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
Claims 1-11 and 13-17 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein. Claim 12 is cancelled. Claims 1-11 and 13 are amended. Claims 14-17 are new.
Response to Amendment / Remarks
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the non-final rejection dated 17 February 2026.
All objections to the claims from the prior office action are withdrawn.
All rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) from the prior office action are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 18 May 2026, regarding the prior art rejections from the prior office action, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that because flow is the target variable / there is a “desired flow rate” in the cascade control module 60 that controlled variable is not switched or at least ignored. This argument is not persuasive. While FIG. 4 shows “target flow 42” and a “flow 88” as the input and output to the cascade control module 60, a look-up table relates the target flow to a pressure, and then a pump (valve) 76 is controlled to maintain the corresponding pressure. Measuring the flow rate in the cascade control module 60 is optional, so one of ordinary skill would not consider flow rate to be the controlled variable, and would consider that the controlled variable is switched from flow (in standard control module 46, the flow is measured in flowmeter 54 as part of a feedback loop) to pressure (in cascade control module 60, pressure is measured by pressure sensor 78 as part of a feedback loop). See at least [0037]: “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” (emphasis added).
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 switching 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 switching 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).
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “at least ignored” should be “
Claim 11: “at least to ignore” should be “
Claim 15: “said metering and/or actuating elements” should be “said one or more metering and/or switching
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 1-2, 8-11, 13, and 17 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), comprising:
- determining or predefining at least one controlled variable, including a system pressure or a flow rate, for said liquid distribution material, on the basis of which said liquid distribution material is conveyed at least in sections along a liquid circuit formed within said agricultural distribution machine, wherein the at least one controlled variable 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 at least one controlled variable, which is adjusted by said at least one, in particular central, metering and/or actuating element is switched or at least 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 liquid 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 8, Kocer discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Kocer discloses wherein the control strategy of said agricultural distribution machine is changed, once or several times, before and/or during the spreading process of said liquid distribution material from a first control strategy to a 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 liquid distribution material following a change in the operating state of said agricultural distribution machine and/or an exceedance or undershot of defined flow values (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 one or more acceleration processes (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 (see at least [0024] and FIG. 1: agricultural sprayer 10), comprising:
- at least one liquid circuit along which said liquid distribution material can be conveyed from at least one container to a plurality of spreading nozzles, in particular spray nozzles, wherein said spreading nozzles are configured to spread said liquid 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 liquid distribution material conveyed along said liquid circuit; wherein said field sprayer for spreading said liquid distribution material can be operated with different control strategies, wherein said field sprayer, in particular an associated open-loop and/or closed-loop control system is configured to switch or at least to ignore the controlled variable, which can be adjusted by the 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 agricultural 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”).
Regarding Claim 17, Kocer discloses all the limitations of Claim 11. Furthermore, Kocer discloses wherein said liquid distribution material is a spraying agent (see at least [0024] and FIG. 1: “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”; “Agricultural products include, but are not limited to, fertilizers, water, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, or the like”).
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.
Claims 3-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kocer in further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0015020 (Needham et al., hereinafter, Needham) and U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0348718 (Preheim et al., hereinafter, Preheim).
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 liquid distribution material is spread via spreading nozzles, in particular spray nozzles, which are arranged on a spray boom of said agricultural distribution machine (see at least [0026]-[0028], FIG. 1, FIG. 3, and FIG. 4: target flow set/input 22, target flow 42).
In combination with all the other limitations, Kocer does not explicitly disclose wherein one or more metering and/or switching 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.
In the same field of controls for agricultural spreaders, and therefore analogous art, Needham teaches wherein one or more metering and/or switching elements are associated with several or each of said spreading nozzles, by way of which …the system pressure is controlled in an open-loop or closed-loop manner in the second control strategy (see at least [0030], [0037], [0040], FIG. 2, and FIG.6: “the nozzle assembly 34 is a direct acting solenoid valve equipped nozzle configured to pulse with a frequency and duty cycle such that an orifice 40 is active only when the nozzle assembly 34 is open”; “The pressure controller 154 is configured to control certain operating parameters of the nozzle assemblies 134 in order to control an upstream nozzle pressure”).
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 and Needham (i.e., add pressure control to the nozzles while flow rate is centrally controlled in the system) to maintain a consistent droplet size at the nozzle when the centrally-controlled flow rate changes (see at least Needham [0041]).
In the same field of controls for agricultural spreaders, and therefore analogous art, Preheim teaches wherein one or more metering and/or switching 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… (see at least [0027], FIG. 4, and FIG. 5: “one or more nozzles 52 located on a boom 50 are capable of controlling a respective nozzle flow rate of an agricultural product dispensed from the nozzle 52”).
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 and Preheim (i.e., add smart nozzles with nozzle-by-nozzle flow rate control for use during central system pressure control) so that each nozzle can be individually adjusted for better control based on factors like nozzle position relative to a field map (see at least Preheim [0030]-[0031] and [0041]).
Regarding Claim 4, the Kocer, Needham, and Preheim combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Furthermore, Kocer further discloses further comprising:
- 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 one or more metering and/or switching 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, the Kocer, Needham, and Preheim combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Furthermore, Kocer further discloses wherein 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, the Kocer, Needham, and Preheim combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Furthermore, Kocer further discloses system pressure adjusted in the first control strategy in dependence of and/or on the basis of 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.”).
Therefore, wherein said one or more metering and/or switching elements, in particular said spreading quantities, are adjusted in the first control strategy in dependence of and/or on the basis of one or more relationships determined in the second control strategy is taught by the combination of Kocer and Preheim (using the existing combination / motivation to combine from Claim 3), since in Preheim the system pressure is part of what is used to determine the flow rate of each smart nozzle (see at least Preheim [0031]: “in at least some examples, the master node 42 reports the actual pressure, measured by the master PSI transducer 46, as well as boom 50 information, including, but not limited to, one or more of yaw rate, speed, number of smart nozzles of the boom, distance between smart nozzles on the boom, to the smart nozzles 52 (or ECUs, as described herein) for individual flow rate control of each of the smart nozzles 52. For example, the information provided from the master node 42 is used in addition to nozzle characteristics to control the individual flow rate control of each smart nozzle 52. Nozzle characteristics include, but are not limited to nozzle position on a boom, length of the boom, nozzle spacing, target flow rate for the system, yaw rate of the boom, yaw rate of the agricultural sprayer, speed of the agricultural sprayer, the overall system pressure, and agricultural product characteristics”).
Regarding Claim 7, the Kocer, Needham, and Preheim combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 3.
Furthermore, Needham teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 3) wherein said one or more metering and/or switching elements are configured to release said liquid distribution material in a pulse width modulated manner, wherein at least one adjustment parameter of said one or more metering and/or switching elements is configured as a pulse width and/or pulse frequency (see at least [0030] and [0040]: “the nozzle assembly 34 is a direct acting solenoid valve equipped nozzle configured to pulse with a frequency and duty cycle such that an orifice 40 is active only when the nozzle assembly 34 is open”).
Furthermore, Preheim teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 3) wherein said one or more metering and/or switching elements are configured to release said liquid distribution material in a pulse width modulated manner, wherein at least one adjustment parameter of said one or more metering and/or switching elements is configured as a pulse width and/or pulse frequency (see at least FIG. 5: PWM valve 73).
Regarding Claim 14, the Kocer, Needham, and Preheim combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Furthermore, Kocer further discloses wherein said spreading quantity is spread via said spreading nozzles as needed and/or nozzle by nozzle (see at least [0026] and FIG. 1: “the controller uses one or more of the flow rates for varying field conditions, field map prescriptions or the like”).
Regarding Claim 15, the Kocer, Needham, and Preheim combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 7.
Furthermore, Needham teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 3) wherein said at least one adjustment parameter of said metering and/or actuating elements is configured as a duty cycle (see at least [0030], [0040], and FIG. 5: “the nozzle assembly 34 is a direct acting solenoid valve equipped nozzle configured to pulse with a frequency and duty cycle such that an orifice 40 is active only when the nozzle assembly 34 is open”).
Furthermore, Preheim teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 3) wherein said at least one adjustment parameter of said metering and/or actuating elements is configured as a duty cycle (see at least [0062] and [0071]: duty cycle of the smart nozzle controlled).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kocer in further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0112372 (hereinafter, Peterson).
Regarding Claim 16, Kocer discloses all the limitations of Claim 9. Furthermore, Kocer discloses switching control strategies (see at least [0026]-[0027], [0034], and [0040]-[0041]: “The controller 24, in an example, automatically switches between the standard control 26 and the cascade control 30 (e.g., at a flow threshold)”; “In another example, a user selects one of the control loop modules 46, 60 to control the delivery of the agricultural product. In another example, the agricultural sprayer control system 40 uses one of the cascade control module 60 or the standard loop control module 46 when the other of the standard loop and cascade control modules 46, 60 malfunctions, such as due to flow meter error or other mechanical failure.”; “The method 100 includes controlling the agricultural product flow rate by pressure-based flow control (e.g., with the cascade control module 60). At 108A, the method includes providing an agricultural product target pressure based on at least one system pressure characteristic. The at least one system pressure characteristic includes, but is not limited to, an input target pressure (e.g., from the input selector module 64, FIG. 4), a standby pressure (e.g., from the standby pressure module 66, FIG. 4), a flow difference corresponding target pressure (e.g., from the controller 68, FIG. 4), a logged target pressure (e.g., from the system lookup module 82, FIG. 4), or combinations thereof”), but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the control strategy is changed for said conveyed liquid distribution material following an exceedance or undershot of a limit value for the system pressure.
Peterson, in the same field of spray control, and therefore analogous art, teaches wherein the control strategy is changed for said conveyed liquid distribution material following an exceedance or undershot of a limit value for the system pressure (see at least [0015]-[0016]: “The present invention relates generally to methods and systems for controlling the performance of sprayers, which offer the flexibility of controlling the performance of sprayers utilizing feedback signals from both flow sensors and pressure transducers, or switching to a second feedback control system where the designated feedback control system has failed”; “the controller may override the choice of the operator in the selection of the feedback control method, for example, where the operating limits of the selected feedback source have been exceeded, or where the selected feedback source has failed (e.g., due to a component failure)”).
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 Peterson (specifically, switching out of pressure feedback control, when a pressure operating limit is exceeded) with the motivation of ensuring control methods are only used within their operating limits (see at least Peterson [0016]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights