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 .
Drawing Objections
Figure 8 is objected to for including a flowchart that is only labeled by numbers, not written language. The figure should be amended to describe the depicted process with words.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. In the Instant Application, the term being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is “control device” in Claim 12.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If the Applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 contains the term “control device.” The Examiner could not find support for the structure of this term in the Specification. The Applicant should amend the limitation to be commensurate in scope with the Specification, or clarify where existing support is provided.
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 1, 5, 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 1, 5, 7-13 recite determining a “machine- and spreading material-specific and lane-independent maximum working width.” The Examiner believes this phrase requires additional clarification. The Examiner could not ascertain what “determining a machine” means. The Examiner also believes that the descriptors “lane-independent,” and “maximum working width” should be defined in the claim. The Specification states that “the term ‘maximum working width’ refers to both a maximum technically possible working width, hereinafter also referred to as ‘theoretical maximum working width’, and a maximum working width that the system may achieve at a substantially constant level, taking into account external influences, hereinafter also referred to as ‘variance-stable maximum working width.’” The Applicant should amend the claims to clarify which definition applies. The Examiner is interpreting the phrase “machine- and spreading material-specific and lane-independent maximum working width” as describing a width that has five distinct characteristics: that the width is (1) specific to a particular spreading or agricultural machine, (2) specific to a particular spreading material, (3) not specific to a particular lane width, (4) the maximum value of a range of possible widths, and (5) a width that is used to define the distance between working lanes, as opposed to a width that describes the horizontal distribution of the spreading material after it has been spread. The Applicant should confirm these limitations explicitly within at least the independent claims, or provide alternate definitions for these descriptors, commensurate with the Specification.
Claim 5 recites “the electronic data processing device, when calculating the machine- and spreading material-specific and lane-independent maximum working width, takes into account adherence to one or more minimum requirements relating to the lateral distribution of the spreading material.” The Examiner could not ascertain what this means. In a material-spreading operation, it could be inherently assumed that the spread material should be spread over some minimum lateral distance. The Examiner is also unsure how a maximum value can be determined in light of a minimum value. If the maximum width is the highest value of a range, and the minimum width is the minimum value of that range, it isn’t clear or intuitive how determining the maximum value requires accounting for the minimum value.
Claims 9, 10 use the phrase “uses as a basis a notional spreading scenario.” The Examiner believes this phrase requires additional clarification. It is not clear what “notional” means, or how the notional scenario is used as a basis for the width calculation. The Examiner is interpreting this phrase to be similar in meaning to the “theoretical” values used in Claim 4, wherein external influences are assumed and subtracted in order to determine a final output.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the electronic data processing device, when calculating the machine- and spreading material-specific and lane-independent maximum working width, uses as a basis a notional spreading scenario, in which the spreading pattern is subject to fluctuations due to one or more assumed external influences, in particular an assumed wind influence.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim refers to any external influence that may or may not be wind-related. As such, as the claim is currently written, the limitation “in particular an assumed wind influence,” does not carry any patentable weight. The Applicant should either amend the claim to be explicitly directed to a wind-related influence, or remove the “in particular” language from the claim.
Claim 12 recites a “control device.” The Examiner could not ascertain what type of device this is (digital, mechanical, etc.). The term “control device” is only mentioned once in the Specification, which recites that it “adjusts setting parameters,” but does not offer any insight as to its structure. The Examiner is interpreting this term to mean a digital computer or processor.
These claims should be amended to more clearly convey the meanings of these limitations, consistent with the Specification.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over De Boer (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0174861 A1) in view of Bremer (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0016309 A1).
In regard to Claim 1, De Boer teaches a method for determining a machine- and spreading material-specific and lane-independent maximum working width for a spreading operation, comprising:
Throwing spreading material by means of at least one spreader disk of an agricultural spreader (see Abstract lines 1-2, Paragraph 22 teaching an agricultural spreading system utilizing a disc spreader); and
Detecting the thrown spreading material by means of a sensory spreading material detection system of the agricultural spreader (see Abstract teaching that the system detects digital image data by a monitoring device, the digital image data being indicative of a partial quantity of the spreading material located in the vicinity of a dosing opening at the time of detecting the digital image data).
De Boer fails to teach calculating the width using an electronic data processing device, the electronic data processing device taking into account, when calculating the width, measured values determined by the spreading material detection system and/or one or more spreading parameters derived therefrom.
However, Bremer teaches calculating the width using an electronic data processing device, the electronic data processing device taking into account, when calculating the width, measured values determined by the spreading material detection system and/or one or more spreading parameters derived therefrom (see Figure 2B, Paragraph 19 lines 3-7, Paragraph 24 lines 7-10 teaching a spraying system that detects the width of a spray fan, and also determines other parameters of the spray pattern, including droplet size and distribution density, using a control module 22).
De Boer and Bremer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of machines that detect parameters of ejected or sprayed material using electronically-enabled sensor systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Boer’s invention to incorporate a feature that could determine various spray or ejection parameters, including spray width as taught by Bremer. Doing so could improve a spreading machine by enabling a user to determine how wide a spray pattern is. This could lead to faster, less wasteful spraying or spreading operations.
In regard to Claim 2, De Boer fails to teach wherein the measured values determined by the spreading material detection system or the one or more spreading parameters derived therefrom relate to the distribution of the thrown spreading material or the ejection direction of the thrown spreading material.
However, Bremer teaches wherein the measured values determined by the spreading material detection system or the one or more spreading parameters derived therefrom relate to the distribution of the thrown spreading material or the ejection direction of the thrown spreading material (see Paragraph 22 lines 1-5, Paragraph 24 lines 7-10 teaching that optical sensors emit light towards the liquid spray and receive returns of the light due to reflection, which enables the sensors to determine the distribution of liquid droplets in the spray pattern).
De Boer and Bremer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of machines that detect parameters of ejected or sprayed material using electronically-enabled sensor systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Boer’s invention to incorporate a sensory system capable of determining the distribution or density of deposited material within a spray or ejection pattern as taught by Bremer. Doing so could improve spreading operations by enabling users to determine whether a spreading operation pattern or ejection profile needs to be altered in order to obtain the optimal distribution of deposited material on a target surface. This could increase operation speed and efficiency, and reduce waste.
In regard to Claim 5, De Boer further teaches wherein the electronic data processing device takes into account adherence to one or more minimum requirements relating to the lateral distribution of the spreading material (see Paragraph 17 lines 1-9, Paragraph 33 lines 1-4 teaching that the system uses data processors in a control device to determine control parameters such as spreader disc rotation speed and working width).
The rest of Claim 5 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (wherein the system obtains a calculated machine- and spreading material-specific and lane-independent maximum working width at the spreader). Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
In regard to Claim 8, De Boer further teaches determining the current configuration or one or more current operating parameters of the agricultural spreader (see Paragraph 17 lines 1-9 teaching that the system determines the speed of rotation of the spreader disc).
De Boer fails to teach wherein the electronic data processing device takes into account the determined current configuration or the determined current operating parameter or parameters when calculating the machine- and spreading material-specific and lane-independent maximum working width.
However, Bremer teaches wherein the electronic data processing device takes into account the determined current configuration or the determined current operating parameter or parameters of the spreader when calculating the machine- and spreading material-specific and lane-independent maximum working width (see Figure 2B, Paragraph 19 lines 3-7, Paragraph 24 lines 7-10 teaching a spraying system that detects the width of a spray fan, and also determines other parameters of the spray pattern, including droplet size and distribution density, using a control module 22).
De Boer and Bremer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of machines that detect parameters of ejected or sprayed material using electronically-enabled sensor systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Boer’s invention to incorporate a sensory system capable of determining a spray width, as well as the distribution or density of deposited material within the spray or ejection pattern as taught by Bremer. Doing so could improve spreading operations by enabling users to determine whether a spreading operation pattern or ejection profile needs to be altered in order to obtain the optimal distribution of deposited material over a specific width on a target surface. This could increase spreading operation speed and efficiency, and reduce waste.
In regard to Claim 11, De Boer fails to teach wherein the electronic data processing device, when calculating the machine- and spreading material-specific and lane-independent maximum working width, takes into account a spreading pattern tolerance mode set by the operator or a tolerated spreading pattern fluctuation set by the operator.
However, Bremer teaches wherein the electronic data processing device, when calculating the machine- and spreading material-specific and lane-independent maximum working width, takes into account a spreading pattern tolerance mode set by the operator or a tolerated spreading pattern fluctuation set by the operator (see Paragraph 59 lines 1-13 teaching that spray pattern liquid concentration variation limits can be stored in the system’s memory 54 or controller 40).
De Boer and Bremer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of machines that detect parameters of ejected or sprayed material using electronically-enabled sensor systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Boer’s invention to incorporate a feature capable of setting limits or tolerances for spreading pattern fluctuation as taught by Bremer. Doing so could improve a spreading system by automatically informing a user when the material being deposited is excessively sparse or uneven.
In regard to Claim 12, De Boer further teaches wherein a control device causes an automatic adjustment of setting parameters (see Paragraph 46 lines 2-6 teaching that the system can automatically set itself up, enabling continuous setting updates).
The rest of Claim 12 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (wherein the system obtains a calculated machine- and spreading material-specific and lane-independent maximum working width at the spreader). Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
Claim 13 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over De Boer (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0174861 A1) in view of Bremer (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0016309 A1), in further view of Stocklin (U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0263713 A1).
In regard to Claim 3, De Boer fails to teach wherein the measured values determined by the spreading material detection system or the one or more spreading parameters derived therefrom relate to the flight speed of the thrown spreading material or the ejection range of the thrown spreading material.
However, Stocklin teaches wherein the measured values determined by the spreading material detection system or the one or more spreading parameters derived therefrom relate to the flight speed of the thrown spreading material or the ejection range of the thrown spreading material (see Paragraphs 54-56, Paragraph 61 lines 11-16 teaching a spreading system that determines parameters of granular material to be spread, including flight properties of the granular material, including speed, as well as a desired working width).
De Boer and Stocklin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spreading machine systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Boer’s invention to incorporate a system capable of determining the flight speed of spreading material as it is ejected as taught by Stocklin. Doing so could improve a spreading machine by obtaining information that could be vital to determine a desired spreading profile. Ejection or flight speed of spreading material is directly related to the distance it travels between being ejected from the machine and landing on a surface. Detecting this information could enable users to validate that a selected or generated spreading profile is accurate for a specific spreading operation. This could decrease waste and improve efficiency.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over De Boer (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0174861 A1) in view of Bremer (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0016309 A1), in further view of Schoels (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0235142 A1).
In regard to Claim 6, De Boer fails to teach wherein the throwing of the spreading material or the detecting of thrown spreading material using the spreading material detection system are performed at one or more calibration speeds at the at least one spreader disk or when using a calibration speed window at the at least one spreader disk.
However, Schoels teaches wherein the throwing of the spreading material or the detecting of thrown spreading material using the spreading material detection system are performed at one or more calibration speeds at the at least one spreader disk or when using a calibration speed window at the at least one spreader disk (see Paragraph 10 lines 8-14 teaching a spreader system that perform disk speed calibration prior to spreading operations).
De Boer and Schoels are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spreader systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Boer’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein the spreader disk speed is calibrated as taught by Schoels. Doing so could improve a spreading system by ensuring that spreader speeds are accurately determined or recorded prior to or during spreading operations. This could improve a spreader system by improving accuracy, particularly when creating or modifying spreading profiles. Specific profiles or custom settings could be inaccurate if the spreader disc speeds aren’t correct when recorded or if the disk perpetually becomes de-calibrated.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over De Boer (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0174861 A1) in view of Bremer (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0016309 A1), in further view of Linz (U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0224896 A1).
In regard to Claim 7, De Boer fails to teach determining, in a sensor-based manner, the quantity or the weight of the spreading material located on the at least one spreader disk;
Wherein the electronic data processing device takes into account the quantity determined in a sensor-based manner or the weight determined in a sensor-based manner of the spreading material located on the at least one spreader disk.
However, Linz teaches determining, in a sensor-based manner, the quantity or the weight of the spreading material located on the at least one spreader disk (see Paragraph 16 lines 1-7 teaching a spreading system that weighs the material on a disc spreader);
Wherein the electronic data processing device takes into account the quantity determined in a sensor-based manner or the weight determined in a sensor-based manner of the spreading material located on the at least one spreader disk (see Paragraph 16 lines 1-7, Paragraph 22 lines 11-16 teaching that the weight calculations are used to determine mass flow, which is used as a variable for a desired working width function).
De Boer and Linz are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spreader systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Boer’s invention to incorporate a feature that accounts for the weight of material to be spread as taught by Linz. Doing so could improve a spreader system by validating distribution or density profiles. This could lead to less errors, indications of malfunctions or calibration issues, and increase spreading operation efficiency.
The rest of Claim 7 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (wherein the system obtains a calculated machine- and spreading material-specific and lane-independent maximum working width at the spreader). Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
Claims 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over De Boer (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0174861 A1) in view of Bremer (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0016309 A1), in further view of Younis (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0020087 A1).
In regard to Claim 9, De Boer fails to teach wherein the electronic data processing device uses as a basis a notional spreading scenario, in which the spreading pattern is subject to statistical fluctuations.
However, Younis teaches wherein the electronic data processing device uses as a basis a notional spreading scenario, in which the spreading pattern is subject to statistical fluctuations (see Paragraph 28 lines 6-12 teaching a robotic irrigation system that performs corrections to an ejected water stream, the corrections necessitated by pressure variations).
De Boer and Younis are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural machines that disperse material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Boer’s invention to incorporate an ejection system that accounts for expected variations due to ambient pressure as taught by Younis. Doing so could improve a spreader system by increasing the accuracy of a projected or desired distribution profile.
The rest of Claim 9 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (wherein the system obtains a calculated machine- and spreading material-specific and lane-independent maximum working width at the spreader). Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
In regard to Claim 10, De Boer fails to teach wherein the electronic data processing device uses as a basis a notional spreading scenario, in which the spreading pattern is subject to fluctuations due to one or more assumed external influences, in particular an assumed wind influence.
However, Younis teaches wherein the electronic data processing device uses as a basis a notional spreading scenario, in which the spreading pattern is subject to fluctuations due to one or more assumed external influences, in particular an assumed wind influence (see Paragraph 28 lines 6-12 teaching a robotic irrigation system that performs corrections to an ejected water stream, the corrections necessitated by wind).
De Boer and Younis are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of agricultural machines that disperse material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Boer’s invention to incorporate an ejection system that accounts for expected variations due to wind as taught by Younis. Doing so could improve a spreader system by increasing the accuracy of a projected or desired distribution profile.
The rest of Claim 10 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (wherein the system obtains a calculated machine- and spreading material-specific and lane-independent maximum working width at the spreader). Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
De Boer (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0174861 A1) teaches a spreading system that uses electronic sensors to determine parameters of spread material during the spreading process (see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections above).
Bremer (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0016309 A1) teaches an electronic liquid-spraying system that uses optical sensors as well as nozzle sensors to determine parameters of a spraying liquid during the spraying process (see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections above).
However, these references, and all other references included in the rejections above fail to teach the limitations of Claim 4 wherein the electronic data processing device calculates a theoretical maximum ejection range or a theoretical maximum working width on the basis of the determined flight speed of the thrown spreading material or the determined ejection direction of the thrown spreading material, wherein the electronic data processing device, when calculating the machine- and spreading material-specific and lane-independent maximum working width, reduces the theoretical maximum ejection range or the theoretical maximum working width to a variance-stable maximum ejection range or a variance-stable maximum working width in order to take into account expected external influences on the distribution of the spreading material.
As a result of the features recited in Claim 4, the invention produces the advantageous effects of enabling a spreading system to determine a baseline ejection profile, and modify that profile based on expected variances. This could improve a spreading system by enabling custom modification to be made to an otherwise standard spreading profile. For example, a standard spreading profile could be loaded or readied, and then variance modifications could be implemented to the profile based on data pertaining to weather, material to be spread, etc. This could increase spreading efficiency and decrease time preparing the spreading machine for work.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL W ARELLANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramon Mercado, can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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.
/PAUL W ARELLANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
