution material is spread, preferably as needed and/or nozzle by nozzle, via spreading nozzles, in particular spray nozzles, which are arranged on a spray boom of said distribution machine (see at least [0026]-[0028], FIG. 1, FIG. 3, and FIG. 4: target flow set/input 22, target flow 42);
wherein one or more metering and/or actuating elements are associated with several or each of said spreading nozzles, by way of which the flow rate is controlled in an open-loop or closed-loop manner in the first control strategy and the system pressure is controlled in an open-loop or closed-loop manner in the second control strategy (see at least [0026]-[0030], FIG. 3, and FIG. 4: “the pump 52 is associated with a section of the boom (e.g., a boom section), such that the pump 52 adjusts the agricultural product flow rate of the corresponding section of the boom and its associated nozzle assemblies”).
Regarding Claim 4, Kocer discloses all the limitations of Claim 3. Furthermore, Kocer discloses further comprising at least one of the following steps:
- detecting the flow rate by way of at least one measuring device, which is arranged along said liquid circuit (see at least FIG. 4: flowmeter 54, 80);
- determining and/or detecting, in particular valve-specific, adjustment parameters, which are adjusted in the second control strategy in dependence of the system pressure at the respective metering and/or actuating elements, or
- determining one or more relationships related to the system pressure between the flow rate and the respective, in particular valve-specific, adjustment parameters.
Regarding Claim 5, Kocer discloses all the limitations of Claim 3. Furthermore, Kocer discloses wherein the one or more relationships are determined based on the flow rate and the number of spreading nozzles (see at least [0029] and [0043]: “the pump 52 is associated with a section of the boom (e.g., a boom section), such that the pump 52 adjusts the agricultural product flow rate of the corresponding section of the boom and its associated nozzle assemblies”; “the method 100 includes providing a system database including a plurality of measured agricultural product system pressures respectively associated with corresponding flow rates for an agricultural sprayer configuration. For example, a measured agricultural product system pressure and flow rate association is recorded in the system database when the system operates at a specified pressure, for a given agricultural sprayer configuration (e.g., with a unique sprayer or a generic sprayer that varies insignificantly), and a corresponding agricultural product flow rate output is measured and associated with the specified pressure. The agricultural sprayer configuration is based at least on one of a width of a sprayer boom, a number of nozzles on the sprayer boom, a type of agricultural product dispersed, a type of agricultural field (e.g., soil, topology, etc.), a type of nozzle on the sprayer boom (e.g., orifice size, flow characteristic, or the like), and a type of crop the agricultural product is deliver to.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Kocer discloses all the limitations of Claim 3. Furthermore, Kocer discloses wherein said metering and/or actuating elements, in particular said spreading quantities, are adjusted in the first control strategy in dependence of and/or on the basis of the one or more relationships determined in the second control strategy (see at least [0037]: “The system database module 84 provides a database of accurate pressure-flow rate matches that directly correspond to the unique performance and characteristics of a sprayer system controlled with the control system 40. Because actual combinations of measured system pressures and corresponding flow rates are stored in the system database module 84 reuse of a measured system pressure as the target pressure for a desired flow rate ensures accurate delivery of the agricultural product at the desired flow rate. That is to say, the system database module 84 assesses the actual performance of a unique sprayer system (e.g., having varied lengths and diameters of tubing, elbows, fittings, nozzle profiles or the like) with pressure-flow rate matches, stores the matches in the system lookup module 82, and then uses those matches (through the system lookup module 82) in combination with a desired target flow rate to readily achieve the desired flow rate at the location 88. As described herein, a pressure value from the matches of the system lookup module 82 (corresponding to a target flow rate) is used with the cascade control module 60 including the pressure difference node 72 and the pressure controller 74 to accurately provide the desired target flow rate. After calibration and storage of the pressure-flow rate matches (e.g., for an operating range of pressures and flow rates) measurement of the flow rate, for instance with the flow meter 80, is optional. Instead, measurement of the difference in pressure at the pressure difference node 72 is conducted based on the measured pressure with the pressure sensor 78 and target pressure provided from the database of the system database module 84 to accordingly adjust control of the pump 76 (valve or pump controller) to achieve the desired target flow rate.”).
Regarding Claim 8, Kocer discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Kocer discloses wherein the control strategy of said distribution machine is changed, once or several times, before and/or during the spreading process of said distribution material from the first control strategy to the second control strategy (see at least [0010] and [0037]: “The automated overall control configuration automatically switches between the multiple control configurations based on a number of factors, such as flow rate, agricultural product pressure, geographical location, agricultural product type, mechanical failures, user input, stored historical information, measured or determined control events, and combinations thereof.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Kocer discloses all the limitations of Claim 8. Furthermore, Kocer discloses wherein the control strategy is changed for said conveyed distribution material following a change in the operating state of said distribution machine and/or an exceedance or undershot of defined flow values, for example a limit value for the system pressure (see at least [0026]-[0027], [0034], and [0040]: “In an example, the controller 44 selects the control loop modules 46, 60 based on the system target flow rate 42 relative to a specified threshold flow rate. For example, if the system target flow rate is below the specified threshold flow rate (e.g., 10 gpm) the cascade control module 60 (pressure based flow control) is used to ensure accurate control is achieved at the lower flow rates.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Kocer discloses all the limitations of Claim 2. Furthermore, Kocer discloses wherein the second control strategy is applied during one or more acceleration processes wherein several relationships with different flow rates are determined during the acceleration (see at least [0037], [0046]-[0047], and FIG. 7: “The system database module 84 provides a database of accurate pressure-flow rate matches that directly correspond to the unique performance and characteristics of a sprayer system controlled with the control system 40. Because actual combinations of measured system pressures and corresponding flow rates are stored in the system database module 84 reuse of a measured system pressure as the target pressure for a desired flow rate ensures accurate delivery of the agricultural product at the desired flow rate. That is to say, the system database module 84 assesses the actual performance of a unique sprayer system (e.g., having varied lengths and diameters of tubing, elbows, fittings, nozzle profiles or the like) with pressure-flow rate matches, stores the matches in the system lookup module 82, and then uses those matches (through the system lookup module 82) in combination with a desired target flow rate to readily achieve the desired flow rate at the location 88. As described herein, a pressure value from the matches of the system lookup module 82 (corresponding to a target flow rate) is used with the cascade control module 60 including the pressure difference node 72 and the pressure controller 74 to accurately provide the desired target flow rate. After calibration and storage of the pressure-flow rate matches (e.g., for an operating range of pressures and flow rates) measurement of the flow rate, for instance with the flow meter 80, is optional. Instead, measurement of the difference in pressure at the pressure difference node 72 is conducted based on the measured pressure with the pressure sensor 78 and target pressure provided from the database of the system database module 84 to accordingly adjust control of the pump 76 (valve or pump controller) to achieve the desired target flow rate.”; “At 124, the method 120 includes populating a system lookup database, such as with a system database module 84 that associates pressures with flow rates and a system lookup module 82 that stores and shares the associated values”).
Regarding Claim 11, Kocer discloses A field sprayer, for spreading liquid distribution material, preferably spraying agent (see at least [0024] and FIG. 1: agricultural sprayer 10), comprising:
- at least one liquid circuit along which said distribution material can be conveyed from at least one container to a plurality of spreading nozzles, in particular spray nozzles, wherein said spreading of nozzles are configured to spread said distribution material, in particular nozzle-by-nozzle and/or in a partial area-specific manner, at a determinable and/or predefineable spreading quantity (see at least [0024]-[0030], FIG. 1, and FIG. 4: “As illustrated in FIG. 1, an agricultural sprayer 10 includes a reservoir tank 2, one or more sprayer booms 4, including one or more sprayer assemblies 5, and a controller 6. In an example, the agricultural sprayer 10 includes an integral reservoir tank 2 or a tow behind reservoir tank. The reservoir tank 2, in an example, includes the agricultural product mixed with a carrier fluid, such as water, or the carrier fluid and the agricultural product are mixed in-line prior to or at the sprayer boom 4. The sprayer assemblies 5 are positioned along the sprayer boom 4 to deliver the agricultural product to a crop or an agricultural field 8.”; “The controller 6, as will be discussed herein, controls delivery of the agricultural product from the reservoir tank 2, to the sprayer boom 4 and the associated sprayer assemblies 5 for delivery to the agricultural field or crop.”); and
- at least one metering and/or actuating element arranged along said liquid circuit and configured to adjust a determinable and/or predefineable controlled variable, in particular a system pressure or a flow rate, for said distribution material conveyed along said liquid circuit; wherein said distribution machine for spreading said spreading material can be operated with different control strategies, wherein said distribution machine, in particular an associated open-loop and/or closed-loop control of system is configured to switch or at least to substantially ignore the controlled variable, which can be adjusted by at least one, in particular central, metering and/or actuating element, based on the control strategies (see at least [0026]-[0028], FIG. 3, and FIG. 4: “FIG. 4 illustrates a detailed schematic view of one example of an agricultural sprayer control system 40 including flow control and pressure based flow control. At the input module 42, a system target flow rate is entered by a user or by the control system 40 (e.g., based on prescribed sprayer flow rates, for instance from a field map). The system target flow rate, in one example, includes a volume of agricultural product per time or a volume of agricultural product per area (e.g., acre, square foot, or the like). The controller 44 (e.g., an electronic control unit (ECU)) receives the system target flow rate from the input module 42 and selects the standard loop control module 46 or the cascade control module 60.”; “The standard loop control module 46 includes a flow difference node 48 (e.g., a difference node or comparator), configured to associate and compare a system flow rate at a location 56 of the sprayer system such as a header, sprayer boom 4, boom section, nozzle assembly or the like (e.g., received from flowmeter 54) to the system target flow rate 42. The flow difference node 48 outputs a difference measurement (e.g., error) and delivers the difference measurement (error measurement) to a flow controller 50. The flow controller 50 calculates a corresponding control signal (e.g., voltage adjustment) that results in a pump 52 (valve or general flow controller) altering the flow rate of the agricultural product at the location 56 to approach the system target flow rate. That is, the flow controller 50 sends a signal to the pump 52 (valve or general flow controller) to adjust the agricultural product flow rate 56. In various examples, the pump 52 is an overall system pump upstream of the sprayer boom, such that the pump 52 is configured to adjust the agricultural product flow rate 56 for the entire boom 4 (or booms). In other examples, the pump 52 includes another flow controlling device such as an adjustable valve (e.g., a ball valve or the like).”).
Regarding Claim 13, Kocer discloses all the limitations of Claim 10. Furthermore, Kocer discloses wherein the acceleration process is a calibration of said distribution machine (see at least [0047]: “During calibration, the measured pressure and associated flow rates are logged (e.g., at a series of specified pressures) for the agricultural product delivery system profile”).
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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kocer in further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0348718 (Preheim et al., hereinafter, Preheim).
Regarding Claim 7, Kocer discloses all the limitations of Claim 3. Kocer does not explicitly disclose wherein said metering and/or actuating elements are configured to release said distribution material in a pulse width modulated manner, wherein at least one adjustment parameter of said metering and/or actuating elements is configured as a pulse width and/or pulse frequency, preferably as a duty cycle. In the same field of controls for agricultural spreaders, and therefore analogous art, Preheim teaches wherein said metering and/or actuating elements are configured to release said distribution material in a pulse width modulated manner, wherein at least one adjustment parameter of said metering and/or actuating elements is configured as a pulse width and/or pulse frequency, preferably as a duty cycle (see at least [0029] and FIG. 4: “The master node 42 controls a system pressure using, for example, the master PSI transducer 46 and the master pulse width modulation (PWM) valve 48”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the teachings of Kocer with the teachings of Preheim because Kocer discloses a valve could be the element controlled in the feedback loops and the PWM valves taught by Preheim are a specific type of valve that can be used in a pressure control system (see at least Preheim [0029]).
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0112372 which teaches “an advanced spray control system, which includes a controller providing the spray control system or the operator of the sprayer the flexibility of utilizing a flow volume-based closed loop control system, a pressure-based closed loop control system, or both of these closed loop control systems, to control the performance of a sprayer”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658