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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9-12, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applicant’s cited WO 2021180621, hereinafter Trentmann (also see attached translation).
Regarding claim 1, Trentmann (FIG 4) discloses “A method of operating a pulse width modulation (PWM) valve (abstract) for a fluid application comprising:
applying full current for a first period of time (t1-t4) to fully open the PWM valve (F position in FIG 3);
applying a reduced current for a reduced current value that is from 0 up to a dissipating threshold value that is below full current for a second period of time to rapidly dissipate energy and minimize power consumption of the PWM valve that is fully open for the second period of time (t4-t5, seen to be reduced relative to t4 as the current continuously decreases from t4 to t5, like applicant’s FIG. 8); and
applying a holding current (at 40) for a third period of time (t5-t6) to hold the PWM valve fully open for the fluid application (stays at F).”
Regarding claim 7, Trentmann (FIG 4) discloses “wherein the holding current is designed as a minimum current to hold the PWM valve fully open for the fluid application (FIG 4, current at 40 is minimum current while valve is at F).”
Regarding claim 9, Trentmann (FIG 4) discloses “further comprising:
generating a first PWM signal having a first duty cycle (all control is via pwm having a duty cycle) for the reduced current (at t4-t5);
and generating a second PWM signal having a second duty cycle (all control is via pwm having a duty cycle) for the holding current (at t5-t6).”
Regarding claim 10, Trentmann (FIGs 1-2, 4) discloses “A fluid application system comprising:
a pulse width modulation (PWM) valve (10) disposed on an implement (page 2 paragraph 1); and
a controller (26) coupled to the PWM valve, wherein the controller is configured to apply full current for a first period of time (t1-t4) to fully open the PWM valve (F in FIG 4), to apply a reduced current for a reduced current value that is from 0 up to a dissipating threshold value that is below full current for a second period of time to rapidly dissipate energy in the PWM valve that is fully open (t4-t5, seen to be reduced relative to t4 as the current continuously decreases from t4 to t5, like applicant’s FIG. 8), and to apply a holding current (at 40) for a third period of time (t5-t6) to hold the PWM valve fully open for a fluid application to a field (stays at F).”
Regarding claim 11, Trentmann (FIGs 1-2, 4) discloses “further comprising:
additional PWM valves disposed along a boom of the implement or disposed on each row unit of the implement (page 6 second paragraph); and
a plurality of nozzles disposed along the boom of the implement or disposed on each row unit of the implement (page 7 fourth paragraph).”
Regarding claim 12, Trentmann (FIGs 1-2, 4) discloses “wherein each nozzle is connected to or integrated with a PWM valve to spray the fluid application from each nozzle (page 7 fourth paragraph).”
Regarding claim 18, Trentmann (FIG 4) discloses “wherein the holding current is designed as a minimum current to hold the PWM valve fully open for the fluid application (FIG 4, current at 40 is minimum current while valve is at F).”
Regarding claim 20, Trentmann (FIG 4) discloses “wherein the controller is further configured to generate a first PWM signal having a first duty cycle (all control is via pwm having a duty cycle) for the reduced current (at t4-t5) and to generate a second PWM signal having a second duty cycle (all control is via pwm having a duty cycle) for the holding current (at t5-t6).”
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.
Claim(s) 2-6, 8, 13-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trentmann.
Regarding claims 2-4 and 13-15, Trentmann is silent regarding “wherein the reduced current value is 0 to 20 % of a full current value”, “wherein the reduced current value is 5% to 15% of the full current value”, and “wherein the reduced current value is 8% to 12% of the full current value.”
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to specify the relationship between the full current value and reduced current value of Trentmann to a preferred ratio, in this case that “wherein the reduced current value is 0 to 20 % of a full current value”, “wherein the reduced current value is 5% to 15% of the full current value”, and “wherein the reduced current value is 8% to 12% of the full current value”, as Trentmann already has a reduced current value and full current value, and choosing a preferred reduced/full current value ratio to achieve the same expected result (decreasing current past the peak, eventually reaching a minimum open current, like applicant’s FIG 8) would be within routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 5-6 and 16-17, Trentmann is silent regarding “wherein the second period of time is 0.20 milliseconds to 2.0 milliseconds” and “wherein the second period of time is 1.0 milliseconds to 1.5 milliseconds.”
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to specify the reduced current phase duration of Trentmann to be a preferred value, in this case that “wherein the second period of time is 0.20 milliseconds to 2.0 milliseconds” and “wherein the second period of time is 1.0 milliseconds to 1.5 milliseconds”, as Trentmann already has a reduced current value for a brief time, and choosing a preferred brief time duration to achieve the same expected result (decreasing current past the peak, eventually reaching a minimum open current, for a brief time, like applicant’s FIG 8) would be within routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Trentmann is silent regarding “wherein the holding current for a holding current value is 70% to 80% of the full current value.”
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to specify the relationship between the full current value and the holding current value of Trentmann to a preferred ratio, in this case that “wherein the holding current for a holding current value is 70% to 80% of the full current value”, as Trentmann already has a holding current value and full current value, and choosing a preferred holding/full current value ratio to achieve the same expected result (decreasing current past the peak, eventually reaching a minimum open current, like applicant’s FIG 8) would be within routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Devices similar to the application are disclosed by Grimm (US 9763381), Polk (US 6883726), McNabb (US 5927603), and Giles (US 5134961).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)431-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/PATRICK C WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights