DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on June 29, 2026. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended, no claims have been canceled, and no claims added. Thus, claims 1 – 13 and 15 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 13 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over cited WO 2020161689 A1 to Decaro (herein after “Decaro publication”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0174933 A1 to Smith (herein after "Smith publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1, 11 – 13 and 15,
the Decaro publication discloses an apparatus for operating an agricultural device, the apparatus comprising:
one or more computing nodes and one or more computer-readable media having thereon computer-executable instructions that are structured such that, when executed by the one or more computing nodes, cause the apparatus to perform the following steps (see FIGS. 1 and ¶30 for “a platform for monitoring and controlling sprayers, such as sprayers used by farmers in crop fields to apply fungicides”; see also FIG. 15 and ¶68 for “one or more cloud computing nodes 1502 with which local computing devices used by cloud consumers, such as, computer 1512 connected to sprayer 1510, mobile device 1508, and sprayer 1506 may communicate”):
providing agricultural operation data for an agricultural device, wherein the agricultural operation data comprise treatment operation data and/or monitoring operation data (see ¶30 for “a platform for monitoring and controlling sprayers . . . used by farmers in crop fields to apply fungicides”; see also ¶36 – ¶39, where the platform for monitoring and controlling the sprayers use “configuration information about the sprayer 102” and “product information 116 which can include recommended sprayer settings and recommended sprayers for particular products (e.g., pesticides and fertilizers)”);
wherein, in case the agricultural operation data comprise treatment operation data and monitoring operation data, control data for controlling a treatment unit of the agricultural device are provided based on monitoring data provided by a monitoring unit of the agricultural device (see ¶36 – ¶39, where the Decaro publication inherently discloses different configuration information and/or setting information for specific product treatment and monitoring); and
wherein, in case the agricultural operation data comprise treatment operation data and no monitoring operation data, control data for controlling the treatment unit of the agricultural device are provided (see ¶36 – ¶39, where the Decaro publication inherently discloses different configuration information and/or setting information for specific product treatment and monitoring); and
wherein, in case the agricultural operation data comprise monitoring operation data and no treatment operation data, monitoring data provided by the monitoring unit of the agricultural device are provided (see ¶36 – ¶39, where the Decaro publication inherently discloses different configuration information and/or setting information for specific product treatment and monitoring).
The Decaro publication, however, fails to specifically disclose activating the monitoring unit of the agricultural device . . . to collect field data of the agricultural field during operation of the treatment unit.
Collect field data of the agricultural field during operation of a treatment unit is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Smith publication who discloses “one or more sensors . . . supported on or otherwise provided in association with one boom assembly extending outwardly from one side of an agricultural sprayer and one or more nozzle assemblies . . . supported on or otherwise provided in association with the other boom assembly extending outwardly from an opposite side of the agricultural sprayer. The sensor(s) may detect a parameter(s) indicative of a field condition(s) within a swath above which the associated boom assembly extends. In such embodiments, a controller of the disclosed system may be configured to monitor the field condition(s) within the swath based on the sensor data received from the sensor(s) as the sprayer makes a pass across the field and analyze the sensor data to detect/identify and geo-locate plants within the swath that need to be treated, thereby allowing a treatment or field map to be generated that maps or correlates the identified plants to various locations along the swath.” (See ¶20.)(Emphasis added.)
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify
the Decaro publication so that the monitoring unit of the agricultural device is activated to collect field data of the agricultural field during operation of the treatment unit, as suggested by the Smith publication, thereby allowing a treatment or field map to be generated that maps or correlates the identified environment to various locations along the traveling path.
As to claim 2,
the Decaro publication discloses providing monitoring data from the monitoring unit . . . if the agricultural operation data comprise treatment operation data and monitoring operation data. (See ¶36 – ¶39 for the different configuration information and/or setting information for specific product treatment and monitoring.)
As to claim 3,
the Decaro publication discloses mode selection based on the agricultural operation data. (See ¶43 and ¶85.)
As to claim 4,
the Decaro publication discloses providing monitoring data to at least one further agricultural device. (See ¶36 – ¶39.)
As to claim 5,
the Decaro publication discloses providing monitoring data to a collection unit. (See ¶36 – ¶39.)
As to claim 6,
the Decaro publication discloses providing further agricultural operation data based on the provided monitoring data. (See ¶36 – ¶39.)
As to claim 7,
the Decaro publication discloses providing prediction data based on the monitoring data and providing further agricultural operation data based on the prediction data. (See ¶36 – ¶39.)
As to claim 8,
the Decaro publication discloses transmitting the further agricultural operation data to the further agricultural device. (See ¶36 – ¶39; see also FIG. 15 for “an illustrative cloud computing environment 1500” demonstrating how agricultural operation data may be transmitted to further agricultural device.)
As to claim 9,
the Decaro publication discloses providing control data based on the to further agricultural device or based on the collection unit. (See ¶36 – ¶39.)
As to claim 10,
the Decaro publication discloses determining whether the agricultural operation data comprise treatment operation data and determining whether the agricultural operation data comprise monitoring operation data. (See ¶36 – ¶39.)
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.
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights